Territorial tax system – Atlantic Storm http://atlantic-storm.org/ Tue, 21 Sep 2021 06:47:56 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8 https://atlantic-storm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/cropped-icon-32x32.png Territorial tax system – Atlantic Storm http://atlantic-storm.org/ 32 32 Friday Adakole Elijah: TVA saga – The battle for federalism https://atlantic-storm.org/friday-adakole-elijah-tva-saga-the-battle-for-federalism/ https://atlantic-storm.org/friday-adakole-elijah-tva-saga-the-battle-for-federalism/#respond Tue, 21 Sep 2021 06:47:56 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/friday-adakole-elijah-tva-saga-the-battle-for-federalism/

The battle raging between River State Governor Nyesom Wike and the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) today is a manifestation of a well-planted time bomb awaiting explosion as a prelude to the setting implementing what some scholars have described as “true federalism”. Nigeria is currently exploiting the corrupt version of federalism. The Nigerian brand of federalism is antithetical to the true concept of federalism commonly known as the “Frederickan Model of Federalism”.

Federalism as described by Wikipedia is a mixed or compound mode of government that combines general government (the central or “federal” government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit governments) in one political system. It can thus be defined as a form of government in which powers are distributed between two levels of government of equal status.

Examples of a federation or federal state include the United States, India, Brazil, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belgium, l ‘Argentina, Nigeria, Pakistan and Australia. Some describe the European Union as the pioneering example of federalism in a multi-state framework, in a concept called the federal union of states.

In our journey to nationhood, Nigeria as a country has experienced different types of political systems and constitutions as well as economic philosophies. Currently, we are practicing what could be described as the inverted pyramid or the icteric form of federalism which is a complete negation of the principle of true federalism.

Indeed, the 1979 constitution that we borrowed from the United States of America (United States) consolidated Ironsi Decree number 34 of May 24, 1966. Under these laws, virtually all articles were listed in chapters. exclusive. And that was the start of the quagmires that we met today. Federalism in the country has been implemented backwards.

Until before this period, Nigeria prospered under the system of regionalism. Regions deliberately developed their economies through taxes, agriculture, etc. That’s why we heard about the famous peanut pyramid in Kano, rice, millets, sorghum, yam. There was also the rise of cocoas, rubber plantations, cola nuts in the west, palms and palm oil in the east.

Regional governments could generate revenue for its sustainability and then had diplomatic relations with foreign nations. The North had strong relations with Sudan. Ditto, the West had diplomatic relations with the State of Israel. It is this relationship that led to the creation of the University of Ife. The East had its fantastic relationship with Tanzania. There was healthy competition between the state. They also cooperated and collaborated with themselves. They put their fate completely in their hands because there was no such thing as “the misery of the state”.

But because Nigeria as a country through the instrument of the military has opted for centralized federalism, people today are calling for fiscal federalism with the hope that it has the capacity to trigger development.

According to Olabanji Olukayode Ewetan (2012), fiscal decentralization has become fashionable regardless of the levels of development and civilization of societies. Nations are turning to decentralization to improve the performance of their public sectors. Fiscal federalism is essentially about the allocation of government resources and spending to the various levels of government.

In general, the researcher cited Aigbokhan, 1999; Oates, 1972; Tanzi, 1995 and Chete, 1998 argue that the intensification of the demand for greater decentralization is influenced by a combination of people eager to become more involved in government and the inability of the central government to provide quality services. .

He further explained that decentralized systems of government give rise to a set of fiscal requirements called fiscal federalism also known as fiscal decentralization. According to the researcher, this refers to the scope and structure of levels of government responsibilities and functions, and the distribution of resources among levels of government to cope with the respective functions.

In Nigeria, the scholar estimated that the poor performance of the public sector since the first half of the 1980s has brought to the fore the issue of fiscal federalism which has remained dominant and most controversial in the Nigerian regime (Arowolo 2011).

Federalism according to Arowole, Akindele and Olaopa cited by Ewetan (2012), is a political concept in which the power to govern is shared between national, state and local governments, creating what is often called a federation (Arowolo, 2011, Akindele and Olaopa, 2002). Arowolo (2011) further postulated that “It is a political theory that is divergent in concept, varied in ecology and dynamic in practice”. For his part, Vincent (2001) explained that the concept of federalism implies that each level of government is coordinated and independent within its delimited sphere of authority and should also have appropriate taxing powers to exploit its independent sources of revenue.

According to Vincent, fiscal federalism therefore requires that each level of government have adequate resources to perform its functions without calling on the other level of government for financial assistance (Wheare, 1963).

Fiscal federalism, according to the researcher, is characterized by fiscal relationships between central and lower levels of government. The fiscal relations between and among the constituents of the federation are explained in terms of three main theories, namely, the theory of the fiscal relation which concerns the expected functions of each level of government in the tax allocation; the theory of inter-jurisdictional cooperation which refers to areas of responsibility shared by national, state and local governments; and the theory of the multi-jurisdictional community (Tella, 1999).
Each level of government is seen as seeking to maximize the social welfare of citizens under its jurisdiction.

From the above discussions, the role assignment that follows from the basic theory of fiscal federalism is summarized as follows: The central government is expected to ensure a fair distribution of income, maintain macroeconomic stability and provide public goods of national character. On the other hand, decentralized levels of government should focus on providing local public goods, with central government providing targeted grants in cases where there are jurisdictional spillovers associated with local public goods. Once the roles have been assigned, the next step in the theoretical framework is to determine the appropriate tax framework. In addressing this tax allocation problem, attention is drawn to the need to avoid distortions resulting from decentralized taxation of mobile tax bases.

Vincent cited Gordon (1983) in pointing out that the extensive application of non-benefit taxes on moving factors at decentralized levels of government could lead to distortions in the location of economic activity.

It is this dislocation as outlined above that the governments of Rivers and Lagos states are seeking to remedy with the current VAT hubbub. If implemented, it is capable of pulling states and the country in general out of the clutches of “bottle federalism”. It will also give state governors more responsibility for managing scarce resources. This means that the state must start to think outside the box for revenue strategies. And when that is done, Nigeria would undoubtedly have anchored the American model of federalism in its climate. It is not appropriate that all states eagerly await Abuja for financial assistance. They should develop their livelihoods.

