
Trump remittance tax to hit Africans hard
Representative AI image
For Enoch Aikins, a political economist who focuses on Africa, the topic of sending money home to relatives is personal.
"I can use myself as an example, as somebody that comes from a typical village with a lot of people or [with] a family that depends on me," he told DW.
A researcher with the Institute of Security Studies now based in Pretoria, South Africa, Aikins grew up in the small town of Agona Kwanyako, about 70 kilometers (some 43 miles) from the Ghanaian capital, Accra.
His job means he can provide a vital source of income for many in his family back home in Ghana, whether it be for his mother's medical bills or for his cousins' education.
"Anytime there's a family problem, they call me and I have to quickly find a way to send money to them to solve an emergency crisis," he said.
"Mostly it is household expenses, things like food, accommodation, school fees or to cover medical expenses."
A global impact
Aikins is one of many millions of Africans across the continent and around the world who send remittances, which are financial transfers to their home country or region.
The importance of these financial transfers has come into sharp focus as a result of the recent tax bill from US President Donald Trump, passed on May 22 by the House of Representatives.
The measure includes a 3.5% tax on remittances made by anyone who is not a US citizen or national. The original plan was for the tax to be 5% but it was lowered before the vote.
The bill has led to fierce criticism across Latin America, where it is likely to severely hurt poor migrants from Mexico, Central and South America.
Africans will also be significantly affected, according to Aikins. "We cannot tell them how to go about their fiscal business, but this is going to have a huge impact on African economies."
World Bank data shows that remittance flows into Africa were more than $92 billion (€81 billion) in 2024, with the United States alone accounting for at least $12 billion in that year.
According to World Bank, the US is also the largest origin country for all remittances in the world, accounting for more than $656 billion in 2023.
Monica de Bolle, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC, said, however, here is a lack of reliable data on remittances because so much is not sent via recorded transactions.
"People have different arrangements for sending money back home," she told DW. "Sometimes it's as official as a family member comes and visits and then they get a wad of cash and they go back home with that. And those kinds of transactions are simply unaccounted for."
N
onetheless, whatever data is available, she argued, underlines the importance of the US as a source of remittances for Africa and much of the Americas.
How important are remittances for Africa?
Remittances are important across Africa for three key reasons. Firstly, they represent a major chunk of income for many of the continent's economies, many of which are among the world's poorest.
Recent data suggests annual remittances now outweigh both aid and foreign direct investment (FDI) as income flows into the continent.
Aikins said remittances are the "largest external financial flow into Africa" at the moment.
"There are no bottlenecks or administrative issues that, for instance, if you are giving aid of about $100 million to an African country or an institution, more than half is gone on administration before it reaches people," he added.
Then there's the fact that it's typically lower-income groups that are most reliant on remittances from relatives or friends working abroad.
"It's extremely damaging," said Monica de Bolle.
"A lot of the time, these flows are coming from low-income folks in the United States to their home countries and their families who are also not well off."
Some African countries will be hit harder than others. While the continent's big economies, such as Egypt, Nigeria, and Morocco, account for the highest total level of remittances from abroad, some economies are especially dependent, according to Aikins.
World Bank data shows that remittances received as a percentage of GDP is around 20% for Lesotho, Comoros, Somalia, Gambia, and Liberia.
'Taking money out of people's pockets'
De Bolle is critical of the remittance levy and thinks migrants will find ways of avoiding the tax. "People who are sending money back home, if they were using official channels to do this, they're now going to try to use unofficial channels to do it because they will want to evade the tax."
She points out that taxation of remittances is rare globally and thinks the policy is part of the Trump administration's campaign against illegal migration.
"The effect will be squeezing the migrants, squeezing the people who are currently living in the United States, shutting off mechanisms by which not only they sustain themselves, but they sustain their family members," said Bolle.
"Bottom line is that remittances are a pocketbook issue. You are taking money out of people's pockets."
Aikins' remittances won't be taxed, as they are not coming from the US. Yet he can clearly imagine the real-life consequences for someone in a village like the one he grew up in who is dependent on a relative sending money from the US.
When he gets a request for money, it's needed quickly, and he thinks migrants will turn increasingly to cryptocurrency and other off-grid methods to send the money where it needs to go.
