In line with his campaign promises, President Trump announced new tariffs (customs duty or taxes on imports) more than a week ago – 25% on Mexico and Canada and 10% on imports from China. While China had anticipated such measures, Mexico and Canada had hoped they would be avoided due to the deep economic integration of North America. However, once the executive order was issued under the "Ameri
Privatisation is in vogue. Political leaders, commercial and investment bankers, and international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) deem it a magical panacea, especially for ailing, less developed economies. But is it really a panacea? Does it make sense for poor, developing countries to divest vital and sometimes strategic national assets? In examining these
Taxes are indispensable for the functioning of a state as it provides essential services and acts as a source of provision of necessary public goods. State power also manifests itself through taxes. Therefore, the state should extract and collect taxes from all social classes. However, it is relative easier to collect taxes from the masses while powerful lobbies and groups get away with them.
An unpredictable, whimsical and disruptive tariffs policy of US President Donald Trump could be counterproductive for US consumers and its geopolitical and geostrategic interests as unpredictability spawns uncertainty, which stymies investment and hiring. According to The Economist, Trump announced and then postponed 25% punitive tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico. The US president was usi
Yes, although not fully implemented except during the tenure of former Finance Minister Miftah Ismail, there are strong reasons to believe that reducing taxes on salaried individuals could generate enough political support to tilt election outcomes in favour of policymakers. Ultimately, isn't that what they aim for? Last week, India's Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, unveiled the country's