Nothing prevents, for example, Benue State from developing its oil well in Okwiji, in the local government area of ​​Apa or an avalanche of solid minerals available in many places in the state in order to improve and consolidate its revenue base.

It was obviously in preparation for a day like this that Kogi State worked hard and ensured that oil was discovered in the state. Lucky for them, Kogi has been listed as one of the country’s oil-producing states. And they will begin to enjoy the fruits of their labor when the real exploitation begins.

Zamfara State is currently mining its gold and has even said it will pay royalties to the federal government against the spirit of the FRN constitution.

Wike’s posture, without a doubt, is in tandem with the expectations of Nigerians about true federalism or fiscal federalism. States should not continue to depend on the center for funding.

Dr Elijah writes from Otada – Otukpo.

https://atlantic-storm.org/friday-adakole-elijah-tva-saga-the-battle-for-federalism/feed/ 0
Greens publish partial cost of platform promising $ 210 billion in new spending over next five years https://atlantic-storm.org/greens-publish-partial-cost-of-platform-promising-210-billion-in-new-spending-over-next-five-years/ https://atlantic-storm.org/greens-publish-partial-cost-of-platform-promising-210-billion-in-new-spending-over-next-five-years/#respond Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:07:12 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/greens-publish-partial-cost-of-platform-promising-210-billion-in-new-spending-over-next-five-years/

The Green Party of Canada has released a partially costed breakdown of the platform’s commitments, saying that a government led by Annamie Paul would provide $ 210 billion in new spending over the next five years, with no plans to return to it. budget balance before this date.

The Greens say their budget plan will reduce the “nominal deficit” to less than $ 30 billion a year if the economy continues to grow.

According to party documents, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) only costed some of the party’s promises, leaving two of the biggest programs; long-term care reform and pharmacare, off the list.

The Greens provided their own costs for these programs, saying they will cost $ 107 billion over the next five years, including $ 68.5 billion for long-term care reform and $ 38.5 billion for a new health care program. ‘Drug insurance.

The green platform promises to implement a universal pharmacare program and create a universal long-term care system that would be governed by national standards of care under the Canada Health Act.

The platform also promises to introduce a guaranteed living income that would “provide every Canadian with a basic source of income, ensuring that people can cover basic expenses such as food and shelter.”

The partial costing of the Green Platform’s promises comes on the last day of the election campaign and just 20 minutes before Paul, in British Columbia for the day, shows up at a press conference in Victoria.

Gone to pay for programs with a new tax

The costing document, however, does not provide a cost for a living income guaranteed by the PBO or the party, which raises questions about how it would maintain the fiscal discipline necessary to reduce the deficit to the target. $ 30 billion.

The PBO provided details on what it would cost to write off all student debt and provide free post-secondary education to all Canadians: $ 66 billion over five years, including $ 17.3 in 2021-22.

The PBO also said that funding for the Green Child Care and Early Childhood Education program would cost $ 10.6 billion over five years and spend another 9.2 billion on the Green Climate Fund.

Although these programs are costed on an annual basis, it is still unclear when they will be rolled out across the country.

The party says that pharmacare, a guaranteed living income and post-secondary education without tuition fees will be linked to “Canada’s future economic prospects” and “will expect additional income from measures to increase taxes.” when conditions permit.

“The policy changes proposed in the Green Party of Canada platform will be implemented over time in a way that will not jeopardize the financial viability of federal, provincial and territorial governments,” he said. .

The party says it will pay for these new spending by imposing a 0.5% tax on all financial transactions in Canada, which the PBO says would be $ 146 billion over the next five years.

The PBO says the party will also bring in $ 11.7 billion over five years by eliminating tax deductions and incentives for the oil and gas sector.

]]> https://atlantic-storm.org/greens-publish-partial-cost-of-platform-promising-210-billion-in-new-spending-over-next-five-years/feed/ 0 Yukoners push for basic income at Whitehorse Healing Totem – Yukon News https://atlantic-storm.org/yukoners-push-for-basic-income-at-whitehorse-healing-totem-yukon-news/ https://atlantic-storm.org/yukoners-push-for-basic-income-at-whitehorse-healing-totem-yukon-news/#respond Sat, 18 Sep 2021 21:00:00 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/yukoners-push-for-basic-income-at-whitehorse-healing-totem-yukon-news/

On September 15, the Yukon Anti-Poverty Coalition held a Basic Income Rally now at the Healing Totem on Front Street.

President Kerry Nolan encouraged the crowd of over 40 to engage in a dialogue exploring what a Basic Income could look like.

“Right now what we’re here to do is start the conversation,” Nolan said.

A basic income would give everyone an equal platform, so “people don’t have to feel disrespectful or not part of a society.”

“When you have to go to an assistance program and ask for money, nobody likes to ask for things, it’s really hard on people,” Nolan said.

“The way the systems are set up now is you have to prove it. It’s degrading and it’s intrusive. If we went to something like Basic Income, they would feel respected because their basic daily living needs are being met.

Yukon Senator Pat Duncan, who is part of the Independent Senators Group, said a Basic Income is something that has already been tried in Canada.

Former Canadian Senator David Crawl chaired a special committee on poverty 50 years ago, Duncan said.

Its findings in 1991 indicated that we pour billions of dollars every year into a welfare system that only treats the symptoms of poverty but leaves disease intact.

Duncan said basic income is also mentioned in the 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women; the 1985 Royal Commission on Economic Union and Women’s Development Prospects; and the Appeal for Justice for Missing and Indigenous Women and Girls.

From 1974 to 1978, the town of Dauphin, Manitoba ran a pilot project called “M Income”. Dauphin’s research, Duncan said, has shown that “when an individual is confident that they have an income to purchase healthy food, there are fewer hospitalizations and better health outcomes.”

With these examples, Duncan asked why not all Canadian jurisdictions have a basic income guarantee in place.

“The reality is that the federal government has a role to play,” Duncan said. “There is the reality that federal programs exist to end poverty. “

The Basic Income model proposes the use of the tax system and administration by Revenue Canada.

“By using the tax system with the same rules that apply to everyone, which is accessible to everyone as long as they pay their taxes, the process is universal and everyone is eligible,” Duncan said. .

“It’s unconditional. It does not require maintenance and it does not require someone to be run by a bureaucracy or a social worker.

In April 2020, Duncan said 50 of his Senate colleagues wrote to the Prime Minister and other cabinet members about Basic Income.

