{"id":18455,"date":"2012-12-04T05:33:38","date_gmt":"2012-12-04T05:33:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=18455"},"modified":"2012-12-04T05:33:38","modified_gmt":"2012-12-04T05:33:38","slug":"the-imfs-recognition-of-the-importance-of-capital-controls-is-a-vital-step-in-the-tackling-of-tax-havens","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2012\/12\/04\/the-imfs-recognition-of-the-importance-of-capital-controls-is-a-vital-step-in-the-tackling-of-tax-havens\/","title":{"rendered":"The IMF’s recognition of the importance of capital controls is a vital step in the tackling of tax havens"},"content":{"rendered":"

The idea that capital has free movement to roam where it will has been at the heart\u00a0of\u00a0the neoliberal project. It did not have that right until 1979 in the UK and 1980 in the UYSA. We had capital controls <\/a>until Thatcher and Reagan removed them in those years.<\/p>\n

The rise of tax havens can be dated from that moment. Those two\u00a0politicians\u00a0liberated the owners of\u00a0capital\u00a0to hide their wealth from tax authorities the world over. The aim was deliberate. It was to let that capital accumulate tax free so that the wealth disparity between those who owned\u00a0capital\u00a0and the rest\u00a0of\u00a0the population would increase.\u00a0Controls\u00a0on migration, both legal and social, ensured labour could never move in the way\u00a0capital\u00a0could. The result was inevitable. Inequality increased. That was not by chance. It was by design.<\/p>\n

There was a second\u00a0consequence. Global economic instability increased. You're living through that consequence now. You hear of it every day.\u00a0Every\u00a0time it is suggested we should tackle the wealthy or large\u00a0corporations\u00a0the question is raised \"what if they leave?\". That blackmail was also created, deliberately, by the abolition of capital controls. The tax havens were created (and let's be clear, they are a creation, not a natural phenomenon) to facilitate that bribe.<\/p>\n

Now this is changing\u00a0(according to the FT):<\/a><\/p>\n

The\u00a0International Monetary Fund<\/a>\u00a0has cemented a substantial ideological shift by accepting the use of direct controls to calm volatile cross-border capital flows, as employed by emerging market countries in recent years.<\/p>\n

Although the fund continued to warn that such controls should be \u201ctargeted, transparent, and generally temporary\u201d, the policy, announced in a\u00a0staff paper<\/a>\u00a0released on Monday, is a sharp change from the fund\u2019s enthusiasm for liberalising capital accounts during the 1990s.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0I warmly welcome this move. It is vital. It gives countries back control of their economies and currency. It reasserts democratic control. It ensures the rights of capital are constrained\u00a0vis a vis labour. It ensures that real\u00a0attempts\u00a0to reduce inequality can be undertaken. It means sanctions can be imposed on tax havens.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
I do not suggest the IMF is solving all problems overnight: it is not. But this is a welcome step in the right direction. The ideology of neoliberalism has brought us to our knees. Tackling it is vital if we are to create a new and\u00a0sustainable\u00a0prosperity. Permitting capital controls is one small step on the way.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The idea that capital has free movement to roam where it will has been at the heart\u00a0of\u00a0the neoliberal project. It did not have that right
 Read the full article…<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18455","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}