
Argentina's Milei unveils bold plan to lure billions in undeclared dollars back home
By eliminating tax reporting requirements, the plan invites savers — who long have swapped their depreciating pesos for American currency in the country's underground market — to spend unreported dollars on everyday transactions at home. The government won't ask questions regarding the source of the repatriated funds, officials promised.
'Your dollars, your decision. What's yours is yours, not the state's,' Milei's presidential spokesperson, Manuel Adorni, said in a press conference announcing the policies. 'You can use them however you want, without having to prove where you got them from.'
Milei — who ran on a controversial campaign pledge to 'dollarize' Argentina's troubled economy — wants a new gush of greenbacks to boost the volume of U.S. dollars in circulation.
Although Argentina's depleted currency reserves sent Milei backpedaling from his initial campaign trail-fervor for 'burning down' the central bank and adopting the U.S. dollar as the national currency, these latest measures seek to hasten the country's transition to a new currency system that would see dollars gradually replacing pesos.
Milei's 'endogenous dollarization' scheme would involve fixing the supply of the local currency even as Argentines could use dollars or pesos. He hopes this would encourage Argentines to use their dollar-denominated savings to buy houses and cars as the economy grows and more cash is needed in circulation.
To lay the groundwork, Milei's government last year imposed a generous tax amnesty for Argentines willing to repatriate capital. In April, it lifted most currency controls as part of a $20 billion bail-out deal with the International Monetary Fund, which conditions its support on the government boosting its scarce foreign reserves.
'You can spend those dollars without anyone bothering you. So, you go, you want to buy, I don't know, a house for $200,000, no one has to ask you anything,' Milei told the TV channel of Argentine newspaper La Nacion in an interview Monday.
Over decades of financial turmoil, Argentines have come to depend on U.S. dollars to evade a byzantine system of currency controls, hedge against hyperinflation and protect their nest eggs from government freezes, as has happened several times in the country's recent history, such as during the catastrophic 2001 foreign-debt default.
'This is how we reached a catastrophic outcome in which 50% of our economy ended up being informal, and the state, like Big Brother, controlled all of its citizens' transactions, as if they were criminals deserving of punishment,' Adorni said.
Argentina's official statistics agency estimates that, as of late 2024, Argentine households and firms held more than $270 billion outside their financial system, largely denominated in U.S. currency. While most of the billions are in foreign bank accounts, a significant amount of cash is also stuffed under mattresses and floorboards and in rented safety deposit boxes in underground vaults across the country.
'Those who do this are not criminals,' Economy Minister Luis Caputo said Thursday. 'They are the vast majority of Argentines who have been abused by excessive taxes and controls.
To encourage Argentines to spend their repatriated funds, the new measures scrap strict requirements for businesses and credit card providers to report citizens' purchases to ARCA, Argentina's equivalent of the IRS. They relax strict tax evasion rules so property buyers and public notaries won't need to report transactions. Banks won't be able to request access to clients' tax records.
'It sounds like an invitation not to pay taxes,' said Ignacio Labaqui, a Buenos Aires-based senior analyst at advisory firm Medley Global Advisors.
That raises concerns about an injection of potentially dirty funds, some of which could be the product of illegal activity. Asked about the danger created by the new fiscal incentives, the IMF sounded a cautious note.
'The authorities have committed to strengthening financial transparency,' said Julie Kozack, an IMF spokesperson. 'Any new measures, including those that may be aimed at encouraging the use of undeclared assets, should be, of course, consistent with these important commitments.'