“Half of the Senate, from different political perspectives, told the government, when this immediate emergency (COVID-19) subsided, to use the lessons of the PCU and to work out social and economic reforms and develop a positive legacy for all Canadians. “

Duncan believed in a basic income because of the “harsh reality” that many children and families live in poverty.

“A basic income guarantee was a good policy option to change this reality,” Duncan said.

Duncan told the crowd that a Basic Income is not a “magic pill” that will cure everything, but believes it is time to take action.

“It has been discussed, it has been tried in Canada and now is the time,” Duncan said. “It won’t be easy. It will take federal and territorial governments and all of us to continue lobbying. I encourage everyone here to continue working on this.

Contact John Tonin at john.tonin@yukon-news.com

Poverty reduction

]]> https://atlantic-storm.org/yukoners-push-for-basic-income-at-whitehorse-healing-totem-yukon-news/feed/ 0 White House warns of recession if … https://atlantic-storm.org/white-house-warns-of-recession-if/ https://atlantic-storm.org/white-house-warns-of-recession-if/#respond Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:10:28 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/white-house-warns-of-recession-if/

House to vote next week on debt ceiling suspension

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said on Friday the House would vote on a measure to suspend the debt ceiling next week. He did not say whether the bill would be associated with a funding measure from the federal government, which could close when the new fiscal year begins on October 1 if Congress does not act before that date.

The House Rules Committee is expected to consider a bill on Monday to fund the government until December 3 or 10. Democratic leaders have reportedly considered tying the debt limit legislation to the interim financing bill.

“Decoupling government funding from the debt limit would leave many Republicans more willing to support a short-term government funding bill that includes billions of dollars in disaster assistance for the southern red states. is hit by hurricanes, which was requested by President Joe Biden, ”Caitlin Emma from politics reports.

The bottom line: Republicans have vowed not to support any effort to raise the debt ceiling, arguing Democrats must do it themselves. Next week’s vote could bring this stalemate to a head and force one side or another to change tack.

White House warns default could trigger recession

The Biden administration issued new warnings on Friday about the potential damage that could result from a default on US debt.

“Reaching the debt ceiling could cause a recession,” said a White House letter to state and local governments. “Economic growth would weaken, unemployment would rise and the labor market could lose millions of jobs. “

The recession would hit state and local governments hard, the White House has warned. “If the United States defaults on its debt, cities and states could suffer a double whammy: declining revenues and no federal aid as long as Congress refuses to raise or suspend the debt ceiling,” indicates the letter. “This means essential public services will be threatened with budget cuts, from education to healthcare to pensions.”

A plea for bipartite cooperation: At a meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors on Friday, Democratic Mayor Nan Whaley of Dayton, Ohio, called on lawmakers to work together to tackle the debt ceiling.

“Both sides in Washington have increased our debt, and both sides have an obligation to ensure that the United States can continue to pay its bills,” Whaley said. “This is one of Congress’ most fundamental responsibilities, and there is no good reason for lawmakers to create a crisis that undermines the full faith and credit of the United States.”

Column of the day: Democrats are reluctant to tax the rich

Polls consistently find broad support for taxing the rich – but what exactly does that mean? Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell points out that Democrats’ definition of “rich” has shrunk over time to “a tiny – and endangered – group.”

President Obama has set the limit on tax increases at $ 250,000 in annual income. President Biden moved it to $ 400,000. And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who wore a much-discussed dress that read “Tax the Rich” as she attended the Met Gala this week, responded to criticism in part by saying: “They want you to think that when we talk about the rich, we are talking about a doctor or a lawyer instead of someone with hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars.”

Rampell notes that Democrats’ focus on the richest of the rich comes as the Democratic base has shifted to include more high-income voters and college graduates – but the tax changes proposed by the House Democrats this month are also leaving plenty of breaks in place for the ultra-rich.

The House plan, for example, stops long before raising capital gains tax to match the income tax rate, as President Joe Biden had requested, and it does not eliminate the “grossed-up basis” provision that allows assets that have appreciated in value to be passed on to heirs tax-free. “This is a huge boon for anyone with dynastic level wealth because it means their wealth can escape capital gains tax,” says Rampell. Democrats are also considering options to repeal or increase the $ 10,000 limit on State and Local Tax Deductions (SALT), another change that would benefit higher earners (see more on this below).

“Yes, Democrats are planning to raise the highest personal and corporate income tax rates,” Rampell writes. ” It’s not nothing. But that’s nowhere near enough to pay for the generous welfare state Democrats want to build. Paying for it would ultimately require levying higher taxes on the middle class as well, as do other countries with more extensive safety nets. “

Read the full column at the Washington Post.

Reinstatement of SALT deduction would cut Democrats’ tax hikes for top earners: report

If the Democrats’ budget plan restores the full deduction for local and state taxes, it would leave top earners facing much smaller overall tax hikes – or even tax cuts – according to Tax Foundation data. on the right cited by Bloomberg News.

The richest 1% of earners, those earning more than $ 401,600, would see their after-tax income drop 5% as part of the House’s Democratic plan. But if the $ 10,000 cap on SALT deductibility is removed, their after-tax impact would only be 1.9%. Taxpayers earning between $ 165,181 and $ 401,600 would see an after-tax gain of 0.3% with the SALT cap in place turn into a gain of 0.9% with the cap raised.

Restoring the full SALT deduction would cost about $ 85 billion a year over the next five years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, with most of the benefits of the change going to the top 1%.

House lawmakers would consider options other than a complete repeal of the cap, including a two-year suspension or an increase in the deduction limit by $ 10,000.

Ocasio-Cortez calls for unemployment benefit reform in $ 3.5 trillion spending bill

Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-MO) call for the inclusion of major UI reforms in the $ 3.5 trillion spending package that contains much of the program domestic economy of President Joe Biden.

In a letter to Democratic leaders on Thursday, the couple, joined by 11 other House Democrats, said they wanted to “express the urgency of including Unemployment Insurance (UI) reforms in the Build Back Better law for protect the millions of unemployed across this country. “

Citing the success of the temporary programs adopted by Congress during the Covid-19 crisis, the group called on Democrats to revise the unemployment system so that it permanently includes part-time workers and establishes a minimum duration of compensation, among other reforms. The changes would be particularly significant for workers in minority groups, who disproportionately hold low-wage jobs and live in states with weak unemployment systems, the group said.

“A strong and responsive unemployment insurance system not only helps our entire economy recover faster and more equitably from future recessions, but it is also an essential tool in helping displaced workers stay in touch with the job market and to support their families when they look for a new job, ”they said.

Number of the day: $ 2.1 billion

The Biden administration on Friday announced a $ 2.1 billion spending plan to improve infection prevention and control in the U.S. healthcare system, the largest such investment in the country’s history.

“This funding will dramatically improve the safety and quality of health care provided in the United States during the pandemic and into the future,” said Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC plans to distribute $ 1.25 billion in funding to 64 state, local and territorial health departments over the next three years to help prevent infections in healthcare facilities, including hospitals. and nursing homes. An additional $ 880 million will be used over several years to “support healthcare partners, academic institutions and other not-for-profit partners” in developing infection prevention and control measures.

There were 647,000 healthcare-associated infections in acute care hospitals in 2015, including 72,000 deaths, according to CDC estimates cited by Bloomberg News.

The new funding is part of the $ 1.9 trillion US bailout package promulgated in March.

A message from our partner

Connect financial policy, politics, and civic and legislative action, with the latest news from The American Prospect. Read it HERE.

https://atlantic-storm.org/white-house-warns-of-recession-if/feed/ 0
Dear Erin O’Toole: Your Tax Scheme Isn’t Child Care https://atlantic-storm.org/dear-erin-otoole-your-tax-scheme-isnt-child-care/ https://atlantic-storm.org/dear-erin-otoole-your-tax-scheme-isnt-child-care/#respond Fri, 17 Sep 2021 18:09:56 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/dear-erin-otoole-your-tax-scheme-isnt-child-care/

Canadian women are at a breaking point. Nineteen months of this pandemic have left us overworked, poorer and tired.

We are exhausted by fear. We are exhausted by the uncertainty. We are exhausted from asking ourselves over and over again to bend, contort and stretch.

When did we lose our jobs because of the shutdown? We made it work.

When we were working on the front lines of the pandemic providing health care, child care and groceries? We made it work.

When did our school and childcare arrangements become a recurring affair? We made it work.

We sacrificed income, careers, promotions and hard-earned progress on gender equality.

And now, days away from a federal election, we are done making it work. We have the choice to elect a government that can deliver on the historic commitment announced in the 2021 federal budget and give us the universal child care system we need – and can manage.

Mr. O’Toole: With regard to child care, you are 50 years behind in the policy discussion. So pull out your re-entry pencil and start taking notes. This editorial is for you.

Lesson # 1: Your tax scheme is not child custody.

We don’t need your little discount that you think will fill the gaps and end our race for child care. We need the federal government to work with provincial and territorial governments to provide us with quality child care that meets our needs – regulated and safe. We need the price we pay for child care to be reduced and capped. Your diet cancels out spaces. This lets the costs go up. You pat us on the head and tell us not to worry, your tax credit will stimulate the market to provide us with what we need. But for 50 years the market has fallen short, especially for those who work non-standard hours or have children with special care needs. And our costs to parents have increased faster than inflation.

Lesson 2: Your tax system keeps women poorer and holds them back.

Good care is not cheap, and cheap care is not good. Your tax scheme pits the economic interests of working mothers against those of educators. This forces parents to seek out the cheapest care available. Salaries account for most of the cost of child care, and as long as parents’ fees are the main source of funding, the unaffordable nature of child care will continue to keep salaries at or near minimum wage. .

Lesson 3: Your tax scheme will curb economic growth.

Women are leaving the workforce at a time when the Canadian economy needs them more than ever. A quality, affordable and accessible child care system is key to our recovery. It creates jobs. It stimulates growth. It increases income. It decreases poverty. A tax system does not.

Lesson # 4: Your tax ploy cuts federal child care spending by 91%.

It is not a typo. The Liberals plan to spend almost $ 30 billion over five years on child care, while your own party estimates that the Conservative tax credit will cost $ 2.6 billion over the same period. Given the consensus that women’s work is the key to economic recovery, cutting your tax system by 91% on child care spending shows how little you think of us.

But you know the limits of your child care tax credit. You told the Premier of Quebec that you love the province’s universal child care system so much that you would be prepared to fund it. You would give Quebec what you are proposing to take away from the rest of Canada – what does that mean, Mr. O’Toole?

Here is the question from the September 20 ballot box: Will we recognize and support each other in a future that invests in women, children, families and the economy? Or are we going to contort and convince ourselves that we can “make it work” when a $ 30 billion investment in early learning and child care is canceled and replaced by a tax scheme?

We have been here before and no one can afford to repeat itself when it comes to child care. In 2006, the Conservative Party formed a minority government and immediately canceled Paul Martin’s Liberal child care plan.

Now that we are once again so close to making child care a reality, we cannot let Canada back down. Vote for a government that can deliver on the promise of a universal, quality child care system for all. Vote for exhausted moms. Also vote for all exhausted parents and grandparents. Vote for all of us.

Morna Ballantyne is a mother, grandmother and Executive Director of Child Care Now, the national association for child care advocacy in Canada.
https://atlantic-storm.org/dear-erin-otoole-your-tax-scheme-isnt-child-care/feed/ 0
The problem of the Kuril Islands as a sticking point between Russia and Japan https://atlantic-storm.org/the-problem-of-the-kuril-islands-as-a-sticking-point-between-russia-and-japan/ https://atlantic-storm.org/the-problem-of-the-kuril-islands-as-a-sticking-point-between-russia-and-japan/#respond Fri, 17 Sep 2021 05:30:07 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/the-problem-of-the-kuril-islands-as-a-sticking-point-between-russia-and-japan/

The problem of territorial sovereignty over the Southern Kuril Islands or the territorial dispute between Russia and Japan has not been resolved since the end of World War II and remains as it is until today, writes Alex Ivanov, correspondent in Moscow.

The issue of island ownership remains at the center of bilateral relations between Moscow and Tokyo, although the Russian side is actively trying to “dissolve” this issue and find a replacement mainly through economic projects. Nonetheless, Tokyo is not giving up on trying to present the Kuril Islands problem as the main issue on the bilateral agenda.

After the war, all of the Kuril Islands were incorporated into the USSR, but ownership of the Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan and Habomai Islands group is disputed by Japan, which considers them to be an occupied part of the country. . Although the 4 islands themselves represent a rather small area, the total area of ​​the disputed territory, including the 200-mile economic zone, is approximately 200,000 square kilometers.


