Since the days of Bhumisudhar, Nepal has set limits on the ownership of land by its citizen. Some Ropanis in Hills and a few Bigha in Terai regions is what each person was entitled to own.
Despite such legal provision of capping, there were abundant rumours about the size of land former Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa and others owned. This indicates that people like to own vast amount of land if they can, and perhaps capping does not really make sense.
I think, capping of land ownership should not extist. There are not many democratic countries in the world which cap how much one can earn or how much they can invest in land. If they did then there must be ways of bypassing them without much effort. If someone earned a vast amount of money through their sheer hard work or luck and wished to purchase a sizeable piece of land in the open market, then there should be no restriction. However, if they inherit a huge piece of land, which is not "earned" then the government should tax it appropriately (like in Britain where unearned income of any sort is taxed at around 40%). If the government taxed any "unearned" asset, including land, then what people inherit would become relatively smaller (i.e., if inheritance tax was 40% beyond the threshold, people would only inherit 60% thus making the government richer every time someone inherited beyond the threshold). The threshold for inheritance without paying any tax should probably be capped at 10 ropanies in Hills or 1 bigha in Terai - but this can be agreed after wider consultation with the public.
Distributing land to homeless people sounds a very good idea but it will not be technically feasible as our propulation grows at the current rate (almost doubled in the past 30 years?). I think we should be looking into the alternatives such as provision of social housing for people to live and provision of job opportunities or social benefits so that unemployed poor people can get help from the government. Since Nepalese land is not going to increase in size, we should be looking into what would be sustainable in the long run.
If you can justify distributing land to ever increasing population or capping on how much people should invest in land, please let us hear your views.
Wednesday 31 December 2008
Tuesday 30 December 2008
Provision of Referendum and Transparency
When the new constitution is being written (now), every recommendation made by committees should be made public in its draft format through a central website or newspapers (say Gorakhapatra etc). Once the public agrees to it then only it should be taken to the next stage for a further discussion in the House. If people are in agreement with issues and agenda now, then there will be minimum disputes during incorporation of these issues into the new constitution.
There could be so many issues in the country which parliamentarians alone should not be allowed to decide. Issues of national interest, such as treaties related to the country's borders and natural resources (for example, Mahakali Sandhi etc), should perhaps go ahead once a referendum has given a green light. Although a referendum is a costly and lengthy process, for issues which are extremely important to the nation, one cannot worry too much about the cost. Before a referendum is scheduled, the issue should be in the consultancy process with the people through the media for at least a year so that everyone can flag up issues surrounding it.
Whenever an important issue, which does not require a referendum, is going to be discussed in the house (of parliament) to make it a law, the issue should be in the media for consultancy process with the people for at least 6 months prior to to the discussion in the house so that people can discuss pros and cons of such issue. Such transparency will help build a better democratic process and people are less likely to dispute its implementation at a later stage.
There could be so many issues in the country which parliamentarians alone should not be allowed to decide. Issues of national interest, such as treaties related to the country's borders and natural resources (for example, Mahakali Sandhi etc), should perhaps go ahead once a referendum has given a green light. Although a referendum is a costly and lengthy process, for issues which are extremely important to the nation, one cannot worry too much about the cost. Before a referendum is scheduled, the issue should be in the consultancy process with the people through the media for at least a year so that everyone can flag up issues surrounding it.
Whenever an important issue, which does not require a referendum, is going to be discussed in the house (of parliament) to make it a law, the issue should be in the media for consultancy process with the people for at least 6 months prior to to the discussion in the house so that people can discuss pros and cons of such issue. Such transparency will help build a better democratic process and people are less likely to dispute its implementation at a later stage.
Monday 15 September 2008
Eradication of Jat or Caste System by Removing Jat-related Surnames
As long as people carry surnames like Adhikari, Aryal, Bishwakarma, Gurung, Gartaula, Sangpang, Sambahangphe, Shrestha, Shah, Thapa, Pariyar, Majhi, Nepal, Nepali etc there is going to be a considerable difficulty in eliminating prejudice resulting from the caste system.
There is no easy way than to educate everyone about the fact that the caste system is a myth amongst other fables we have been believing as real. But we have been trying to educate people since king Mahendra came into being with no success.
I guess some Southern Indian people do not have surnames at all or surnames that identify jat are not used. This is a very good idea if it has worked well. Someone with exposure to the Southern Indian Culture could substantiate whether this has worked. If it has, then we could bring in changes in our constitution to incorporate requirement to eliminate jat-related surnames.
This may sound a very radical step but we could perhaps propose in the new constitution that people should drop their jat-related surnames for good or for at least another few decades. Thus Bhoj Raj Baral may become Bhoj Raj, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Pushpa Kamal, Hisila Yami, Hisila, Babu Ram Bhattarai, Babu Ram and Ram Baran Yadab, Ram Baran! When there are no surnames that associate one with their jat then we will all be equal in jat-terms - logically a very simple solution.
This can a be very controversial topic though to discuss if people are rather less open-minded but "baade baade jaayete tatwa bodh" - let us hear what you think of such a measure (a drastic measure!). If you have other ideas to eliminate caste system, please do not hesitate to bring them up, at least for a healthy discussion.
There is no easy way than to educate everyone about the fact that the caste system is a myth amongst other fables we have been believing as real. But we have been trying to educate people since king Mahendra came into being with no success.
I guess some Southern Indian people do not have surnames at all or surnames that identify jat are not used. This is a very good idea if it has worked well. Someone with exposure to the Southern Indian Culture could substantiate whether this has worked. If it has, then we could bring in changes in our constitution to incorporate requirement to eliminate jat-related surnames.
This may sound a very radical step but we could perhaps propose in the new constitution that people should drop their jat-related surnames for good or for at least another few decades. Thus Bhoj Raj Baral may become Bhoj Raj, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Pushpa Kamal, Hisila Yami, Hisila, Babu Ram Bhattarai, Babu Ram and Ram Baran Yadab, Ram Baran! When there are no surnames that associate one with their jat then we will all be equal in jat-terms - logically a very simple solution.
This can a be very controversial topic though to discuss if people are rather less open-minded but "baade baade jaayete tatwa bodh" - let us hear what you think of such a measure (a drastic measure!). If you have other ideas to eliminate caste system, please do not hesitate to bring them up, at least for a healthy discussion.
Legalisation of Prostitution
It is universally recognised that prostitution is the oldest profession and no matter how hard some religious fanatics try to deny its existence it is not going to vanish from the world. One can always buy sex between Alaska and Antarctic, Kathmandu and Karachi, Dublin and Dubai, Pokhara and Paklihawa, Singapore and Sundhara.
It is also noted that many Nepalese (and citizens of other countries too), either by choice or other situations, are engaged in prostitution in Nepal and overseas destinations. Most important issue about prostitution is that there is no one to be blamed apart from our own biological urge to have sex at times when our other half may not want or are not available (this is a very natural process)! Many countries have tried not to accept it as a profession but they are simply losing revenues from it. Countries like Holland sell sex in professional environment, as a result, people working in this industry are protected, taxed, given appropriate medical care and blue badges. Perhaps there are fewer number of HIV/AIDS cases amongst prostitutes in Holland than in Nepal too! Prostitution is not only about "women" since it normally involves both genders.
So if we cannot beat it I guess we should join it! Let us not consider rude a normal biological desire to have sex with consenting adults and let us not punish prostitutes. Instead let us legalise prostitution and raise revenue from it and protect people who are engaged in this profession.
If you think legalising prostitution is not the right way forward, please list advantages of not legalising, showing data from countries which have not legalised it. I would be pleased to hear about a place on Earth where at least a few thousand people live without practising extra-marital sex. Would anyone like to distinguish between extra-marital sex and prostitution except the money changing hand?
It is also noted that many Nepalese (and citizens of other countries too), either by choice or other situations, are engaged in prostitution in Nepal and overseas destinations. Most important issue about prostitution is that there is no one to be blamed apart from our own biological urge to have sex at times when our other half may not want or are not available (this is a very natural process)! Many countries have tried not to accept it as a profession but they are simply losing revenues from it. Countries like Holland sell sex in professional environment, as a result, people working in this industry are protected, taxed, given appropriate medical care and blue badges. Perhaps there are fewer number of HIV/AIDS cases amongst prostitutes in Holland than in Nepal too! Prostitution is not only about "women" since it normally involves both genders.
So if we cannot beat it I guess we should join it! Let us not consider rude a normal biological desire to have sex with consenting adults and let us not punish prostitutes. Instead let us legalise prostitution and raise revenue from it and protect people who are engaged in this profession.
If you think legalising prostitution is not the right way forward, please list advantages of not legalising, showing data from countries which have not legalised it. I would be pleased to hear about a place on Earth where at least a few thousand people live without practising extra-marital sex. Would anyone like to distinguish between extra-marital sex and prostitution except the money changing hand?
Monday 14 July 2008
Salary and Allowances of Assembly Members or Parliamentarians
In most countries the salaries, perks and allowances of the parliamentarians (Saamsad) is decided by themselves. If you can yourself decide how much money to take from an open purse you will always take as much as you like without worrying to much about whether someone will make fuss or not ( "Dhan Dekhe Mahadevka Tin Netra"), won't you?
In Britain, one of the finest democracies in the world, some parliamentarians have been known to have collected so much money in perks, expenses and allowances each month without being transparent. They have been known to employ fictitious people as their secretaries and have known to have done up their houses from the state coffers.
This may have happened in Nepal in the past too (one can always find Kishunji as an exception) but in order to be transparent in the new Nepal I think the salaries, perks and allowances of all parliamentarians and political persons (including Ward, District and Zonal members) should be decided by a body of a non-aligned and non-political organisation represented by at least 10 people from different walks of life and NOT by themselves, and reviewed annually. Their accounts should be scrutinised by a non-aligned and non-political organisation too. This will help parliamentarians to have the same increase in their salaries as per annual inflation rate which should also equally apply to people working in other sectors and government establishments. This will also avoid strikes about pay and allowances by employees in other sectors since they will be getting increments at the same rate as their members of the parliament.
Don't you think transparency and fairness should be incorporated in our new constitution? If not, why? Please suggest if you have a better practical idea than this?
In Britain, one of the finest democracies in the world, some parliamentarians have been known to have collected so much money in perks, expenses and allowances each month without being transparent. They have been known to employ fictitious people as their secretaries and have known to have done up their houses from the state coffers.
This may have happened in Nepal in the past too (one can always find Kishunji as an exception) but in order to be transparent in the new Nepal I think the salaries, perks and allowances of all parliamentarians and political persons (including Ward, District and Zonal members) should be decided by a body of a non-aligned and non-political organisation represented by at least 10 people from different walks of life and NOT by themselves, and reviewed annually. Their accounts should be scrutinised by a non-aligned and non-political organisation too. This will help parliamentarians to have the same increase in their salaries as per annual inflation rate which should also equally apply to people working in other sectors and government establishments. This will also avoid strikes about pay and allowances by employees in other sectors since they will be getting increments at the same rate as their members of the parliament.
Don't you think transparency and fairness should be incorporated in our new constitution? If not, why? Please suggest if you have a better practical idea than this?
Friday 4 July 2008
Social Security or Benefits
If a country genuinely wants to eliminate poverty then it should provide its citizens some kind of financial benefits when they are unable to earn their own. Just by issueing lectures like, "I want to transform Nepal into Singapore or Switzerland in 10/20 years", we are not going to see Nepal transformed, even in centuries!
Eradicating proverty is not that difficult. Let us again, look at the British "social security" system where one gets paid by the state when they cannot earn their own and they are taxed in tiers on their earnings beyond the threshold amount that is required for them to live.
Whilst you are unable to earn any money due to lack of a job or your disability then the government will pay you, on a weekly basis, a small amount of money so that you can live, probably above the level of poverty (if you are careful). Can we do the same in new Nepal. May be we can! We can tax big earners (and unearned income like rent from the second/third home, interests from savings etc) up to 40% or 50% and pay those who are unable to get a job or those who do not have a piece of land to work. But we have to adjust the "social security" system to suit our own environment since anyone who has a piece of land may not need money since they can literally "work" in their own farm.
I guess, some years ago, when there was a "communist" led government in Nepal, they introduced a monthly benefit of a few hundred rupees to widowed people beyond the age of 70 or 60? My proposal is similar but it is for everyone above the age of 18 (assuming those under 18 to be their parents responsibility) and this is feasible and has worked in Britain and other non-third world countries.
Do you think giving money to those who cannot earn any, a solution to eliminating the proverty? If not, do you have any better solution than the one in Britain (that is why a lot of people from all over the world come to Britain to seek a "bogus" asylum in the hope of a better life)? Sensible and practical comments, please!
Eradicating proverty is not that difficult. Let us again, look at the British "social security" system where one gets paid by the state when they cannot earn their own and they are taxed in tiers on their earnings beyond the threshold amount that is required for them to live.