___
Hashtags

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


Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Why those born in the 1990s could face a state pension age of 74... here's how to protect yourself
Sticking with raising the state pension according to the popular 'triple lock' while keeping the bill affordable could be bad news for people in their 30s and younger. A high profile think tank report last week included a reminder about government modelling on how to limit public spending on the state pension to below 6 per cent of national income, To achieve this AND retain the triple lock guarantee - by which payments are increased by at least 2.5 per cent a year - the state pension age would have to rise to 69 by 2048–49, and then jump to 74 by 2068–69. The new pension review from the Institute for Fiscal Studies called on the Government to promise to never means-test the state pension. It's view is that the state pension age should only rise as longevity at older ages rises, but by less than that - meaning the average time spent receiving the state pension would increase. So how likely are drastic state pension age rises, and how do you protect your savings and get them on the path to a comfortable retirement. Savings plan: Opting out of pensions when you're young has an outsize impact on your eventual fund, because you miss out on compound growth - scroll down to find out more What are current plans for raising the state pension age? The state pension is currently almost £12,000 a year if you have paid enough in to receive the full amount. The qualifying age is 66, and between 2026 and 2028 it will rise to 67 - but the next rise to 68 is still up in the air. Officially, it is not scheduled until the mid 2040s, which would affect those born on or after April 1977. The Government is required by law to review the state pension age periodically. However, the last two reports in 2017 and 2023 recommended speeding up the increase to 68 - and then went ignored. The next review isn't due until spring 2029, but Labour might take as little notice of any findings as the Tories. Denmark's government recently moved to hike its retirement age to 70 by 2040, reigniting the debate about what might happen here. Money experts pointed out raising the state pension age was going to carry on being a political hot potato, and future changes would have to be carried out with care. One noted that raising the state pension age risks hitting those most dependent on it the hardest. Meanwhile, the minimum pension age for accessing workplace and other private retirement savings is due to rise from 55 to 57 from April 2028. Governments have in the past tended to keep the state pension and private pension ages roughly 10 years apart, so any future increases could well continue to happen in tandem. What does the IFS say about the state pension age? In its influential new pensions report, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said the state pension age should be linked to rises in longevity. But it suggested that the qualifying age is raised by less than that, so the average time people receive the payments for would go up. It notes that longevity at older ages during the late 20th century and early 21st century increased dramatically. It adds: 'Increasing the state pension age is a reasonable way for a government to control the increased public finance pressures arising from rising longevity at older ages. 'Our modelling shows that increasing the state pension age by one year would save the exchequer around £6billion per year.' But it points out the 'different distributional effect' of using age rises to control the rising cost of the state pension. 'Retaining the triple lock while raising the state pension age would hit poorer people more because the loss of a year of state pension income is more important for those with lower life expectancy (which poorer people tend to have), as they spend fewer years above the state pension age. 'On the other hand, those with a higher life expectancy benefit relatively more from the triple lock, as they are more likely to be receiving a generously indexed state pension in their 90s and beyond.' The IFS says its stance of only raising the state pension age as longevity at older ages rises leaves room to prioritise increasing, or holding down, the state pension age to different extents. It is also consistent with keeping the ratio of adult life spent above the state pension age constant, it says. 'The current government should clearly set out a plan for when we will get to a state pension age of 68 – and specifically whether this should be brought forward. 'This is particularly timely and important now, as both independent reviews of the state pension age have sensibly recommended that any changes to the state pension age be communicated to people at least 10 years in advance. 'The government should promptly conduct a new review of the state pension age, using the latest projections of longevity, and make a swift decision on when (not if) these increases should come in.' Looking ahead: Don't opt out of pensions unless you are suffering serious hardship, despite other financial pressures and priorities In your 30s or younger? What should you do to plan ahead Auto enrolment means younger workers are nudged into saving minimum amounts towards retirement, which should generate a fund that combined with the state pension provides an adequate but not luxurious lifestyle. It's important not to opt out unless you are suffering serious hardship, despite other pressures and priorities like buying a property and starting a family. This is not just because you are harming your future finances, but delaying or pausing pension contributions while you are young has an outsize impact on your eventual retirement fund. The stark reality was shown in a recent study by Standard Life, which found putting off starting a pension for five years in your 20s can create a £40,000 hole in your savings - see below. That is because you miss out on the power of compound growth, which is hugely beneficial if you start young because it has more time to work. Compound growth means because any investment return stays in your pot, you then make a return on that higher amount, and then a return on that even larger sum, and so on over and again. You might start with a small contribution to a pension, but making returns on your returns will still have an exponential effect in the longer run. How much delaying pension saving can cost you Under auto enrolment, the minimum contribution is 8 per cent of your earnings that fall between £6,240 and £50,270. But this is split three ways, with you putting in 4 per cent, your employer contributing 3 per cent, and the Government adding 1 per cent in tax relief. If you put in more, many employers will increase their contributions too. Dean Butler of Standard Life offers the following tips to young people on saving a decent pension. 1. Make sure you're taking advantage of all the benefits of your pension plan and of the support offered by your employer - a higher contribution matching scheme, for example. 2. If you get a bonus, receive overtime pay, get a pay rise or have a little extra savings, think about paying more into your pension. 3. Keep an eye on your investments, and the returns they're giving you. Higher-risk investments potentially see more growth over the long term, but their value might be more volatile. In your 20s, you might feel happier with some higher-risk investment, as your pension has more time to potentially recover from dips in the market – but this won't be right for everyone.