Russia claims that its sovereignty over the Southern Kuril Islands is absolutely legal and is not subject to doubt or discussion, and states that it does not recognize the very fact of the existence of a territorial dispute with Japan . The problem of ownership of the southern Kuril Islands is the main obstacle to the full settlement of Russian-Japanese relations and the signing of a peace treaty after World War II. In addition, the amendments to the Russian Constitution approved last year put an end to the Kuril issue, since the Basic Law prohibits the transfer of Russian territories.

Russian President Vladimir Putin recently once again broke the 65-year dispute with Japan over the status of the Southern Kurils. During the main event of the Eastern Economic Forum in early September 2021, he indicated that Moscow would no longer decide the fate of the islands bilaterally and questioned the strength of the 1956 declaration that defines relations between the Soviet Union and Japan. So Putin has lifted threats that would have arisen if the islands were transferred, experts say, but that could deprive the Far East of Japanese investment.

In the 1956 declaration, the Soviet Union accepted the transfer of the Habomai Islands and the Shikotan Islands to Japan on the condition that the actual transfer of these islands to Japan takes place after the conclusion of a peace treaty between the Union. of the Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan.


Under the conditions of the Cold War, the unpredictable and obviously weak Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev wanted to encourage Japan to adopt neutral state status by transferring the two islands and concluding the peace treaty. However, later the Japanese side refused to sign a peace treaty under pressure from the United States, which threatened that if Japan withdrew its claims to the islands of Kunashir and Iturup, the Ryukyu archipelago with the island of ‘Okinawa, which was then under the United States’ administration on the basis of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, would not be returned to Japan.

President Putin, speaking at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, announced that entrepreneurs in the Kuril Islands will be exempt from taxes on profits, property, land for ten years, as well as reduced premiums insurance; customs privileges are also granted.

Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said the special tax regime proposed by Vladimir Putin in the Kuril Islands should not violate the laws of both countries.

“On the basis of the position indicated, we wish to continue to conduct a constructive dialogue with Russia in order to create the conditions conducive to the signing of a peace treaty,” added Motegi.

Japan said Moscow’s plans to create a special economic zone in the Kuril Islands, announced at the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in Vladivostok by Russian President Vladimir Putin, contradicted Tokyo’s position. According to the secretary general of the Japanese government, Katsunobu Kato, calls for Japanese and foreign companies to participate in the economic development of the territory do not respect the “spirit of the agreement” reached by the leaders of the two states on joint economic activities on the islands of Kunashir, Iturup, Shikotan and Habomai. Based on this position, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga completely ignored the EEF this year, although his predecessor Shinzo Abe attended the forum four times. It’s hard not to mention that Suga’s statement is just a populist gesture – the current prime minister is very unpopular, his government’s rating has fallen below 30%, while Japanese extremists love them. politicians who promise to ‘return the islands’.

Russia’s plans to intensively and rapidly develop the Kurils, announced in July 2021 during a trip to Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin’s region, were immediately greeted with hostility in Tokyo. Katsunobu Kato called the visit “contrary to Japan’s steadfast position regarding the northern territories and causing great regret”, and Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi called it “harmful to the feelings of the Japanese people”. A protest was also expressed to Russian Ambassador to Japan Mikhail Galuzine, who deemed this “unacceptable”, since the Kuril Islands were transferred to Russia “legally after World War II”.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov also expressed his displeasure at “hostile measures in the context of Tokyo’s territorial claims” against Russia. And the press secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov underlined that the head of government “visits the Russian regions that he considers necessary and on the development of which, including in cooperation with our partners, there is a lot of work. to do .”

It is obvious that the Kuril Islands problem, as perceived by the Japanese side, is unlikely to be resolved under Tokyo terms.

Many analysts, and not just in Russia, are convinced that Japan’s insistence on the so-called “northern territories” is based on purely selfish and practical interests. The islands themselves represent little of a tangible advantage, given their modest size and harsh nature. For Tokyo, the richness of the sea in the economic zone adjacent to the islands and, in part, the opportunities for tourism development are the most important.

However, Moscow leaves Tokyo no hope in terms of territories, instead offering to focus on economic cooperation, which would give the two countries far more tangible results than failed attempts at antagonism.

https://atlantic-storm.org/the-problem-of-the-kuril-islands-as-a-sticking-point-between-russia-and-japan/feed/ 0
Viable way to close £ 30bn fuel hole as UK turns to electric cars https://atlantic-storm.org/viable-way-to-close-30bn-fuel-hole-as-uk-turns-to-electric-cars/ https://atlantic-storm.org/viable-way-to-close-30bn-fuel-hole-as-uk-turns-to-electric-cars/#respond Fri, 17 Sep 2021 05:00:00 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/viable-way-to-close-30bn-fuel-hole-as-uk-turns-to-electric-cars/

The UK’s ambitious plan to end sales of gasoline and diesel cars and vans by the end of the decade has rightly garnered applause at home and abroad.

Transport emissions are the largest component of our territorial carbon footprint; a big move to ban the sale of dirty vehicles will see this change quickly.

One question the move raises, however, is how to close the annual hole of over £ 30bn in the state’s balance sheet as a duty on fuel – currently levied at 58p on every liter of fuel. gasoline and diesel – and excise duties on vehicles fall to zero.

The clearer alternative is road pricing, a system in which every mile of every trip can be billed differently, instead of a system in which costs depend on how much fuel your car consumes.

Road pricing offers the opportunity to fundamentally rebalance one of the UK’s main tax bases in a more equitable way, as well as accelerate progress towards net zero.

Location, congestion, time and type of vehicle could all be factors in the cost of each mile, allowing small cars in cities with poor public transport to pay significantly less than the Range Rovers that drive through. Chelsea during rush hour.

Road pricing could also open up new ways of controlling traffic, preventing crowds of idling cars outside school gates or residential roads from turning into rats.

Read more

Widow condemns ‘smart highways’ as ‘death traps’ after report finds altered roads pose higher risk of breakdown

It could also be phased in on a household-to-household basis, offering reduced fares or even ‘free miles’ to families who could benefit from tax relief, while bringing the better-off in Britain to a lifestyle that means less. congestion for everyone.

