Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Politics
»
Devolution Revenue Sharing Formula
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/26/2012 Posts: 15,980
|
I actually feel onemanonevoteoneshilling should be the formula used to fund devolution then.....govt should also create another fund for marginalized areas and make an intentional move to fund projects that are core to development. So Nairobi should get the 29-30B instead of the 15B on the proposal, Kirinyaga 4B and not 5B on the proposal etc some of these counties return the money anyway yet some counties run out all the time. "There are only two emotions in the market, hope & fear. The problem is you hope when you should fear & fear when you should hope: - Jesse Livermore
.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 10/4/2006 Posts: 13,823 Location: Nairobi
|
Watu waache ushenzi!! All Mushrooms are edible! Some Mushroom are only edible ONCE!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/29/2011 Posts: 2,242
|
masukuma wrote:
Watu waache ushenzi!!
The guy has "cracked all the whips" and there may be nothing remaining to whip, unless he starts whipping Baba's cows. "Things that matter most must never be at the mercy of things that matter least." Goethe
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 3/16/2019 Posts: 313
|
This is the controversial revenue sharing formula that is causing all the hullabaloo. CAi= 0.45PNi + 0.26ES +0.18PIi + 0.08LAi +0.02FEi + 0.01DFiQuote:The CRA is rooting for the following formula of CAi= 0.45PNi + 0.26ES +0.18PIi + 0.08LAi +0.02FEi + 0.01DFi, to allocate revenue to the counties. ‘CA’ refers to the total revenue allocated to the county. ‘PN’ is the population index, ‘ES’ is the equal share, ‘PI’ is the poverty index, ‘LA’ is the landmass index, ‘FE’ is the fiscal effort while ‘DF’ is the development factor. The full article is here.As someone pointed out, the problem with 2010 constitution is that it dwells too much on the sharing of the cake while forgetting on how to prepare the cake.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 11/13/2015 Posts: 1,657
|
kmucheke wrote:This is the controversial revenue sharing formula that is causing all the hullabaloo. CAi= 0.45PNi + 0.26ES +0.18PIi + 0.08LAi +0.02FEi + 0.01DFiQuote:The CRA is rooting for the following formula of CAi= 0.45PNi + 0.26ES +0.18PIi + 0.08LAi +0.02FEi + 0.01DFi, to allocate revenue to the counties. ‘CA’ refers to the total revenue allocated to the county. ‘PN’ is the population index, ‘ES’ is the equal share, ‘PI’ is the poverty index, ‘LA’ is the landmass index, ‘FE’ is the fiscal effort while ‘DF’ is the development factor. The full article is here.As someone pointed out, the problem with 2010 constitution is that it dwells too much on the sharing of the cake while forgetting on how to prepare the cake. It's a useless debate really if you consider GoK taxes 14% of GDP. Talk of bald men fighting over a comb.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 3/16/2019 Posts: 313
|
This article is a must read. One Man, One Shilling Politics: A Return to Inequitable Development, Marginalisation and ExclusionQuote:On the matter of revenue sharing, the 2010 Constitution uses the word “basis” as opposed to “formula.” There is in fact no reference to “formula” anywhere in the articles on revenue sharing.
Formulas are problematic for the very reasons that are playing out now. Once enacted, they put the country in a straightjacket that it is forced to live with until the next revision is due.
We were alive to the fact that the history of inequitable “sharing of the national cake” as we call it, is a highly emotive and divisive issue and, indeed, one of the core grievances identified in the Agenda 4 items of the National Accord. We recognised that the country would be on a learning curve for a considerable period and, anticipating that the allocation process had the potential for exacerbating instead of healing ethnic divisions, we felt that we needed a credible authoritative team of “honest brokers” to navigate the country through the transition. The “original sin” of the current standoff is that the CRA adopted the very formula for which it had been envisaged as an alternative. The current dispute centres on whether to put more weight on population or on geography in the formula. This dispute, as far as the spirit and letter of the constitution is concerned, is completely misplaced.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/26/2012 Posts: 15,980
|
kmucheke wrote:This article is a must read. One Man, One Shilling Politics: A Return to Inequitable Development, Marginalisation and ExclusionQuote:On the matter of revenue sharing, the 2010 Constitution uses the word “basis” as opposed to “formula.” There is in fact no reference to “formula” anywhere in the articles on revenue sharing.