Whilst you are unable to earn any money due to lack of a job or your disability then the government will pay you, on a weekly basis, a small amount of money so that you can live, probably above the level of poverty (if you are careful). Can we do the same in new Nepal. May be we can! We can tax big earners (and unearned income like rent from the second/third home, interests from savings etc) up to 40% or 50% and pay those who are unable to get a job or those who do not have a piece of land to work. But we have to adjust the "social security" system to suit our own environment since anyone who has a piece of land may not need money since they can literally "work" in their own farm.
I guess, some years ago, when there was a "communist" led government in Nepal, they introduced a monthly benefit of a few hundred rupees to widowed people beyond the age of 70 or 60? My proposal is similar but it is for everyone above the age of 18 (assuming those under 18 to be their parents responsibility) and this is feasible and has worked in Britain and other non-third world countries.
Do you think giving money to those who cannot earn any, a solution to eliminating the proverty? If not, do you have any better solution than the one in Britain (that is why a lot of people from all over the world come to Britain to seek a "bogus" asylum in the hope of a better life)? Sensible and practical comments, please!
Saturday 21 June 2008
Freedom of Expression - Absolute or to Some Degree
Although every citizen may prefer absolute Freedom of Expression (not only Freedom of Speech), (by the way, freedom of speech relates to speech alone whereas the freedom of expression covers all forms of expression including the media which is rather powerful nowadays), the rulers might like less so since it may be difficult to govern a country given absolute Freedom of Expression. I guess most democratic countries still have some kind of restrictions although they preach Freedom of Expression here, there and everywhere. Perhaps absolute Freedom of Expression is quite difficult to manage from the administrative perspective so some kind of restrictions may be recommended by the ruling party!
As citizens of the newest republic in the world, do we want absolute Freedom of Expression? As long as one's expression does not deprive another of their rights and dignity, then why not? But if you have a government leaning towards Communism (China, North Korea) or dictatorial structure (Myanmar, Zimbabwe) then there will be no freedom of speech, let alone expression which are proven by the latest world news of Olympic Torch relay in China, locking up of Aung San Su Ki in Burma and Mugabe's election farce in Zimbabwe. [Let us move forward and not go into the Maoist actions during recent revolution (torturing, shooting/stabbing of teachers, examiners and anyone who did not like their way of life) which were by far the worst in the recent civilisation amounting to barberism and there is no denial from any human about it, I guess].
Should we have the absolute Freedom of Expression or should we implement the Freedom of Expression to some degree (to help the ruling government at the expense of citizen's right)? Logical argument and proven evidence please?
As citizens of the newest republic in the world, do we want absolute Freedom of Expression? As long as one's expression does not deprive another of their rights and dignity, then why not? But if you have a government leaning towards Communism (China, North Korea) or dictatorial structure (Myanmar, Zimbabwe) then there will be no freedom of speech, let alone expression which are proven by the latest world news of Olympic Torch relay in China, locking up of Aung San Su Ki in Burma and Mugabe's election farce in Zimbabwe. [Let us move forward and not go into the Maoist actions during recent revolution (torturing, shooting/stabbing of teachers, examiners and anyone who did not like their way of life) which were by far the worst in the recent civilisation amounting to barberism and there is no denial from any human about it, I guess].
Should we have the absolute Freedom of Expression or should we implement the Freedom of Expression to some degree (to help the ruling government at the expense of citizen's right)? Logical argument and proven evidence please?
Thursday 12 June 2008
Automatic Right to Parental Wealth or Inheritance via a Will
Current Nepalese law allows every adult son and unmarried daughter (of certain age) to seek a share of their parental wealth as if they had earned it themselves (please advise if this is not the case).
Automatic inheritance to sons, in a sense, may be counter-productive to children since such right may discourage them from working hard to earn something of their own. Due to such right, sons do not necessarily have to work at all (in some cases) whilst some daughters (who end up getting married to a less-wealthy person) may be struggling.
When analysing from the other side of the coin though, if you are a Hindu and believe in your sons performing your death rite on your demise, sons may be less enthusiastic about this 13-day-marathon "kiriya" if they do not automatically inherit the parental wealth.
Should we encourage parents/adults to make a will, like in the West, in order to allow distribution of their wealth as they see fit? If they fail to make a will, then all assets to be passed down to the living spouse or distributed evenly amongst their children (or nearest relatives etc) if the deceased did not have a spouse! What would be the fairest solution which encourages children to earn their own whilst keeping harmony in the family and eliminating conflict to the culture and religious practices? I think a will is the solution. Do you have something more effective than a will, please discuss.
Automatic inheritance to sons, in a sense, may be counter-productive to children since such right may discourage them from working hard to earn something of their own. Due to such right, sons do not necessarily have to work at all (in some cases) whilst some daughters (who end up getting married to a less-wealthy person) may be struggling.