Answering this big question will have an obvious effect on the daily life of almost everyone in the country. The price of gasoline is a big factor in household budgets, and any new technology-based system can impact the “freedom” that car travel brings.

This is why it is essential to get it right, both in terms of the political response but also, crucially, the timing.

Anticipating the problem can ensure that the two main risks of road pricing, fairness and confidentiality, are at the heart of any new policy.

Read more

Can we mix E5 and E10 gasoline? The difference between the two types of fuel explained

A well-tailored program will reduce the overall costs of running cars for low-income households, especially in areas with poor public transport options, at the expense of downtown school trips or new non-electric company cars. , ensuring that costs fall for the less well-off and rise for those who can afford them.

The Net Zero Cost Climate Change Committee estimates see falling auto costs as the primary way to offset the costs of greening our homes and industry, a road toll system would be a first step to ensure that these savings are distributed beyond the few people who time the most kilometers.

With respect to confidentiality, the most important benefits of road pricing will come from the ability to tailor costs in the most efficient manner.

Safer roads, less traffic, cleaner air, and a fairer tax system are all on offer, but will require some degree of keeping tabs on when and where cars are driven.

It is a challenge far from insurmountable. The adoption of on-board trackers offered to young drivers in exchange for lower premiums should inspire confidence in decision-makers; make the benefits clear and adoption will be high.

Additionally, any startup issues could be quickly resolved through a pilot program on door-to-door deliveries, which proliferated during the pandemic. This would both fight against the congestion caused by this army of vans, but also provide a test bed for new technologies.

This is not a distant question. Current forecasts show that pollution taxes will start to fall as early as 2023, with an annual deficit of £ 13 billion by the end of this decade.

An additional rush comes from what is actually happening on the streets of the country – in 2021 to date 15% of all cars sold in the UK can be plugged in – well above expectations inside and out. outside government. It is increasingly clear that a decision is needed before the next election.

Recent progress on auto taxes, most emphatically highlighted by the 11-year freeze on fuel taxes which analysts say has increased the Kingdom’s annual carbon emissions by 5% – United, do not inspire confidence in the imminent solution.

However, with the government looking to kick off the post-pandemic era with a multi-year spending plan this fall, and against the backdrop of the big decarbonization plans and COP26 in November, there’s no better time to facing one of the biggest decisions it takes to reach net zero.

https://atlantic-storm.org/viable-way-to-close-30bn-fuel-hole-as-uk-turns-to-electric-cars/feed/ 0
Election Canada 2021 childcare platforms, analyzed https://atlantic-storm.org/election-canada-2021-childcare-platforms-analyzed/ https://atlantic-storm.org/election-canada-2021-childcare-platforms-analyzed/#respond Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:00:40 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/election-canada-2021-childcare-platforms-analyzed/

In 2015 and 2019, women were a key voting bloc for parties. And, with child custody at the center of the discussion in 2021, this election is no different.

(Photo: iStock)

The pandemic sparked Canada’s first “demise”, where women lost the majority of jobs, especially low-income women, who can also be racialized, single mothers, precarious housed and / or precarious status. The economic recovery from this pandemic must be a ‘cover for her’ and childcare is crucial for women to return to the workplace or continue to work.


In Budget 2021, the Liberal Party pledged more than $ 27.2 billion (over five years) to establish a national child care program that promises child care at $ 10 a day. This plan continues to be a major part of their re-election campaign.

To date, the Liberals have signed agreements with eight provincial and territorial governments (BC, Yukon, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Labrador and Newfoundland), which would result in a 50% reduction in child care costs. next year, with the goal of reaching that threshold of $ 10 per day someday in the next five years.

To increase capacity, the Liberals plan to build 250,000 new high-quality child care spaces, hire 40,000 more early childhood educators, work with Indigenous partners to ensure Indigenous children have access to culturally appropriate child care services and pass federal child care legislation to strengthen and protect a pan-Canadian system.


The Conservative Party of Canada is taking a different approach to reducing child care costs. Party leader Erin O’Toole said that despite signed agreements, a Conservative government would drop $ 10-a-day child care plans and instead create a refundable tax credit that would cover up to 75 percent of the cost of child care for the not so young. income families.

This would be done by converting the existing child care expense deduction (the line on your tax form where you indicate how much you spend on child care each year) into the proposed tax credit. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that this plan would cost Canadians $ 2.6 billion over the next five years.

The Child Care Tax Credit could be claimed by anyone, regardless of income level, but according to analysis by Lindsay Tedds, Gillian Petit and Tammy Schirle for Policy Options, only the fees child care up to $ 8,000 would qualify for the credit.

The Conservative plan does not specify any commitment to increase the number of child care spaces, nor does it mention the increase in the number of early childhood educators.


Like the Liberal Party, the New Democrats are promising $ 10 a day child care, which would build on existing agreements with provinces and territories to facilitate this change. Although the Parliamentary Budget Officer did not provide a cost for this plan, given that the NDP would be using the Liberals’ blueprint, it can be assumed that the costs would be similar.

In addition to $ 10 a day child care, New Democrats want to save nonprofit child care, create enough spaces to avoid long waiting lists and ensure early childhood educators get paid decent and decent. .

Green Party

The Green Party also wants to create a universal child care program, which would see them working with provinces, territories and Indigenous communities to develop guiding principles and a framework for what it looks like. We do not know if the Greens, like the NDP, would benefit from the work already done by the Liberals.

In addition, the Greens’ proposal for child care wants to increase federal funding for child care to reach the international benchmark of spending 1 percent of GDP per year on child care.

Unfortunately, the Green Party platform lacks details, so it is not possible to give an overview of the feasibility, time frame and cost.

The economy

How should child care services be offered? To answer this question, the parties essentially contemplate two types of responses: one that lowers market costs through tax incentives, and one that creates a regulated system that caps childcare costs at $ 10 per day by increasing the physical supply of places (c.). Which approach is the best? Any economist worth his salt will always answer this question with “it depends”.

The Conservatives, who preferred the first answer to the second, have an ostensibly progressive policy in the sense that as family income increases, the amount of the refundable tax credit decreases. Unfortunately, while the absolute amount decreases, the tax is actually regressive in that the proportion of child care expenses paid to total family income increases as family income decreases. This means that although low-income families will pay less in terms of the total amount of child care costs, the ratio to income increases. This increases the tax burden on low income families rather than middle class and wealthy families.