Formulas are problematic for the very reasons that are playing out now. Once enacted, they put the country in a straightjacket that it is forced to live with until the next revision is due.
We were alive to the fact that the history of inequitable “sharing of the national cake” as we call it, is a highly emotive and divisive issue and, indeed, one of the core grievances identified in the Agenda 4 items of the National Accord. We recognised that the country would be on a learning curve for a considerable period and, anticipating that the allocation process had the potential for exacerbating instead of healing ethnic divisions, we felt that we needed a credible authoritative team of “honest brokers” to navigate the country through the transition. The “original sin” of the current standoff is that the CRA adopted the very formula for which it had been envisaged as an alternative. The current dispute centres on whether to put more weight on population or on geography in the formula. This dispute, as far as the spirit and letter of the constitution is concerned, is completely misplaced.
Blogger opinions dont matter....that's just passion writing with no impact apart from making readers mad. What matters is law. That is why Kang'ata tried to trick the senate changing the proposal by the CRA to suit his agenda. They are one of the consultants of the formula per the law, amendments may be done but have to go through the senate and NA. Mambo bado So what does the supreme law of the land say? 217. Division of revenue wrote:(1) Once every five years, the Senate shall, by resolution, determine the basis for allocating among the counties the share of national revenue that is annually allocated to the county level of government. (2) In determining the basis of revenue sharing under clause (1), the Senate shall-- (a) take the criteria in Article 203 (1) into account; (b) request and consider recommendations from the Commission on Revenue Allocation; (c) consult the county governors, the Cabinet Secretary responsible for finance and any organisation of county governments; and (d) invite the public, including professional bodies, to make submissions to it on the matter. Article 203 wrote:
1) The following criteria shall be taken into account in determining the equitable shares provided for under Article 202 and in all national legislation concerning county government enacted in terms of this Chapter--
(a) the national interest;
(b) any provision that must be made in respect of the public debt and other national obligations;
(c) the needs of the national government, determined by objective criteria;
(d) the need to ensure that county governments are able to perform the functions allocated to them;
(e) the fiscal capacity and efficiency of county governments;
(f) developmental and other needs of counties;
(g) economic disparities within and among counties and the need to remedy them;
(h) the need for affirmative action in respect of disadvantaged areas and groups;
Am sure the CRA has worked out a better formula than what our fisi Senators have, think about it some have ambitions of becoming Govenors so more money to them the better. The constitution also allows for a Equalization fund "There are only two emotions in the market, hope & fear. The problem is you hope when you should fear & fear when you should hope: - Jesse Livermore
.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/18/2011 Posts: 12,069 Location: Kianjokoma
|
The best way to have a sober discussion on this is to divorce central or Mt Kenya counties from it Substitute Kiambu with Kakamega, Bungoma or Nairobi. You'll now see better, think better, debate better
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 1/10/2015 Posts: 961 Location: Kenya
|
alma1 wrote:
Other than tuborotis what is this in Central that is sooooo special that the people of Turkana should never get?
I call it a problem of being stuck on never visiting other regions in the world other than your gishagi in central and nairobi.
Sad.
Why are you making this a central region issue while the main gainers are kaleos and luhyas? Where is your nyeri county on that list of top gainers? Where is muranga, nyandarua, meru, embu, tharaka? My county is not on that list but I support that kila mtu apewe haki yake. One man one vote one shilling.  Proverbs 13:11 Dishonest money dwindles away, but whoever gathers money little by little makes it grow.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 1/10/2015 Posts: 961 Location: Kenya
|
I watched kiraitu last night on TV and he was asking if it justice for someone in laare meru to get 5k in devolved funds while his neighbour across the road (10 meters away) but administratively in isiolo county gets 15k ie 3 times more because his county is considered huge. Never mind that those 2 neighbours live in the same locality, environment and face similar challenges. Proverbs 13:11 Dishonest money dwindles away, but whoever gathers money little by little makes it grow.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Politics
»
Devolution Revenue Sharing Formula
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|