Remitting Money to India Could Cost NRI's ₹30,000 More
NEW DELHI, Jun 13: Remittances have long served as a cornerstone of India's economy, regularly offsetting nearly half of the country's merchandise trade deficit. More stable than foreign direct investment (FDI), these cross-border financial flows have consistently outpaced FDI inflows, making them one of the most reliable sources of external funding for India.
According to World Bank estimates, Indian expatriates remitted a record $119 billion in 2023. The United States remained the single largest source, contributing 27.7% of India's total remittances in FY24, approximately $33 billion.
However, a newly proposed U.S. tax on remittances threatens to disrupt this critical pipeline. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would impose a 3.5% tax on all foreign money transfers by non-citizens. This category includes H-1B and L-1 visa holders, international students on F-1/J-1 visas, green card applicants, and other temporary residents. If approved by the Senate, the tax will take effect on January 1, 2026.
'US-based Indians sent $33 billion back home in FY24. But from 2026, every dollar may attract an extra 3.5% remittance tax,' noted TaxBuddy, an income tax and e-filing platform.
A Costly Change for Indian Households
The financial implications for Indian-origin residents in the U.S. are significant. Under the proposed tax, $3.50 would be deducted for every $100 remitted. A typical transfer of $10,000 would result in a $350 loss—funds that would otherwise go toward education, medical expenses, housing, or savings for families in India.
While the measure is intended to help reduce the U.S. fiscal deficit, its economic aftershocks could be felt across borders. The estimated Rs 2.75 lakh crore ($33 billion) in annual remittances from the U.S. could translate into nearly Rs 10,000 crore in new tax revenues for Washington, but at a considerable cost to Indian senders and recipients.
India's Economy at Risk
If enacted, the tax could reshape India's remittance economy, especially as over 5 million Indian immigrants in the U.S. stand to be affected. These individuals are among the highest-earning NRI (Non-Resident Indian) groups and play a crucial role in driving consumer spending, NRE (Non-Resident External) deposit growth, and India's foreign exchange reserves.
To illustrate the personal cost: if an individual sends Rs 1 lakh to India after 2026, only Rs 96,500 would be received—the remainder deducted as tax by the U.S. government. This figure excludes additional transaction or banking fees.
Experts estimate that the proposed tax could lead to a $1.16 billion drop in annual remittances from the U.S., triggering a twofold multiplier effect and an indirect economic impact of nearly Rs 19,886 crore on sectors such as real estate, banking, and retail.
What Can NRIs Do Now?
Although the bill has yet to pass the Senate, Indian expatriates still have time to prepare. Key considerations include:
Remit early: Transfers made before January 1, 2026, will not be subject to the new tax.
Monitor legislative progress: The Senate is expected to take up the bill during the June–July 2025 session.
Look for exemptions: It remains unclear whether remittances for education, medical expenses, or salary transfers will be exempt. Further guidance is anticipated after Senate deliberations.
What's Next?
Should the bill become law, it could fundamentally alter how Indian families manage cross-border finances. NRIs may seek alternative money transfer mechanisms or adjust their remittance behavior to minimize costs.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab Times
3 days ago
- Arab Times
Air India faces turbulence as plane crash prompts deeper checks and disruptions
NEW DELHI, June 18, (AP): Air India is facing fresh turbulence following last week's fatal crash as additional safety inspections on its Dreamliner fleet have led to flight delays, cancellations, and growing passenger anxiety. India's aviation safety regulator ordered deeper checks on Boeing 787 aircraft operated by the airline soon after its London-bound flight crashed during take-off in Ahmedabad city June 12, killing at least 270 people, including 241 passengers and crew. The precautionary inspections, including closure of airspace in some middle eastern countries, have strained Air India operations across domestic and international routes. Since the crash, Air India has cancelled operations of a total of 83 wide-body flights, including 66 Dreamliner, according to data shared by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, India's aviation safety regulator. "There is a cascading impact operationally. We are being extra cautious and doing extra checks beyond the usual,' a company executive familiar with the matter said on condition of anonymity as he wasn't authorized to speak to the media. The company on Tuesday announced cancellation of multiple flights, including one from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick. Another from Delhi to Paris was cancelled as a mandatory pre-flight check identified an unidentified issue, the airline said in a statement. In a statement Tuesday, the aviation directorate said surveillance conducted on Air India's Dreamliner fleet so far has found no "major safety concerns.' The aircraft and its associated maintenance systems were found to be compliant with existing safety standards, the directorate said, adding that of the 33 aircraft, 24 have completed the inspections, while four were undergoing long-term maintenance. The rest were expected to finish the safety checks soon. The regulator, however, raised concerns about maintenance-related issues reported by the airline and advised it to "strictly adhere to regulations.' It asked Air India to strengthen internal coordination across engineering, operations, and ground handling units and ensure adequate availability of spares to mitigate flight delays. Experts from India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau are probing the crash with assistance from the U.K., the U.S., and officials from Boeing. Aviation experts say the crash poses a temporary challenge for Air India, which was in midst of transforming itself from a financially troubled airline to a profitable venture. "If you ask me whether the accident will derail the ambitious growth plans, no way. There can be no looking back,' said Jitender Bhargava, a former Air India executive director. The company already has placed huge orders for new aircraft to expand operations. The present challenge was to boost the morale of employees and passengers through confidence-building measures, Bhargava said. "The faster you make people forget this one-off accident, the better it is,' Bhargava said. Indian conglomerate Tata Sons took over Air India in 2022, returning the debt-saddled national carrier to private ownership after decades of government control. The $2.4 billion deal was seen as the government's effort to sell off a loss-making, state-run businesses. It also was in some ways a homecoming for Air India, which was launched by the Tata family in 1932. Since the takeover, Air India has ordered hundreds of new planes worth over $70 billion, redesigned its branding and livery and absorbed smaller airlines Tata held stakes in. The company additionally has committed millions of dollars to digital overhauls of aircraft and refurbishing interiors of more than five dozen legacy planes. Air India has ordered nearly three dozen trainer aircraft and set up one of South Asia's largest training academy for professionals.
Arab Times
4 days ago
- Arab Times
Colombia's Senate approves labor bill that would mean more pay, protections for workers
BOGOTA, Colombia, June 18, (AP): Colombia's Senate on Tuesday night approved a labor bill that is expected to grant workers more overtime pay while making it harder for companies to hire employees on short-term contracts. The bill's approval comes as tensions have been increasing between the Senate and President Gustavo Petro over reforms to the economy and health system that have polarized the nation's politics and tested the separation of powers in Colombia's fragile democracy. Petro has repeatedly accused Congress of blocking his reforms and last week issued a decree that called on Colombia's elections agency, the National Registrar, to organize a referendum on labor laws. The agency said Tuesday it would wait for Colombian courts to decide if it was legal for it to organize the referendum, because the Senate had voted against the referendum last month. Petro has threatened to change Colombia's constitution, by calling for a constituent assembly, if his request for a referendum on labor laws is not granted, and in a post on X Tuesday, said that those who did not approve the referendum were committing "treason." Opposition leaders have accused the president of developing an authoritarian streak, as he tries to override decisions made by Congress. The labor bill approved by Colombia's Senate on Tuesday includes many of the changes to Colombia's labor laws proposed by Petro's party, the Historical Pact. It increases surcharges paid to employees who work Sundays and also makes companies pay more for late evening shifts, which is likely to apply to many retailers, restaurants and hotels. The bill also says delivery apps must formally hire delivery workers as freelancers or as full-time employees and help to pay for their health insurance. Business associations in Colombia oppose the changes, arguing they will raise the cost of employing people and could ultimately increase unemployment. Currently, 56% of Colombian workers labor with no contracts, in what is known as the informal economy. Economists expect the reforms to push more people into informality, while supporters of the bill argue they are just pushing for the restoration of rights workers had in the early 1990s, before Colombia began to make labor laws more flexible. The Senate and House of Representatives must now reconcile the differences in the bills each chamber drafted and then agree on a final version of the bill. Petro wrote in a message on X that he will continue to push for the referendum until legislators from both chambers have voted on a final bill.