BBC News
37 minutes ago
- BBC News
Sheffield City Council 'grappling' with £70m budget shortfall
Sheffield City Council says it is "grappling with significant financial challenges" as it forecasts a budget gap of £70m over the next four years.A council report said the shortfall was in part due to continued pressure on high-demand services such as social care and the "situation remains tough".It comes on top of a series of recent financial challenges due to rising costs and reduced funding, which resulted in an overspend of £34.7m for report said: "The current overspends relate to ongoing pressures in key areas including persistent demand and cost pressures in social care, growing needs in special educational needs and home-to-school transport, and an unprecedented surge in homelessness." The report adds: "The council has been able to mitigate these issues in previous financial years using one-off funding and reserves however, these are not long-term solutions for financial sustainability."According to the report education, children and families overspent by £16.6m, including an extra £6m in home to school transport, due to the increased demand, with over 1,000 more children being transported to/from school than homelessness support went £11.7m over budget. The report said: "The government does not fully subsidise all housing benefit payments made by the council, even though it sets the rules that determine the amount the council has to pay."In 2023-24, the council incurred a loss of £4.9m as a result of the legislation relating to temporary homelessness and £3.5m relating to supported accommodation."The council is essentially bridging the gap between the cost of the accommodation and the amount we are able to recover via housing benefits."Councillors will discuss the report at a meeting on Thursday, 10th July. Listen to highlights from South Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North

Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Wrexham MP compares UK parental leave to European countries
MP for Wrexham Last week the UK Government announced a long-awaited review into the pay and leave that new parents can get after the birth of a child. The system has not been reviewed for years and in that time, peoples' working habits and families have changed. The Women and Equalities Committee recently reported that the UK's parental leave system was "one of the worst in the developed world" with "fundamental flaws". According to the campaign group The Dad Shift, one in three fathers take no paternity leave at all (paternity leave is currently 2 weeks in the UK) and despite shared parental leave being available, UK Government data shows that it is rarely taken. The UK system is also confusing to navigate with eight different types of parental leave available. Statutory maternity pay is less than half of the weekly National Living Wage for example. There are some interesting comparisons and approaches across Europe. In Spain for example, fathers can have 16 weeks at full pay, including for those who are self-employed. There is no cap on the salary paid. It means parental leave is now equal between parents in Spain. In Denmark, fathers including those who are self-employed, can take up to 24 weeks off work at full pay supported by the state. After eleven weeks, the remaining 13 weeks can be transferred to the birth partner to be used as extra maternity leave. Parents also have the option to postpone up to 13 weeks of parental leave until their child is aged nine. Research by the Centre for Progressive Policy found that there was a 4% decrease in the gender wage gap in countries with more than 6 weeks of paid paternity leave. Furthermore only 18% of people they surveyed felt that 2 weeks of paternity pay in the UK was enough. So, there is plenty to work on and to consider. The review is expected to take 18months. If you would like to raise anything with me about this issue or any other, please contact my office on 01978 788854 or email