The government’s stimulus coupons can be used from July 15 to the end of the year, but just as in the past, most tax-paying foreign residents are ineligible for the program.
In 2008, then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) issued consumer vouchers to bolster spending during the global financial crisis. The NT$3,600 vouchers were issued to citizens and foreign spouses, but non-married holders of an Alien Resident Certificate (ARC) or Alien Permanent Resident Certificate (APRC) were ineligible.
Now, the NT$3,000 coupons issued by the administration in response to the COVID-19 pandemic can be purchased for NT$1,000 by citizens and foreign spouses of citizens who hold residence permits, but again not by foreign residents who are not married to a Taiwanese.
The reasoning behind this is unclear. Unmarried foreign residents are most likely in Taiwan to work, meaning that they pay taxes. As there is a minimum salary requirement for foreign professionals — which is higher than the domestic average — they generally fall under a higher tax rate.
By contrast, foreign spouses of Taiwanese citizens can reside here without having a job, and have no minimum salary requirement if they choose to work.
So why would the government offer an economic benefit to a group that includes people who pay little or no tax, but not to a group that includes some of the nation’s big taxpayers?
If the intention was to benefit those in need, this would make sense, but the program’s intention instead is to help invigorate consumer spending and benefit businesses in all sectors — just like under Ma’s voucher program.
Unlike Ma’s vouchers, the stimulus coupons require consumers to spend NT$1,000 on a service or commodity to be eligible. Those with less disposable income are unlikely to spend NT$1,000 on something that they did not originally intend to buy.
Ma’s stimulus program was the first of its kind globally in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, but many countries have issued stimulus checks in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Japan, all nationals and foreign residents — regardless of income or marital status — received ￥100,000 (US$915). Similarly, in the US, under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, all nationals and non-US citizens with a Social Security number — including those holding “green cards” or work visas such as H-1B and H-2A visas — received US$1,200.
It might be difficult to compare amounts between the three countries, given their different economic circumstances, but the key point is that Japan and the US did not distinguish between citizens and foreign residents when it came to taxpayers.
In Taiwan, there is a tendency to categorize people, labeling them as “foreigner” (老外), “foreign laborer” (外勞 — often used pejoratively to refer to migrant workers from Southeast Asia), “foreign spouse” (外籍配偶), “Chinese spouse” (中國大陸配偶), “overseas Chinese/Taiwanese” (華僑/台僑) and so on.
Such distinctions are irrelevant when it comes to paying taxes and tend only to lend themselves to discrimination. They also put Taiwan at odds with the rest of the world.
Such categorization of people manifests itself in other instances, such as the incompatibility of the numbering format of ARCs and APRCs with that of national IDs, which shuts foreign, tax-paying residents out of online systems used by many government agencies, banks, hotels and transportation providers, among others.
It is time for the nation to start handling all taxpayers according to income level and contribution rather than ethnicity, birthplace or marital status.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS