Several lawmakers have proposed legislation to offer tax breaks for money repatriated by Taiwanese individuals and companies. Although the details have yet to be finalized, the basic idea is to levy a low, one-time tax on overseas funds to encourage local investment and improve the economy.
Since similar attempts have ended up with Taiwanese businesses pouring funds into the real-estate market instead of making actual investments, lawmakers this time have proposed restrictions on real-estate investments for three years.
To stress the legitimacy of their proposal, the lawmakers cited the net asset increase of US$16.42 billion in the nation’s financial account — which includes direct and portfolio investments — in the first quarter of this year: the 31st consecutive quarter of capital outflows, which brought aggregate net outflows to US$367.78 billion as of March 31.
According to their rationale, Taiwanese businesses have continued to shift funds abroad to cope with global supply-chain needs or to seek higher investment returns elsewhere.
If part of that money was returned home, it would help boost domestic economic activities, increase employment and raise wages, the lawmakers said.
The proposal comes at a time when many nations are adopting tax breaks or exemptions to attract foreign funds. For instance, the Indonesian government in 2016 launched a tax amnesty scheme in a bid to plug a large budget deficit, and a tax overhaul in the US early this year has seen several US multinational companies bring back money from abroad. Similar measures have been introduced by Japan, ASEAN members and some European nations.
However, Taiwan is not exactly short of funds. The central bank’s latest figures show that the monetary authority has increased sales of negotiable certificates of deposit to drain excess funds, exceeding NT$7 trillion (US$227.89 billion) early this month, from the money market.
The costs for corporate borrowers might not be higher than those of bringing money back home, given the already low interest rates here.
The nation has excess domestic savings, but faces other difficulties, such as obstacles to the domestic investment environment, weak corporate sentiment to increase local investment and a lack of good investment targets.
There is still no consensus on whether a tax break or a tax exemption on selected investment categories would attract capital inflows and spur economic growth.
In addition, the Ministry of Finance and the central bank have expressed concern that the proposed legislation, if enacted, could create an unfair tax environment, adding that the fund inflows could contribute to currency fluctuations and become a speculative investment on the local stock and real-estate markets.
However, the National Development Council, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Financial Supervisory Commission seem to be going along with the proposal, as far as long-term industrial development is concerned.
As more nations have over the past two years supported closing corporate tax loopholes and endorsed a common reporting standard to increase transparency, it is time for Taiwan to attract overseas funds back home.
The Ministry of Finance and the central bank have good reason to be skeptical of lawmakers’ wisdom in devising the legislation, but President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) government as a whole does need to reach a workable policy to induce capital inflows and help invigorate economic activity.
The Cabinet must establish an inter-ministerial department to encourage the repatriation of offshore capital and devise complementary measures to curb speculation in property and other non-productive markets.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath