Seniors score, gamblers get rolled in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
Advertisement
The other is a last-minute change to the IRS's treatment of betting losses that has set off howls of protest from gamblers and could squeeze Massachusetts' cut of gaming revenue.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Here's a rundown.
Promises made, promises kept — sort of
As congressional Republicans scrambled to put together a package of tax cuts and spending increases demanded by Trump, they were also under pressure to deliver on their leader's vow to do away with taxes on Social Security income.
It was an impossible order to carry out — and not just because it would blow up the federal budget.
Changes to Social Security aren't allowed under
So, in an adroit bit of budgetary legerdemain, GOP lawmakers instead crafted a tax break specifically for filers 65 and older.
Advertisement
This 'enhanced deduction' — $6,000 for individuals ($12,000 for couples) — is set to expire after Trump leaves office. It comes on top of the standard deduction available to all taxpayers ($15,000 for individuals and $30,000 for couples in 2025), as well as the existing bonus deduction for filers over 65 ($2,000 for an individual, $3,200 for a couple).
There are important caveats:
Congress didn't eliminate taxes on Social Security income; the deduction is a back-door way to reduce seniors' taxable income, including the retirement benefits.
Taxpayers under 65 aren't eligible, even if they receive Social Security.
The full deduction is limited to individuals with taxable income of less than $75,000 ($150,000 for joint filers). It shrinks at higher income levels, disappearing altogether for individuals with taxable income of more than $175,000 ($250,000 for couples).
The temporary change will mostly help middle- and upper-middle class taxpayers,
A losing proposition
Republicans slipped a last-minute change into their bill that lowered the amount of gambling losses that can be used to offset income from winning bets.
The result: Some gamblers could end up owing taxes
Republicans said the change was necessitated by the budget reconciliation rules, the details of which are so arcane they defy my powers to explain.
A longstanding tax provision allowed gamblers to deduct 100 percent of their losing bets, up to the amount of their winnings.
For example, a high roller or professional gambler with $100,000 in losing bets in a year could use that amount to offset up to $100,000 in wagers that paid off.
In the new bill, the deduction limit has been dropped to 90 percent, which in the scenario above would leave the gambler with taxes owed on $10,000 — even though they had no net earnings for the year.
'No one should have to pay taxes on money they didn't win,' Representative Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat,
Advertisement
Titus is a co-sponsor of the FAIR BET Act, which would permanently restore the 100 percent offset.
Rufus Peabody, a professional sports bettor,
'More likely than not, I would owe more money in taxes than I actually made in 2026 if I continue betting,' Peabody said. 'And so, as it stands, it becomes untenable to be a professional gambler.'
Unless the change is reversed, casinos such as the Encore in Everett and online betting apps including Boston's DraftKings could see a falloff in revenue as gamblers back away.
Massachusetts, which has raked in $2.4 billion in tax revenue since casino and sports betting began in the state, could see its budget take a hit.
As always, Congress giveth and it taketh away.
This time, seniors are happy to take what they can get. Gambler, on the other hand, rolled snake eyes.
Larry Edelman can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
11 minutes ago
- Axios
21 Democratic AGs demand Congress end masked ICE arrests
A coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general is urging Congress to ban federal immigration agents from wearing masks or plainclothes during enforcement operations. Why it matters: It's the latest flashpoint in a growing national effort by blue-state officials to curb what they see as overreaches by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and stop tactics they argue are designed to sow fear. It comes amid a spike in reports of ICE officers snatching people from streets, homes, workplaces and courthouses while concealing their identity and using unmarked vehicles. State of play: In a letter to congressional leaders on Tuesday, the attorneys general called on Congress to pass legislation prohibiting federal immigration agents from hiding their faces and requiring them to display identification and agency insignia — with exceptions only in narrowly justified cases. They argue the tactics erode public trust, create confusion with criminal kidnappings, and violate core democratic values. What they're saying: "We have watched these detentions with alarm, as the imagery evokes comparisons to repressive tactics that have no place in a free country," the letter states. ICE officers' "now routine practice of carrying out arrests in public spaces through masked agents who do not identify themselves as law enforcement has the effect of terrorizing communities rather than protecting them," it adds. For the record: The letter was signed by attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
Chicago Tribune
11 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Mike Waltz pledges to make UN ‘great again' at Senate confirmation hearing
WASHINGTON — Mike Waltz painted an image for lawmakers Tuesday of what the United Nations would look like as the U.S. — its largest donor — reviews its support, opting to go 'back to basics' under a Trump administration push to 'make the U.N. great again.' During his Senate confirmation hearing to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Waltz echoed the priorities of his bosses — President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — of pursuing major reforms to the 80-year-old world body. It was the first time senators could grill Waltz since he was ousted as Trump's national security adviser in May after he mistakenly added a journalist to a private Signal chat used to discuss sensitive military plans. He denied Tuesday that he was removed from the post, while laying out his plans to bring 'America First' to the U.N. 'We should have one place in the world where everyone can talk — where China, Russia, Europe and the developing world can come together and resolve conflicts,' Waltz told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the U.N. 'But after 80 years, it's drifted from its core mission of peacemaking.' The U.N. is pursuing its own reforms while the Republican administration has spent the last six months reshaping American diplomacy and working aggressively to shrink the size of the federal government, including recent mass dismissals at the State Department. On the agenda for Waltz would be combating China's influence, reviewing U.S. funding to U.N. agencies with 'often duplicative and wasteful mandates,' as well as rooting out what Waltz called deep antisemitism within the U.N. system. The U.N. post is the last one to be filled in Trump's Cabinet following months of delay, including the withdrawal of the previous nominee. The Signal episode — in which Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other high-level officials faced intense criticism — didn't come up at the hearing for more than an hour. It was revealed in March that Waltz added The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a private text chain on an unclassified messaging app that was used to discuss planning for strikes on Houthi militants in Yemen. 