"The tax is going to have a tremendous effect on how people send money to their dependents back home."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


First Post
6 hours ago
- First Post
World Bank's $40 Billion for Pakistan: Aid or Terror Financing?
World Bank's $40 Billion for Pakistan: Aid or Terror Financing? | Vantage with Palki Sharma World Bank's $40 Billion for Pakistan: Aid or Terror Financing? | Vantage with Palki Sharma The World Bank has unveiled a $40 billion investment plan for Pakistan, calling it a 'country partnership framework.' This comes just months after Pakistan-backed terrorists killed 26 civilians in India. Despite Pakistan's collapsing economy and soaring defence spending, global institutions like the IMF and World Bank continue to funnel funds into Islamabad. Critics warn this isn't just aid—it's indirect financing of terrorism. With ministers seen alongside known extremists, and the military expanding its grip, where does this money really go? Palki Sharma tells you more. See More


Mint
11 hours ago
- Mint
Kaushik Basu: Redefine prosperity; GDP tunnel-vision could prove costly
In mainstream economics, description is routinely treated as secondary to analysis. Labelling a work as 'purely descriptive' conveys dismissiveness. Yet, as Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen observed in a seminal 1980 paper, every act of description involves choices. Whether we are describing a historical event, an individual or a country, what we choose to include and what we leave out can be critical. Description shapes perception. And perception, in turn, can profoundly influence behaviour. Describing the state of a country's economy is a complicated task. In the past, scholars wrote lengthy volumes debating whether one country was doing better than another. But over time, globally, a single measure has come to dominate the conversation: gross domestic product, or GDP for short, which represents the value of all goods and services produced within a country in a given year. With some adjustments, it also approximates the population's total income. It is an astonishingly concise metric, often used as shorthand for economic well-being. Also Read: It's time to lay the great Indian GDP controversy to rest As Diane Coyle noted in her 2014 book on the history of GDP, its emergence marked a watershed moment in economic policymaking. Developed by Simon Kuznets in the early 1930s, GDP has brought much-needed rigour to policy debates. Politicians could no longer simply point to tall buildings as evidence of progress (though many still do). Today, assessing a country's economic performance over time means tracking the growth of its GDP. To be sure, there are other ways to assess national well-being, such as the United Nations Human Development Index and the World Bank's shared prosperity indicator. But when it comes to determining whether one economy is outperforming another, GDP (or GDP per capita) remains the default benchmark. While GDP has undoubtedly played a valuable role in modern economics, its limitations are increasingly difficult to ignore. Over time, it has become an end in itself, enabling politicians to use growth figures as a convenient distraction from persistent social and economic fractures. Growing unease with GDP-centric policy thinking was powerfully articulated in UN Secretary-General António Guterres's 2021 report Our Common Agenda, which urged global policymakers to embrace a broader set of progress indicators. Also Read: Statistical dust-up: The great Indian GDP controversy needn't have arisen As an economic indicator, GDP has three key weaknesses. First, by focusing solely on a country's total income, it can create the illusion of widespread prosperity, even when inequality is rising. GDP per capita can rise even as a majority becomes worse off. As Joseph E. Stiglitz put it in his 2010 book Freefall, 'A larger pie does not mean everyone–or even most people–gets a larger slice." But most people may celebrate GDP growth nonetheless—much like they cheer their country's Olympic medal count—without questioning who actually benefits. This concern was highlighted by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, which was established in 2008 by then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy and included Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and other prominent economists. Its final report called for incorporating measures like income distribution and inequality into GDP. The second weakness of GDP is that its maximization often rewards activities that undermine democratic governance. Being super-rich, after all, involves more than just owning more cars, mansions, planes and yachts. Extreme wealth, especially in the age of social media and AI, also means having a louder voice and disproportionate influence over how people think. In traditional societies, when a feudal lord entered a village council meeting, ordinary people who may have been arguing and pleading for change just moments earlier would fall silent. That same dynamic is now playing out on a global scale. Also Read: The state of India's economy is not as bright as GDP data may suggest As wealth becomes concentrated in fewer hands, and as a handful of online platforms shape what billions of internet users see and hear, many are discovering that they are losing their voice—the most essential instrument of democracy. Clearly, the time has come to develop new measures of national progress that do not strengthen the forces threatening democracy. As US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously warned, 'We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Lastly, GDP can be inflated at the expense of future generations. We can and do boost GDP growth by engaging in activities that damage the environment and accelerate climate change, leaving our descendants with a scorched earth. Given this, merely acknowledging the urgency of climate action is no longer enough. To ensure a sustainable future, we must reform our most prominent measure of economic welfare so that sustainability is central to how we define prosperity. ©2025/Project Syndicate The author is a professor of economics at Cornell University and a former chief economic adviser to the Government of India.


