Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Wabunge: Kwanini Kodi ya Maji ni Muhimu Kupunguzwa au Kufutwa

Discussion in 'Jukwaa la Siasa' started by Zakumi, Feb 8, 2012.

  1. Zakumi

    Zakumi JF-Expert Member

    #1
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 24, 2008
    Messages: 4,574
    Likes Received: 11
    Trophy Points: 135
    Ndugu wananchi !Kwa miaka mingi sana serikali ya Tanzania inatumia kodi ya vinywaji kuongeza mapato ya serikali. Katika kipindi cha Nyerere na cha Mwinyi, walipaji wakubwa wa kodi walikuwa ni viwanda vya vinywaji, hususa bia. Ukweli wa mambo utamaduni huu wa kutegemea kodi ya vinywaji hususa maji hauna faida kwa serikali na kwa jamii kwa sababu zifuatazo:-

    Maji ni kitu muhimu kwa maisha ya binadamu. Unywaji wa maji masafi unapunguza magonjwa mbalimbali. Na kuwepo kwa kodi katika bidhaa hiyo kunasababisha maji ya chupa kuwa kitu cha anasa na hivyo kutumiwa na wale wenye uwezo. Hii ni fikra mbovu. Kinachotakiwa ni kuwa kabla mtanzania hajanunua vocha ya simu, awe na uwezo wa chupa ya maji.

    Ni kweli punguzo la kodi litawasaidia wafanya biashara wa maji ya chupa. Lakini ni nani amesema kuwa watu wa kawaida hawatafaidika. Punguzo la kodi litafanya watu wengi kunywa maji safi. Na ongezeko la idadi litafanya ongezeko la uzalishaji ambalo litaongeza nafasi za kazi. Hivyo sioni sababu za kimsingi za kutopunguza au kuongoa kabisa kodi kwenye maji.

    Wabunge mnapokuwa bungeni au kwenye magari yenu ya kifahari mna chupa za maji. Na ikitokea mtu kaiba chupa zako, hamkubali kuomba maji kwenye nyumba za wanyonge. Sasa kwanini kitu chenye manufaa kwa afya yenu mnakifanya kiwe adimu kwa walala hoi?

    Mwishoni kodi ya maji haina faida kwa taifa. Hii ni kwa sababu, wanyonge wanaposhindwa kunywa maji safi au kujenga tabia ya kunywa maji safi, wanakunywa maji ambao yanawapa magonjwa. Na magonjwa yatokanayo na maji machafu yanatibiwa na mapato ya kodi. Hivyo serikali haipati faida yoyote hile.

    Ni muhimu kwa watanzania kuelewa kuwa sio kila kodi ni muhimu kwa wananchi.Ndugu wabunge, wananchi, na wale wenye kufikiri kuwa kila kodi ni muhimu kwa taifa naomba wafikiri kuwa kodi ya chupa ya maji ni sawa na kodi kwenye kondomu. Unapoweka kodi kwenye kondomu, unafanya iwe na bei mbaya na kufanya masikini waache kutumia.Hivyo basi ningependelea kuwa chupa za maji zisiwe na kodi, au ikiwezekana serikali itoe ruzuku ili kila mtanzania awe na uwezo wa kunywa maji safi.

    Wenu

    Z10
     
  2. SOBY

    SOBY JF-Expert Member

    #2
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 19, 2011
    Messages: 1,265
    Likes Received: 5
    Trophy Points: 0
    Why is water not a form of wealth until it's privatised?
     
  3. Companero

    Companero Platinum Member

    #3
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Jul 12, 2008
    Messages: 5,392
    Likes Received: 56
    Trophy Points: 145
    karibu tena kundini

    ng'ombe akivunjika guu...

    “You here in Tanzania don’t dream, that if you privatize every blessed thing, including the prison...” – Julius K. Nyerere’s (2000) ‘Reflections’ in 1997
     
  4. m

    mgeni wenu JF-Expert Member

    #4
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Jan 2, 2012
    Messages: 3,670
    Likes Received: 613
    Trophy Points: 280
    Punguza umeme maji yatapungua,vijijini hata ya Bomba hawana we unasema wpunguze ya mjini tena ya chupa? Tafakari kjipange upya
     
  5. Companero

    Companero Platinum Member

    #5
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Jul 12, 2008
    Messages: 5,392
    Likes Received: 56
    Trophy Points: 145
    Za10, by the way, bepari mwenzako Bakhresa anauza maji kwenye viroba (vimfuko vya plastiki) kwa ajili ya hao unaowaita wanyonge!
     
  6. Zakumi

    Zakumi JF-Expert Member

    #6
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 24, 2008
    Messages: 4,574
    Likes Received: 11
    Trophy Points: 135
    Unajua serikali ikishapata sehemu ya kulipisha watu kodi, haitaachia mpaka watu wanyanyuke. Hata serikali za kibepari pia. Hapa mtoni property tax zinazidi kila mwaka. Na matokeo yake ni watu kuhama kwenye vitongoji.

    Likewise, unapoongeza kodi kwa vitu ambavyo kila mtu anahitaji, basi quality ya packaging itapungua ku-offset gharama za kodi. Hivyo sioni hekima ya kuwa na kodi kwenye chupa za maji.
     
  7. SOBY

    SOBY JF-Expert Member

    #7
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 19, 2011
    Messages: 1,265
    Likes Received: 5
    Trophy Points: 0
    Hao wanaouza maji kwenye chupa, watueleze wanayapata wapi?.... Je, nani anayemiliki hayo maji?

    Yaani unataka kuniambia kuwa maji hayana thamani yakiwa mtoni au ziwani? Kama yana thamani, huoni kuwa wafanyabiashara wanatakiwa kuwalipa wananchi fedha kwa njia ya kodi?

    Halafu wakishalipa, ndiyo wayauze kwa mtu yeyote anayetaka kununua.

    Hayo maji wanayouza ni yetu, asikudanganye mtu yeyote!!
     
  8. Companero

    Companero Platinum Member

    #8
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Jul 12, 2008
    Messages: 5,392
    Likes Received: 56
    Trophy Points: 145
    Ndio maana nakuambia yule Babu unayepingana naye aliona mbali alipotahadharisha kuhusu U-BIDHAA-FISHAJI kama huu:

    "KATIKA NCHI KAMA YETU AMBAYO WAAFRIKA NI MASIKINI NA WAGENI NI MATAJIRI, KUNA UWEZEKANO MKUBWA KWAMBA MWAFRIKA AKIRUHUSIWA KUIUZA ARDHI, KATIKA MIAKA THEMANINI AU MIAKA IJAYO, ARDHI YOTE ITAMILIKIWA NA MATAJIRI WAGENI NA WENYEJI WATAKUWA WATWANA. LAKINI HATA KAMA WAGENI WASINGEKUWA MATAJIRI LITAIBUKA TABAKA LA WATANNZANIA MATAJIRI WAJANJA. TUKIRUHUSU ARDHI IUZWE KAMA KANZU KATIKA MUDA MCHACHE, KUTAKUWA NA KUNDI DOGO LA WAAFRIKA WAKIWA NA ARDHI NA WALIO WENGI WATAKUWA WATWANA"
     
  9. Zakumi

    Zakumi JF-Expert Member

    #9
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 24, 2008
    Messages: 4,574
    Likes Received: 11
    Trophy Points: 135
    Wewe huoni kuwa kutokuwepo kwa bomba ndio kunaleta umuhimu wa maji ya chupa?
     
  10. Companero

    Companero Platinum Member

    #10
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Jul 12, 2008
    Messages: 5,392
    Likes Received: 56
    Trophy Points: 145
  11. Zakumi

    Zakumi JF-Expert Member

    #11
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 24, 2008
    Messages: 4,574
    Likes Received: 11
    Trophy Points: 135
    Kuna added value katika maji ya chupa kama vile quality control, packaging, transportation, supply chain na mambo mengi.
     
  12. SOBY

    SOBY JF-Expert Member

    #12
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 19, 2011
    Messages: 1,265
    Likes Received: 5
    Trophy Points: 0
    Water is a community resource and not a commodity. Waacheni binadamu na wanyamapori na wa kufugwa watumie maji popote yanapopatikana naturally.

    Ila, sisi kama jamii inayojali utu wa mtu, tunaweza kusambaza maji safi sehemu ambazo hawajajaliwa maji safi na kujitahidi kupunguza gharama as much as possible to a break-even point.

    Wabinafsi wakitaka kutuuzia maji yetu, wasikatazwe as long as kuna wanunuzi. But we should tax the hell outta them just to discourage such a selfish idea.

    Unachouziwa pale ni chupa ya plastiki na labor iliyoweka hayo maji kwenye hiyo chupa, na kufikisha inapotakiwa. Ila hayo maji ni yetu sote na kama wanataka wapate faida, basi watupe kidogo chetu.

    Shame on you Mkulo for bringing such a bogus bill to the floor.... take it back and shove it up your ...
     
  13. Zakumi

    Zakumi JF-Expert Member

    #13
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 24, 2008
    Messages: 4,574
    Likes Received: 11
    Trophy Points: 135
    Babu napingana naye kifalsafa lakini katika maji ya chupa najua ningeweza kumshauri kuwa hakuna rationale ya kodi.
     
  14. Companero

    Companero Platinum Member

    #14
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Jul 12, 2008
    Messages: 5,392
    Likes Received: 56
    Trophy Points: 145
    kwani enzi zake kulikuwa na maji ya chupa? ah naumisi ule mtungi wa maji kijijini kwetu, siku hizi hata hawautumii - wananunua maji!
     
  15. Zakumi

    Zakumi JF-Expert Member

    #15
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 24, 2008
    Messages: 4,574
    Likes Received: 11
    Trophy Points: 135

    I guess I am talking a communist. Treatment of water is capital intensive, and consumers should pay for it.
     
