Twitter Flooded With Hilarious Memes After Nirmala Sitharaman Presented Union Budget 2020

person

Today was an important day of the year as the Union Budget 2020 was presented by the Finance Minister of India, Nirmala Sitharaman. The major highlight of the budget is the new income tax slabs but the government has given an option to the citizens, they can either choose to continue with the old tax rates with exemption or can opt for the new tax rates in which the exemptions are not provided.

As per the Finance Minister, Union Budget 2020 is focused on three points – improving the standards of living, economic development for each section and a caring society. The Finance Minister has also called the Goods and Service Tax (GST) as a historic reform in the Indian tax regime. Nirmala Sitharaman emphasized on the need of making compliances easy to fulfill for the startups too.

Every person tries to find out what this budget has for him and after the 2.5 hours long speech of the Finance Minister, the micro-blogging site Twitter is flooded with reactions. While some expressed their happiness or annoyance, there were some who felt that the speech was unnecessarily long and compared it with Sajid Khan’s movie. Here are some of the selected reactions:

#1

Middle class people trying to understand #Budget2020 . pic.twitter.com/LVp4vOrfVf

— Hunटरर ♂ 🥳 (@nickhunterr) February 1, 2020

#2

Nirmala Sitharaman talking about government’s achievements #BudgetSession2020 pic.twitter.com/wOsKn4GPR6

— Sir Yuzvendra (parody) (@SirYuzvendra) February 1, 2020

#3

#BudgetSession2020 #Budget2020
*Rahul Gandhi trying to understand the Budget* pic.twitter.com/uIrkC4294Z

— Ashutosh Singh (@ashusarcastic) February 1, 2020

#4

1. Indians before budget speech.
2. Indians after budget speech.#Budget2020 pic.twitter.com/4G9WD2BIaQ

— Nirmala Tai Halwe wali (@Vishj05) February 1, 2020

#5

Income Tax slabs over the years#Budget2020 #BudgetSession2020 #NirmalaSitaraman pic.twitter.com/RIDt3ykkVQ

— Siddharth Patni (@aageSeLeftLelo) February 1, 2020

#6

Salaried taxpayers waiting for tax cuts be like:#BUDGET2020 pic.twitter.com/0vbG4XGMuC

— VJ (@CA_Hemwani) February 1, 2020

#7

A friend just said “budget chaahe jaisa marzi aa jaye, hum month end tak gareeb ho hi jaayenge”, and it hit me hard. #BudgetSession2020

— Pakchikpak Raja Babu (@HaramiParindey) February 1, 2020

#8

People : Is bar ka #Budget2020 Middle class wala hoga !!

Nirmala : pic.twitter.com/IUiK97hcTg

— Sourabh 🇮🇳 (@SourabhJainIET) February 1, 2020

#9

The #Budget2020 was a Sajid Khan movie 😁#BudgetSession2020

— HOLLA! (@AshokaHolla) February 1, 2020

#10

#BudgetOnZee #Budget2020 #BudgetSession2020

When tax Rates and you realise
Gets Reduced no deduction will
Be allowed as well pic.twitter.com/4XjvY05Au6

— CUagain (@RECinaction) February 1, 2020

#11

Everybody right now. #Budget2020 pic.twitter.com/U0GVYbe24Z

— अंकित जैन (@indiantweeter) February 1, 2020

#12

Common Man trying to understand #Budget2020 listening to #NirmalaSitharaman’s speech. pic.twitter.com/oXLCjKHp1c

— Godman Chikna (@Madan_Chikna) February 1, 2020

#13

Middle class people checking the budget benefits #Budget2020 pic.twitter.com/oJVhN90lIF

— Aishthetic ?? (@Badassgirlll) February 1, 2020

#14

New income tax regime #Budget2020 pic.twitter.com/l2QmPyfjWH

— Megha Mandavia (@MeghaMandaviaET) February 1, 2020

#15

New Tax slab … #Budget2020 https://t.co/CGwLmE0coJ pic.twitter.com/uUJE77gbeS

— Mr. Dua (@koolmunddaa) February 1, 2020

The share market doesn’t seem to be happy with the budget as it closed almost 900 points down today. The experts feel that the government has not talked clearly on the matter of dealing with economic slowdown.

What is your opinion on the Union Budget 2020? Let us know your views.

The post Twitter Flooded With Hilarious Memes After Nirmala Sitharaman Presented Union Budget 2020 appeared first on RVCJ Media.

Related posts

Peters accepts National ministers didn’t leak

Peters accepts National ministers didn’t leak

Winston Peters’ has accepted in the High Court that two former National ministers he had been suing for $450,000 for breaching his privacy were not the source of the leak or responsible for it.

In his closing submission today, Peters’ lawyer Brian Henry said both Anne Tolley and Paula Bennett denied in their evidence leaking information on Peters’ seven-year overpayment of superannuation – and the lawyer for the Ministry of Social Development and public servants did not challenge those denials.

“That left the MSD in the position that they now cannot avoid a finding that the breach was on MSD,” Henry said. “The plaintiff was expecting a challenge from MSD to the ministers, but the MSD has not challenged the evidence that they [the ministers] did not leak.

“That dual denial removed two of the options that the plaintiff, when it opened its case, was expecting to have examined in the court.”

That means Peters is no longer suing the National pair for damages.

Tolley, who as Minister of Social Development in 2017, was briefed by the ministry’s then-chief executive Brendan Boyle on the Peters overpayment and repayment of his pension – and Bennett, briefed as Minister of State Services a day later by the State Services Commissioner, have denied since the proceeding began two years ago that they were involved in the leak.

Peters made his overpayment public during the general election campaign after learning the information had been provided to journalists. Newshub and Newsroom both received anonymous calls with details about the overpayment, which had come to light when Peters’ longstanding partner Jan Trotman applied for her own superannuation.

The two ministers were briefed on the matter by the top public servants under the ‘no surprises’ policy by which departments inform ministers of matters which might become controversial or be subject of public debate. The officials had sought advice from the Solicitor-General before acting and had waited until a decision had been reached independently on Peters’ fate by an MSD regional official.

As well as around 40 ministry officials who had some awareness – 11 of whom knew the level of detail passed to the media – several officials in Tolley’s ministerial office and also then-Prime Minister Bill English and finance minister Steven Joyce ended up being told directly or indirectly some information by the two ministers.

With Henry now saying the two National MPs can be ruled out because of the court hearing, he told Justice Geoffrey Venning: “The only inference on the balance of probabilities is that the MSD was responsible.”

Henry said Peters’ case was that under the tort of privacy he had a reasonable expectation that his private information would not be made public and what was disclosed had been highly offensive.

“In this case, the MSD exclusively held the plaintiff’s private information. Unless they can rebut the evidence there arises an evidential presumption.

“The larger the group [who had become aware in the ministry] the greater the foreseeability the matter would be leaked. 

“The perpetrator will never front. Someone in MSD in full knowledge breached the plaintiff’s privacy and set off a chain of communications causing damage to his reputation.”

Henry said: “This is not likely to be a mistake.” He noted someone with knowledge could have covered digital tracks to avoid internal inquiries afterwards. “It is accepted that the breach may not have been with the intent that the private information reached the media. But it still must be a deliberate breach of obligations owed by MSD.

“The only inference is the perpetrator of the breach was aware that communicating that information outside the MSD, they were committing a serious breach of the plaintiff’s personal information.”

Henry said Peters had been guided in the level of damages sought from the defendants by the upper limit set in a recent defamation case, but the quantum was an assessment for the judge.

As well as damages, Peters wants a declaration from the court that his privacy was breached. 

The NZ First leader says it is necessary to have the tort of privacy recognise such a breach because in the digital world “the dissemination of [private] information is now in the hands of irresponsible persons… and politicians are not extremely vulnerable”.

At the end of his submissions, Henry clarified for the judge that Peters was now seeking the $450,000 in damages under his first course of action from all defendants together rather than seeking that sum from each.

Questioned further by Justice Venning, he said the fact Bennett and Tolley could no longer be accepted as the source of the leaks meant that they could not continue to be included in the course of action seeking that money. So the damages are sought, together, from Boyle, Hughes and MSD.

In three further courses of action, Peters is seeking declarations from the judge that his privacy was breached by the public servants in briefing their ministers and by the two ministers in accepting those briefings.

Henry disputed a claim by Bruce Gray QC, for the ministers, that there had been no social media reports of Peters’ overpayment presented to the court that had occurred before Peters issued his press release announcing that news.