When analysing from the other side of the coin though, if you are a Hindu and believe in your sons performing your death rite on your demise, sons may be less enthusiastic about this 13-day-marathon "kiriya" if they do not automatically inherit the parental wealth.
Should we encourage parents/adults to make a will, like in the West, in order to allow distribution of their wealth as they see fit? If they fail to make a will, then all assets to be passed down to the living spouse or distributed evenly amongst their children (or nearest relatives etc) if the deceased did not have a spouse! What would be the fairest solution which encourages children to earn their own whilst keeping harmony in the family and eliminating conflict to the culture and religious practices? I think a will is the solution. Do you have something more effective than a will, please discuss.
Friday 30 May 2008
Death Penalty - Inhumane or Necessity?
There are some countries (primarily Muslim countries and some states in America) where some crimes are punishable by death. I am not sure whether Nepal still has provision of a death penalty althouth I reckon it was in existence sometime ago.
I guess the death penalty may act as a deterrent for crimes, the evidence has not shown that it makes the world crime-free. When someone commits a serious crime, (e.g., killing someone) they may have done it when their state of mind is not "normal". By offering some corrective measures to these criminals and locking them up in prison until they are ready to follow path of a normal human being, we can possibly make them a useful member of the society, again! In a civilised world of today when we recommend transporting and slaughtering animals "humanely" we cannot allow people to be given a death penalty when we can punish them "humanely"!
Should we have a provision of death penalty in the new constitution? What do you think?
I guess the death penalty may act as a deterrent for crimes, the evidence has not shown that it makes the world crime-free. When someone commits a serious crime, (e.g., killing someone) they may have done it when their state of mind is not "normal". By offering some corrective measures to these criminals and locking them up in prison until they are ready to follow path of a normal human being, we can possibly make them a useful member of the society, again! In a civilised world of today when we recommend transporting and slaughtering animals "humanely" we cannot allow people to be given a death penalty when we can punish them "humanely"!
Should we have a provision of death penalty in the new constitution? What do you think?
Tuesday 27 May 2008
Permission to Stage a Protest or Strike
In Britain, I guess you need permission from the local authority (which will obviously be granted in most sensible cases) or need to notify the authority to air your anger and grievances in the form of strike/banda in some places. As a result of this, all citizens can be made aware of it beforehand and the state can protect and advise citizens of such strike which only take place for a few hours (or short period of time) etc. They effectively convey the message (of dissatisfaction and anger) without damaging the economy and lifestyle too much.
Do you think this is a good idea? Should we ask entities to register their interest of strike/Banda etc and seek permission first or should we let them block East West Highway and access roads to the capital and other cities left right and centre whenever they like, ruining every citizens' life for days or in some cases indefinitely?
Should we ban words and events like "Nepal Banda", "Kathmandu Banda" etc? Should we promote dialogue rather than a banda? Rational arguments, please!
Do you think this is a good idea? Should we ask entities to register their interest of strike/Banda etc and seek permission first or should we let them block East West Highway and access roads to the capital and other cities left right and centre whenever they like, ruining every citizens' life for days or in some cases indefinitely?
Should we ban words and events like "Nepal Banda", "Kathmandu Banda" etc? Should we promote dialogue rather than a banda? Rational arguments, please!
Social Housing
Britain, although not a COMMUNIST country, guarantees its citizen "gaas, baas, kapaas"! If you cannot buy your own home the state will either provide a house (social housing) for you and your family or pay for your rent (housing benefit). It will not provide you something what you want but it will guarantee you a roof over your head.
Should we also have a similar mechanism in Nepal through the constitution? Are there better systems in other parts of the world that are worthy of a discussion?
Opinions and ideas please!
Should we also have a similar mechanism in Nepal through the constitution? Are there better systems in other parts of the world that are worthy of a discussion?
Opinions and ideas please!
Saturday 24 May 2008
Allocation of Green Space proportionate to Development and Separation of Land for Farming and Cultivation
Since the requirement of new houses may increase day by day due to population growth, all our green spaces will be gone if no regulation of proportionate green space is brought about. I guess open spaces like Ratna Park in Kathmandu and Basundhara Park in Pokhara (plus many others you may have seen in other parts of Nepal) should not be encroached up nor should any development allowed in them. Likewise when someone wants to build a house in 2 ana perhaps they should not be granted permission unless they allocate proportionate space for garden except in areas which are already built-up (one may not want to demolish their building that was built before the law came into being though).
