Wednesday, July 30, 2014
  Search 
Home
Opportunities
Partners
Publications
About Us
 
 
Please enter your email here, we would like to keep you informed.
 
 
Connect With Us - Facebook RSS
<July 2014>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031
Sections
Liberty In The News
Liberty Events
Conference Proceedings
Culture
Agriculture
Democracy
Development is the Key
Economic Freedom
Education for Life
Enterpreneurship
Environment
Freedom of Expression
Freedom to Trade
Globalization for the Good
Health is Wealth
Intellectual Property Rights
International Relations
Liberty is Security
Limited Government
Principles of Politics
Privatisation
Population - the ultimate resource
Property Rights
Regulatory Affairs
Rule of Law
Tax Freedom
Facts & Figures
Opportunities
Competitions
 Rule of Law
 
Amnesty for black money
The Indian Express, India Thursday, January 27, 2011

Bibek Debroy
There have been amnesty schemes in the past, such as the one in 1997. Those were about domestic black money. They didn’t bring in much in terms of disclosed income. There were two reasons for that. First, there was never finality about amnesty schemes. There is a difference between information on account-holders being available to the government and that information being placed in the public domain. The attitude of the Indian Government shows that it is not serious and has something to hide, writes Bibek Debroy in The Indian Express.

Does FM’s statement about an amnesty scheme for black money ring true? There have been amnesty schemes in the past, such as the one in 1997. Those were about domestic black money. They didn’t bring in much in terms of disclosed income. There were two reasons for that. First, there was never finality about amnesty schemes. One could wait for the future one.

This is despite every such scheme announcing that it would be the last such. Second, there are reasons for black money generation. If those reasons are not eliminated, what is the incentive? Partly because of the Global Financial Integrity (GFI) report and partly because of other leaks that have surfaced (Wiki-Leaks is only one), the thrust has shifted towards the global part.

...

Of the 70 double tax avoidance agreements, 74 do not have provisions for the exchange of banking information. Nor have we signed tax information exchange agreements with countries known to be tax havens.

FM has told us a multi-disciplinary committee to estimate black money abroad. That’s neither here, nor there. The last good estimate of black money in India was done by NIPFP, way back in 1984-85.

...

Its figures, high though they are, are really of gross outflows, not net outflows. Having said this, there is a difference between information on account-holders being available to the government and that information being placed in the public domain.

OECD norms require the former, not the latter. FM is probably right that placing this information in the public domain will hinder further negotiations and re-negotiations of agreements. But that argument would have been more convincing had we pushed more seriously for these agreement. We have known about the German leak (through LGT) for 2 years. What has been done in the last 2 years, with the Swiss, or with other countries? 

Contrast this with the American reaction. It is this that bolsters the feeling that the government is not very serious and has something to hide.

 

This article was published in the The Indian Express on Thursday, January 27, 2011. Please read the original article here.
Author : Mr Debroy is a noted economist, based in New Delhi.
Tags- Find more articles on - government | India | OECD

Post your Comments on this Article

Name  
Email    
Comment  
Comments will be moderated

More Related Articles
Rule of Law
More Articles


 
An Initiative of
LIBERTY INSTITUTE, INDIA
All rights reserved.