Kuwait Times
4 days ago
- Kuwait Times
US ban on stock trading act bill proposal of 2025
US ban on stock trading act bill proposal of 2025 By Abdullah Alkayat Insider trading is still an everyday issue in the United States, the first country in the world to define what constitutes inside information and make it illegal in 1934, after Congress enacted the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 following what is known as the 'Great Crash' of 1929, during which the stock market lost 89 percent of its value. Since that day, insider trading has been taken seriously by the public, and the SEC has pursued full enforcement. However, practice has shown that there are some loopholes—particularly for elected members of the US Congress—who have access to inside information due to their roles. There have been insider trading investigations in which some Congress members were found to have violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by trading based on non-public information while in office, making profits or avoiding losses prior to any public announcements, at which point it is too late for the general public to participate and benefit. To make the rules more strict for congressional trading and combat insider trading, President Obama signed the 'Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012' into law. This law prohibited members of Congress from trading on non-public information obtained during their work and required public disclosure of their stock trades within 45 days. The law also applies to the spouses of Congress members. Nevertheless, the law seemed like a paper tiger—it has not prevented insider trading from occurring. In fact, the 2020 congressional insider trading scandal showed that such practices were still happening. The 2020 congressional insider trading scandal erupted after several US Senators were accused of selling large amounts of stock following a private Senate briefing about the emerging COVID-19 pandemic, weeks before the public fully grasped its severity. Among those scrutinized was Senator Burr, then-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who drew particular attention after reports revealed he sold between $600,000 and $1.7 million in stocks shortly after the briefing. Critics argued that these lawmakers may have used non-public information for personal financial gain while downplaying the threat of the virus publicly. Although the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission launched investigations, most were eventually closed without charges. Nevertheless, the scandal fueled public outrage, intensified scrutiny of the STOCK Act of 2012, and revived calls for stronger laws to prevent elected officials from trading individual stocks while in office. To make insider trading laws more strict, the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act of 2025 bill is being introduced in the US Congress to address growing public concern over lawmakers using non-public information for personal financial gain. Although the STOCK Act of 2012 requires members of Congress to disclose trades within 45 days and prohibits insider trading, it has proven inadequate due to weak enforcement and delayed or incomplete disclosures. The new bill seeks to close these loopholes by completely prohibiting members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from owning or trading individual stocks while in office. Instead, they must divest or place assets into blind trusts, removing the temptation to act on confidential information. This reform is seen as essential to restoring public trust, enhancing transparency, and preventing conflicts of interest that undermine democratic accountability. With recent scandals and reports showing that some lawmakers' portfolios have outperformed the market, public demand for stronger ethical standards has intensified. The bill aims to eliminate both real and perceived corruption, simplify compliance and enforcement, and ensure that legislators focus solely on serving the public—not enriching themselves. In Kuwait, the likelihood of introducing a bill similar to the US Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act is relatively low, primarily due to the unique characteristics of the Kuwaiti political and financial landscape. Kuwait has a much smaller and less complex capital market compared to the United States, and the number of elected officials in the National Assembly is limited to just 50 members—significantly fewer than the hundreds of legislators in the US Congress. This smaller scale reduces the systemic risk and public concern associated with insider trading by lawmakers. Moreover, the overlap between legislative activity and private market influence is less pronounced in Kuwait, where political influence often centers around public-sector employment and budgetary matters rather than corporate regulation or securities. While ethical oversight and financial transparency remain important, the perceived urgency for legislation banning stock trading by elected officials has not gained the same traction, in part because the infrastructure and market depth necessary to facilitate such trading at a concerning scale are simply not present. More importantly, under Kuwaiti law, the definition of an insider as presented in the glossary of the Capital Markets Authority (CMA) and codified in the CMA Law encompasses any person in a position that grants them access to material, non-public information concerning a listed company. This broad definition clearly includes members of the National Assembly of Kuwait. Therefore, if a member of Parliament exploits insider information in violation of the CMA Law, they are subject to immediate prosecution by the Capital Markets Authority.