The Liberals, New Democrats and Greens support a variety of systems that build capacity. This is a better plan to increase accessibility, supply and affordability. However, there is a caveat. The Liberals’ child care plan would mean families pay $ 2,600 a year, which is also regressive. For low-income families, this represents about 20 percent of their income and this percentage decreases with increasing income. This plan, however, would still reduce total costs and the proportion of revenues spent on child care more than the Conservatives’ plan.

The fine print

With these child care plans, it is important to note that the Liberal and NDP proposals would significantly reduce child care costs to an average $ 10 a day, which means some people will pay more and others less. Likewise, the Conservative plan is a tax credit Up to 75 percent of the costs, so the higher your income, the less impacted you will be on the promise.

Ultimately, voters have to choose which plans and parties make the most sense to them, but be sure to do your research!

https://atlantic-storm.org/election-canada-2021-childcare-platforms-analyzed/feed/ 0
NDP platform calls for $ 200 billion in new spending on health care, climate change and Indigenous reconciliation https://atlantic-storm.org/ndp-platform-calls-for-200-billion-in-new-spending-on-health-care-climate-change-and-indigenous-reconciliation/ https://atlantic-storm.org/ndp-platform-calls-for-200-billion-in-new-spending-on-health-care-climate-change-and-indigenous-reconciliation/#respond Sat, 11 Sep 2021 22:30:24 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/ndp-platform-calls-for-200-billion-in-new-spending-on-health-care-climate-change-and-indigenous-reconciliation/

The federal NDP is pledging $ 214 billion in new spending over the next five years, according to a cost breakdown of its platform commitments released on Saturday.

Much of this spending would be offset by $ 166 billion in revenue generated over the same period through a series of new taxes and other measures targeting high net worth individuals and large profitable businesses.

“I am proud to say that we are the only party that has a plan that will ensure that we are not going to impose an additional burden on working people, the middle class and small businesses,” said NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh. reporters during their campaign in Vancouver.

“Our plan is the only one with a credible vision for [increase] significantly and substantially so that we can invest in the programs people need, the help people need, while putting us in a better position to reduce our debt. “

  • Find out who is leading in the latest polls with our Poll monitoring.

The calculation, which is in part based on projections by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), estimates how much the NDP platform promises would cost over the next five years and how much revenue the new tax measures would bring into the coffers. federal.

He attaches specific dollar projections to the political commitments contained in the NDP platform, which the party released earlier this summer, but which has been criticized as being long in ambition and lacking in detail.

The PBO in his reports acknowledged the uncertainty regarding the revenue figures.

Singh conceded some uncertainty about the plan, saying it “had never been done before”, but argued it was a “real way forward” that “Canadians believe logic”.

WATCH | Singh stressed the uncertainty surrounding the cost of the NPD’s platform:

Singh insisted on the uncertainty surrounding the price of his platform

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh admits there is some uncertainty about some of his platform’s revenue projections, but says it’s because what he is proposing “has never been done before” . 1:21

No immediate plan to regain balance

The costed platform forecasts $ 40 billion in additional spending for 2021-2022. He projects a large deficit of $ 145 billion in 2021-2022, which would narrow to $ 53 billion next year before gradually declining to $ 34 billion in 2025-26.

There is no immediate plan to return to a balanced budget, but party officials point to the decline in the debt-to-GDP ratio – which would drop from 48% in 2021-2022 to 45.8% by 2025- 2026 – as an indication that the party has a clear path to balance.

According to party officials speaking on the merits, the NDP’s promises go beyond what was contained in the 2021-2022 budget proposed by the Liberal government and passed by Parliament earlier this year. Despite this, the party projects lower annual deficits in most years compared to liberal and conservative platforms, in part because of an abundance of income-generating proposals.

Unlike the Conservative Party’s platform, which proposes to reverse the Liberals’ onerous promise to spend $ 30 billion to establish a national child care program, the NDP intends to honor existing agreements that the Liberals signed with several provinces and complete the construction of a national system.

The NDP’s costliest item is $ 68 billion in new health spending over the next five years, which would fund universal prescription drug coverage, expand long-term and home care options, and would cover dental care and mental health. expenses for many Canadians at the bottom of the income scale.

The party says this would bring its platform closer to the demand from provincial and territorial premiers that the federal government cover 35% of all health care costs, which would be equivalent to increasing the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) by $ 28 billion. per year. (The Conservative platform would pump $ 60 billion into health care over the next 10 years without any strings attached, although most of that money would come in the second half of the decade. The Liberals would create a dedicated transfer to mental health and would say they are willing to negotiate increases TCS).

The NDP is also proposing to spend $ 26 billion to fight climate change and support workers who may need to pull out of heavily polluting industries like oil and gas.

In addition, the party would redirect $ 35 billion already budgeted for projects with the Canadian Infrastructure Bank to a “climate bank”, which would have the mandate to stimulate investments in renewable energies, energy efficiency and low carbon technologies.

An additional $ 30 billion would be spent on reconciliation efforts with Indigenous peoples. More than half of that amount would be invested to get the federal government to comply with a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling by compensating First Nations families and children who have been taken from their homes and placed in the system. child protection.

The publication of the NDP’s platform costs comes on the second day of advance polls, with nine days left in the campaign before polling day.

When asked if voters would have been given more time to review the party’s numbers, Singh replied that Canadians will not be surprised by what they see.

“We have been very consistent in our willingness to invest in people,” Singh said. “We’ve been saying for a long time that we think we need to uplift people. We have been doing it throughout the pandemic. We have proposed it before the election.”

New sources of income

Below are the measures to increase revenue and the amounts each party expects each to bring in:

  • $ 60 billion through an annual tax of 1% on households with assets greater than $ 10 million.

  • $ 44 billion by increasing the capital gains inclusion rate from 50% to 75%.

  • $ 25 billion by increasing the corporate tax rate from 15% to 18%. This would only apply to companies that make more than $ 500,000 in profit.

  • $ 14 billion via a “surplus profit tax” on companies that made large profits during the COVID-19 pandemic. This would only apply to some companies that make profits over $ 10 million per year.

  • $ 12 billion by cracking down on tax havens. The Canada Revenue Agency would receive $ 100 million in additional funds to increase its ability to find such funds.

All of the above revenue items have been assessed by the PBO, according to party officials.