  16. Companero

    Companero Platinum Member

    #16
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Jul 12, 2008
    Messages: 5,392
    Likes Received: 56
    Trophy Points: 145
    Mbona unajipinga mwenyewe? Si umesema unataka walau kuwe na ruzuku ili watumiaji/walaji wasilipe kodi au kodi ifutwe?
     
  17. SOBY

    SOBY JF-Expert Member

    #17
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 19, 2011
    Messages: 1,265
    Likes Received: 5
    Trophy Points: 0
    Mkuu hawa wahuni washaanza kuyaachia maji kwa wafanyabiashara. Serikali inataka kuwasamehe kodi ili system iwe kama unataka maji kanunue.

    Tusikubali hili.... siyo halali. Mwisho wake wataanza kumiliki sehemu za mito na vyanzo vyetu vya maji na kuanza kutuchaji.
     
  18. Zakumi

    Zakumi JF-Expert Member

    #18
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 24, 2008
    Messages: 4,574
    Likes Received: 11
    Trophy Points: 135
    Kulikuwa hakuna maji ya chupa. Lakini kulikwa mabomba ya maji mpaka kwenye vijiji fulani. Ukivika kigamboni kuna ma-tower ya maji na pump za maji. Morogoro kulikuwa na magari yenye matank ya maji (boza). Yalikuwa yanasambaza maji ya kunywa vijijini. Lakini miradi hii haikuwa sustainable.

    Sasa hivi sustainability is a key word. Hivyo haturudii kile alichofanya babu.
     
  19. Zakumi

    Zakumi JF-Expert Member

    #19
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 24, 2008
    Messages: 4,574
    Likes Received: 11
    Trophy Points: 135
    Capitalism without ruzuku, ungekufa. Sasa mnaleta wageni kuweka katika sekta ambazo sio renewable na hawalipi. Madini yakiondoka, na yeye anaondoka. Mtanzania mwenye kiwanda cha maji anatumia renewable resources, na atakuwepo miaka mingi.
     
  20. SOBY

    SOBY JF-Expert Member

    #20
    Feb 8, 2012
    Joined: Sep 19, 2011
    Messages: 1,265
    Likes Received: 5
    Trophy Points: 0
    Hayo ndiyo matatizo yenu.
    Mimi nilipo, huwa watanzania wengi wanadhani ni the most capitalist country (US).
    Ila ukijaribu kuangalia, Tanzania is more capitalist than US. Hebu kula nondo hapo chini.



    State Supreme Court Rules in Water Rights Fee Case


    Submitted by Lisa Lien-Mager on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 9:15am

    [​IMG]
    The California Supreme Court ruled Jan. 31 that statutes under which the State Water Resources Control Board imposed water rights fees in 2003 are constitutional. In the long-awaited opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed a Court of Appeal judgment on the constitutionality of the fee statutes but said it did not have enough information to determine whether the fee formula devised by the State Board was valid.
    Plaintiffs in the case, known as California Farm Bureau Federation v. State Water Resources Control Board, alleged that both the fee legislation and regulations to implement it are unconstitutional and invalid. ACWA submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, which included the Farm Bureau, the Northern California Water Association and the Central Valley Project Water Association. ACWA argued that the State Board's annual water rights fee structure is unlawful because the fees are not reasonably tailored to the benefits water rights holders receive from the water rights program, thus constituting an impermissible tax.
    The Legislature enacted a bill in 2003 directing the State Board to devise a formula and institute fees on water rights holders to fund the Board's Division of Water Rights. The fees were intended to fund water rights activities so that state general fund dollars historically used for those activities could be directed to other state programs.
    The trial court upheld the fees in their entirety in 2005. In January 2007, the Third District Court of Appeal partially overturned the trial court's decision, upholding the fee statute in its entirety but invalidating the emergency regulations adopted by the State Board that established the amount of fees water rights holders were to pay annually. The Court of Appeal also invalidated regulations that established water rights fees for CVP contractors and concluded there were limitations on the amount of fees that could be passed through to contractors by the Board.
    The State Board appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court granted review in 2007.
    In the Jan 31 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the water rights fees system is unconstitutional as a matter of law. Under California law, the State Board clearly has the authority to formulate a legally defensible fee structure for water rights holders.
    Regarding the fee structure as applied, the Supreme Court emphasized that regulatory fees (such as the State Board's) are proper only as long as there is a reasonable relationship between the fees and the benefits received by those paying the fees. In this case, however, the trial court didn't develop a sufficient factual record to determine the extent to which the fees are defensible, and the matter is therefore being remanded back to the trial court to make specific findings on the issue.
    A particularly thorny issue in the case is whether the State Board's fees on federal water contractors are legal, given that the licenses and permits are owned by the federal government, which has sovereign immunity from state taxes and fees. The Supreme Court held that sovereign immunity does not extend to the contractors, who may be subject to properly calculated fees. The contractors' fees were relatively high compared with most other right holders because the State Board charged the contractors based on the face value of the federal government's water rights, not on the contractors' contractual entitlement, which is much lower.
    Since the matter now returns to the trial court to determine the factual record on remand, it will likely be several years before there is a final ruling on whether the annual water rights fees are legally defensible.


     
Loading...