Equally a green belt is essential if we were to be able to live healthily. Should we dis-allow development along the motorways or should we restrict only within few feet? If not, where should we have greenbelt? Current uncontrolled development will certainly mirror Nepalese towns in a few years time like shanty towns of india. If we want to become the next Switzerland perhaps we should focus now on "controlled" development.
Likewise, should we have farming land defined as such so that people cannot randomly build houses here, there and everywhere without basic infra-structure for human living in the area? If we do not allocate land for farming now where will we get our food from in the near future?
Should we also take away the former "gaucharan" which has been "illegally" owned by former Ditthas and Mukhiya's (especially in the rive banks and lake shores)? Perhaps this might be a good idea to revert such land to the public as open spaces.
Fair views, please!
Equally a green belt is essential if we were to be able to live healthily. Should we dis-allow development along the motorways or should we restrict only within few feet? If not, where should we have greenbelt? Current uncontrolled development will certainly mirror Nepalese towns in a few years time like shanty towns of india. If we want to become the next Switzerland perhaps we should focus now on "controlled" development.
Likewise, should we have farming land defined as such so that people cannot randomly build houses here, there and everywhere without basic infra-structure for human living in the area? If we do not allocate land for farming now where will we get our food from in the near future?
Should we also take away the former "gaucharan" which has been "illegally" owned by former Ditthas and Mukhiya's (especially in the rive banks and lake shores)? Perhaps this might be a good idea to revert such land to the public as open spaces.
Fair views, please!
Nationalisation of All Royal Palaces to Make Museums in order to safeguard the History of the Country
I guess we should nationalise ALL Royal Palaces (except personal properties of Gyanendra Shah since he has got equal right as the rest of us to keep his own wealth) and convert them into Museums or Historic Monuments protected as World Heritage Sites. We should also preserve all historic articles from the palaces dating back to Malla or Kirant (or previous) era, if we have them, so that our future generations can have access to the history of Nepal and will have topics to do some research (even a PhD).
Your views are sought as to whether we should nationalise these palaces. Additionally what further use can be made of these palaces apart from museums and historic monuments? Would you like to see these palaces sold to some wealthy person or should they be left to the people of Nepal? If they are left to the people of Nepal as World Heritage Sites then these cannot be demolished for development nor can people's access be removed from them. Or should they be converted into expensive hotels or universities? As soon as their use is transformed from World Heritage Site to a university or hotel then an ordinary "joe bloggs" won't have access to them which is not fair!
Your views are sought as to whether we should nationalise these palaces. Additionally what further use can be made of these palaces apart from museums and historic monuments? Would you like to see these palaces sold to some wealthy person or should they be left to the people of Nepal? If they are left to the people of Nepal as World Heritage Sites then these cannot be demolished for development nor can people's access be removed from them. Or should they be converted into expensive hotels or universities? As soon as their use is transformed from World Heritage Site to a university or hotel then an ordinary "joe bloggs" won't have access to them which is not fair!
Thursday 22 May 2008
Taxation - Inheritance Tax
I am not sure about how much inheritance tax does one pay in Nepal when they inherit their parental assets. In England, generally, any asset more than £300K (may have increased slightly) will be taxed at 40%. There are some exceptions but let us not go into that.
Should Nepal do the same - 40% to the government when we inherit our parents asset or asset passed on to us by our relatives? Is 40% too much or too little? Shall we start with 10% in 5 years time, then gradually increase to 40% or more (or less)?
Are there better systems of inheritance tax elsewhere in the world? Only factual information, not guess work with why (or why not) we should import them, please.
Should Nepal do the same - 40% to the government when we inherit our parents asset or asset passed on to us by our relatives? Is 40% too much or too little? Shall we start with 10% in 5 years time, then gradually increase to 40% or more (or less)?
Are there better systems of inheritance tax elsewhere in the world? Only factual information, not guess work with why (or why not) we should import them, please.
Patriotism - National Service
Nepal does not currently have a National Service (like former Rastriya Bikas Sewa or similar). National Service is in practice in Germany but Great Britain stopped it in 1960. National Service may take different form and shapes, depending on a country and time.
Should Nepal start it? Should we ignore it? What are the pros and cons of having and not having the National Service? Sensible arguments from both sides of the coin sought.
Should Nepal start it? Should we ignore it? What are the pros and cons of having and not having the National Service? Sensible arguments from both sides of the coin sought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