]]> https://atlantic-storm.org/ndp-platform-calls-for-200-billion-in-new-spending-on-health-care-climate-change-and-indigenous-reconciliation/feed/ 0 What are the changes to the tax treatment under general Indonesian law? https://atlantic-storm.org/what-are-the-changes-to-the-tax-treatment-under-general-indonesian-law/ https://atlantic-storm.org/what-are-the-changes-to-the-tax-treatment-under-general-indonesian-law/#respond Fri, 10 Sep 2021 09:25:50 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/what-are-the-changes-to-the-tax-treatment-under-general-indonesian-law/

Indonesia’s omnibus law continues to impact the business, fiscal and regulatory landscape. In this article, we note new income tax exemptions for dividends and offshore income in Indonesia, as well as a reduced withholding tax rate on bond interest, foreigners taxation and VAT treatment. during the pre-production period.

Indonesia introduced Government Regulation 9 of 2021 (GR 9/2021) and its implementing regulation under Regulation 18 0f 2021 of the Ministry of Finance (PMK 18/2021) in February 2021 which amends the Law on country’s income tax and value added tax. law (VAT).

The two regulations aim to offer income tax relaxation and a more business-friendly approach to VAT, among other things, as the government continues to reform the tax system to make it easier to do business in Indonesia.

These regulations are part of some 76 amended regulations initiated by Indonesia’s Omnibus Law, which represents the first time in the country’s legal history where such significant changes have been made through a single legal instrument.

Tax under Indonesian omnibus law

Criteria for national tax matters

Under the old Indonesian income tax law, a natural person is considered to be liable for national tax if he has been present in the country for more than 183 days during a period of 12 months, or if he intends to stay in Indonesia.

PMK 18/2021 provided further clarification on the definition of “reside in Indonesia” and “intention to stay in Indonesia”.

“Reside in Indonesia” is defined as a person who:

  • Lives in a place of residence in Indonesia which is available to them and accessible at all times, which they own, rent and is not a place of transit;
  • Have their vital interests in Indonesia;
  • Have their habitual residence in Indonesia.

An “intention to stay in Indonesia” must be justified by the following documents:

  • A permanent residence permit;
  • A limited stay visa;
  • A limited residence permit; Where
  • Other documents justifying their stay of more than 183 days in Indonesia.

Territorial taxation for foreigners

Foreigners who have become subject to national tax will only be taxed on Indonesian source income. This is only applicable if they meet the expertise requirements of Annex II of PMK-18.

Their expertise must however be supported by:

  • A certificate issued by an institution authorized by the government, or have a minimum of five years of work experience in the field of science, technology and mathematics; and
  • An obligation to transfer knowledge to an Indonesian citizen.

Territorial tax treatment is available for four years of residence. If the foreign natural person leaves Indonesia and re-enters Indonesia within the four-year period, territorial taxation will start from the moment they first become subject to national tax.

Foreigners wishing to benefit from the territorial tax regime must do so through the Directorate General of Taxes (DGS). Those who were already subject to national tax before the issuance of the PMK-18/2021 can also apply to the DGS for this tax treatment. If approved, territorial taxation will start from November 2, 2020.

Dividends and offshore income exempt from income tax

To increase investment in Indonesia’s financial markets and real estate sector, the government has granted income tax exemptions for foreign dividends received by domestic taxpayers. Reinvestment requirements are not required for domestic dividends received by domestic corporate taxpayers.

Such concessions will require reinvestment for a period of time from receipt of the dividend. PMK-18/2021 provides details on these reinvestment requirements:

Eligible reinvestments are as follows:

  • Investment in financial market instruments such as:
  • State bonds, including Sharia instruments;
  • Bonds or sukuk issued by state enterprise, private enterprises;
  • Financial investments in collecting banks, including Sharia banks; Where
  • Other legal forms of investments.

Investments in financial instruments outside the money market include:

  • Investment in the real sector;
  • Investment in infrastructure through a public-private partnership;
  • Equity cooperation in an already existing company domiciled in Indonesia;
  • Cooperation with the Indonesian Sovereign Fund; Where
  • Loans to small and medium enterprises in Indonesia.

The investment must be held for at least three years from receipt of the dividend or offshore income. The taxpayer must also invest dividends or offshore income in qualifying investments before the end of the third or fourth month following the end of the tax year. Finally, the investment can only be transferred to another eligible investment.

If the reinvestment requirement provides for a threshold of 30%, the taxpayer can benefit from the total exemption if this threshold is reached. However, if the reinvestment is below the 30 percent threshold, the taxpayer must pay income tax on the difference between the amount of the investment and the 30 percent threshold to qualify for the exemption.

Investors should note that the exemption does not apply to foreign citizens who use the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTA) between Indonesia and the partner country / jurisdiction of the DTA.

Reduced withholding tax on bond interest

As part of GR 9/2021, the government reduced the withholding tax rate (WHT) for bond interest paid to non-residents from 20% to 10%.

This reduced rate applies to all types of income assimilated to bond interest, which includes capital gains and has been effective since August 2, 2021.

Value added tax under the Omnibus law

VAT during the pre-production period

Before the Omnibus Law, if an entity subject to VAT had not passed the pre-production stage (had not exported or delivered goods or services subject to VAT) for a certain period, then the entity is deemed to have failed to produce any “input VAT” which has already been credited and therefore can no longer be claimed.

PMK-18/2021 emphasizes this point and that an entity subject to VAT is considered not to have made a delivery if it has not exported or delivered services or goods subject to VAT. Deliveries made for the entity’s own use, or as a gift to customers, or deliveries from a head office or branch, are not considered deliveries for the purposes of assessing whether an entity has passed the stage of pre-production.

The pre-production stage is typically three years, which is extended for manufacturing and enterprise sectors under national strategic projects to five or six years, respectively.

About Us

ASEAN Briefing is produced by Dezan Shira & Associates. The firm assists foreign investors throughout Asia and has offices throughout ASEAN including Singapore, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang in Vietnam, Munich and Esen in Germany, Boston and Salt Lake City in the United States, Milan, Conegliano and Udine in Italy, in addition to Jakarta, and Batam in Indonesia. We also have partner firms in Malaysia, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Thailand as well as our practices in China and India. Please contact us at asia@dezshira.com or visit our website at www.dezshira.com.

https://atlantic-storm.org/what-are-the-changes-to-the-tax-treatment-under-general-indonesian-law/feed/ 0