He pointed to a Kiwiblog posting about the risks for Peters if the overpayment news was correct. However he gave the court the date August 28 for the Kiwiblog comment, and that was actually the day after Peters issued his press release.

The only social media content appearing before Peters went public had been three tweets from the writer of this article about a possible major political story, and the tweets did not mention him, his party, gender, age or superannuation.

The writer had to provide a sworn statement in the earliest part of the proceedings and pointed out that intense speculation on Twitter had followed those tweets but that not one that was connected to his tweets had referred to or even hinted at Peters being involved.

Earlier, Victoria Casey QC for Hughes, Boyle and the ministry, said Peters’ pleading alleging bad faith by her clients would, if found to be so, be “catastrophic” for the officials. “If established, it would be the end of any career for them in the public service.

“It’s important that Mr Peters is held to his pleadings,” she said.

The bad faith accusation was raised by Peters in his fourth ‘statement in reply’ before the hearing began. “Mr Peters is not entitled to pursue new allegations of bad faith.”

(Henry later told the court he was saying officials had not acted in good faith rather than they had acted in bad faith. That was so those defendants had to disprove his claim rather than Peters having to prove ‘bad faith’.)

Justice Venning has reserved his decision, which he said was unlikely before the end of the year.

Related posts

Comic joins Germany’s oldest political party with eye on leadership

Jan Bhmermann says he will be ready by next contest to lead Social Democratic party which he predicts will soon

Europe

Germanys leading television satirist has joined the Social Democratic party, weeks after announcing his ambitions to become its leader.

Jan Bhmermann, who has a weekly programme on public broadcaster ZDF and is notorious for sparking diplomatic scandals, has missed the deadline for the current leadership contest, expected to conclude on 8 December.

But he has predicted that the troubled party, the oldest in Germany, but which is struggling for survival after 156 years of existence, will be in need of a new leader by next spring, and he has said he would be prepared to throw his hat into the ring.

The biggest problem for the party is how seriously it should take the award-winning, 38-year-old, comic, famous for sending up everything he sees as worthy of satire.

His past exploits, aired on his weekly programme Neo Magazin Royale, which have been reported around the world, include a video about Yanis Varoufakis, Greek finance minister at one time, in which he appeared to give Germany the middle finger, and a poem ridiculing the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, for which the comic was prosecuted and subsequently given police protection.

Lars Klingbeil, the SPDs general secretary, welcomed the millionaire TV star to the party.

Welcome in the SPD, dear comrade @janboehm, Klingbeil wrote on Twitter. But he also reminded Bhmermann of the menial but necessary tasks that came with membership and which would be expected of him, such as campaigning, door-knocking, talking to voters and putting up posters. Were looking forward very much to the fact that youll now be by our side fighting for a strong social democracy.

There are inevitably fears within the party that this is another one of Bhmermanns gags and that its decision to let him in could backfire.

A glimpse at his leadership bid speech, launched under the hashtag slogan #Neustart19 (new start 19), dare to be more democratic suggests they are right to be wary. In it he refers to social democracy as Germanys Amazon which could ill afford to decline outside help. We need to save the red lung of Germany, whether it likes it or not, he said.

Bhmermann boasts that he has three times as many Twitter followers as the rest of the party leadership put together. He says his biggest problem is not having a female partner to stand alongside him for the co-leadership, and appeals for candidates to come forward. He says there are plenty of other examples of television personalities entering politics, most notably Steffen Seibert (spokesman of Angela Merkel, Germanys chancellor), who was previously a prominent news anchor.

There are also examples of comics who have realised their political ambitions, such as Beppe Grillo of the populist 5 Star Movement in Italy, and Ukraines president, Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky. In the US, Donald Trump was a reality TV star before becoming president.

Ronald Mormann, chair of the district chapter in Saxony-Anhalt, which finally agreed to accept Bhmermanns membership after weeks of internal debate, said the party was prepared forgive him for his previous acidic criticisms of it.

But satire can get away with a lot, and Germanys oldest party is capable of enduring a lot. German social democracy has fought for 156 years for people to be able to express their opinions openly, Mormann said. He also reminded Bhmermann: We are a party, and not a satirical performance.

Bhmermann has said he will follow Decembers leadership contest closely, but predicted it would not go well. I estimate that by the spring of 2020 the SPD will already be looking for a new leader, and my team and I will then be even better prepared … then it will work out, he said.

Related posts