Hans India
17 hours ago
- Hans India
Despite GDP growth, India's per capita income abysmally low
According to the World Economic Outlook report released by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), India's GDP is $4,187.017 billion ($4 trillion), surpassing Japan's $4,186.431 billion. By 2028, India is expected to push its GDP to $5,584.476 billion to overtake Germany. China is the second-largest economy at $19,231.705 billion, while the US tops the list with a GDP of $30,507.217 billion. Experts say this is not only a story of India's ascent but also of Japan's decline. In 2010, Japan had an economy of nearly $6 trillion, which has now shrunk to nearly $4.18 trillion, due to an aging population, stagnant productivity and long-running deflation. India, on the other hand, has doubled its nominal GDP in a decade to emerge as the fastest-growing economy. Experts have also pointed out that India's per capita GDP is equivalent to Japan's in 1950s. Considering Japan stagnates, India would need 22 years to reach their level of per capita GDP. India's growing GDP is significant because it indicates overall economic health and improvement in the quality of life for its citizens. A larger GDP generally translates to more job opportunities, higher incomes, and improved access to goods and services. Additionally, GDP growth influences policymaking, strengthens macroeconomic resilience, and boosts India's global standing. The Indian economy continues to grow at a healthy pace despite challenging global conditions, according to World Bank's latest India Development Update. But to reach its $1 trillion merchandise exports goal by 2030, India needs to diversify its export basket and leverage global value chains. India's per capita GDP in 2025 is around $2,400, which is below countries like Kenya, Morocco, Libya, Mauritius and South Africa. India can boost its growth further by harnessing its global trade potential. In addition to IT, business services and pharma where it excels, India can diversify its export basket with increased exports in textiles, apparel, and footwear sectors, as well as electronics and green technology products. To realize its ambition of becoming a developed nation by 2047, India must achieve an annual growth rate of 8 percent or more. Meeting this goal will require the government to implement comprehensive economic reforms to capitalize on geopolitical convergence, an approach Indian leadership seems hesitant to adopt. Economists project India's economic growth to average around 6.5 percent over the next few years, making it likely to maintain its status as the fastest-growing major economy globally, especially as China's economic expansion slows down due to both internal and external factors. While reaching an 8 percent growth rate seems unlikely, it is also improbable for growth to dip below 6 percent. Indian citizens are demanding reforms and policies that will boost GDP per capita by improving wages for India's working class. Here are four ways that India could potentially boost its GDP per capita. In India, 40% of the population works in agriculture and small-scale farming supports many poverty-level communities. The recently introduced 2020 Farm Acts will allow farmers to sell their products to the highest bidder, allowing them to seek higher incomes. When farmers are prospering, they support other sectors of India's economy through their own consumption. Products like fertilizer, working attire and tools are necessary for farmers, especially as they expand their business. This increase in expenditure directly creates jobs for others. This year, incomes have declined for Indian citizens, meaning private consumption has also decreased. By spending money on building and repairing roads and bridges, the government will provide citizens with greater ease and efficiency in their work and create jobs in construction. Furthermore, by using more funds to pay higher salaries, private consumption will once again increase, promoting higher business investment and improving the market for imports and exports. Urbanization drives economic growth, and moving some of these farmers to cities would allow them to get jobs in manufacturing. Not only would this increase agricultural productivity by decreasing the number of farmers using the same amount of land, but it would help grow some of India's medium-sized cities into more prominent urban landscapes. In addition, new urban populations would create a resurgence of the housing market and give banks more lending opportunities. India has the opportunity to create as much as $1 trillion in economic value by establishing itself as a competitive manufacturer of electronics, chemicals, textiles, auto goods and pharmaceuticals. Currently, the country's imports constitute a greater percentage of global trade than its exports. By increasing competitiveness in these sectors, India would not only increase its potential for exports but also decrease its reliance on imports, curbing the amount of money spent by citizens on foreign products.