'We both know Signal is not an appropriate and secure means of communicating highly sensitive information,' said Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, who was first to raise the issue. He added that Waltz shared 'demonstrably sensitive information' in an improper manner. Fellow Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia called it 'an amateurish move.' Waltz, a former Florida congressman, said the chat met the administration's cybersecurity standards, 'no classified information was shared' and the military was still conducting an ongoing investigation. Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey blasted what he called a 'lack of accountability' from Waltz and other administration officials. 'I've watched this hearing, and I've been really disappointed,' Booker said. 'What's been troubling to me about your nomination from the beginning is your failure to just stand up and take accountability for mistakes that you made.' If confirmed, Waltz would arrive at the U.N. at a moment of great change. The world body is reeling from Trump's decision to slash foreign assistance — affecting its humanitarian aid agencies — and it anticipates U.S. funding cuts to the U.N. annual budget. Facing financial instability, the U.N. has spent months shedding jobs and consolidating projects while beginning to tackle long-delayed reforms. The U.N. is also facing growing frustration over what critics describe as a lack of efficiency and power in delivering on its mandate to end conflict. 'With Waltz at the helm, the U.N. will have what I regard as what should be its last chance to demonstrate its actual value to the United States,' said Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. 'Instead of progressive political virtue signaling, the Security Council has the chance to prove its value, and settling disputes and brokering deals.' Waltz said U.N. revenue 'has quadrupled in the last 20 years' but that it hasn't been commensurate with increased peace. 'The U.S. must ensure that every foreign aid dollar and every contribution to an international organization, particularly the U.N., draws a straight and direct line to a compelling U.S. national interest,' Waltz said. He said the administration's diplomatic strategy would be focused on cutting costs to what he called 'waste, fraud, and abuse that are endemic to the U.N. system.' Waltz also accused the U.N. of 'pervasive antisemitism.' He testified that the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, has been promoting 'antisemitic hate' in its schools in Gaza. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres appointed a British human rights activist on Tuesday to carry out a strategic review of UNRWA. Israel has alleged that 19 out of UNRWA's roughly 13,000 staffers in Gaza participated in the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks that launched the war. UNRWA said it fired nine workers after an internal U.N. investigation. Israel later alleged that about 100 other Palestinians in Gaza were Hamas members but didn't provide evidence to the United Nations. Waltz has spent the last few months on the White House payroll despite departing as national security adviser. The latest list of White House salaries, current as of July 1, includes Waltz as an adviser earning an annual salary of $195,200. A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss personnel matters, said Waltz stayed on to 'ensure a smooth and successful transition given the extreme importance of the role of NSA.' Sen. Jacky Rosen, a Democrat from Nevada, questioned why Waltz was still being paid by the administration. 'Throughout this year, you've made (assertions) that, if confirmed, you would root out waste and unnecessary overhead at the U.N. So can you confirm for us whether you've been receiving a salary from the White House since being let go as the NSA?' Waltz denied the fact that he had been fired, saying he was being paid as an adviser 'transitioning a number of important activities.'
Miami Herald
12 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Were Texas flood deaths avoidable? Here's what Americans said in a new poll
Many Americans believe the deaths caused by recent floods in Texas could have been prevented, and most think that the government's response was imperfect, according to new polling. The YouGov/Economist survey — conducted July 11-14 — comes after central Texas was pummeled by flash floods beginning on July 4, when the Guadalupe River surged over its banks, sweeping away homes and leaving at least 134 dead and about 100 missing, ABC News reported. Among the worst affected areas was Camp Mystic, a Christian camp in Kerr County, where NBC News reported 27 campers and counselors lost their lives. President Donald Trump traveled to Texas on July 11 and met with the families of victims. He said he wished to express 'the love and support and the anguish of our entire nation,' CBS News reported. 'I've never seen anything like it,' he added, 'a little narrow river that becomes a monster…' In the aftermath of the devastating disaster, multiple organizations and individuals have faced scrutiny over their preparedness. Among them were Kerr County officials, who did not install a comprehensive flood warning system despite being aware of its necessity, according to the Texas Tribune. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also faced criticism over its response, and the New York Times reported that it failed to answer thousands of calls from Texas flood survivors Here is a breakdown of the findings. Were deaths avoidable? In the survey — which sampled 1,680 U.S. adults — 52% of respondents said that most of the deaths could have been prevented if the government had been more adequately prepared. Twenty-nine percent said the deaths were unavoidable, and 19% said they didn't know. On this question, there was a sizable partisan divide. Most Democrats and independents — 74% and 53%, respectively — called the deaths avoidable, while just 28% of Republicans said the same. Government response The poll — which has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points — also asked respondents to judge the government response to the flooding. A plurality, 38%, labeled the overall government response as poor, while smaller shares described it as fair (14%), good (19%) or excellent (14%). Individual officials received somewhat similar marks. When asked about Trump's response, 42% said it was poor, while fewer said it was fair (11%), good (15%), and excellent (21%). Meanwhile, 36% said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's response was poor. Eight percent said it was fair; 14% said it was good and 13% said it was excellent. Presidents visiting disaster sites Additionally, respondents were asked about presidents visiting disaster sites (the survey began on the day Trump traveled to Texas). A majority, 64%, said presidents should visit locations of disasters because it demonstrates their solidarity. Just 17% said they should not do this 'because it takes resources away from the disaster response.' The results broke along similar lines when respondents were asked specifically about Trump. Sixty-five percent said they believed Trump 'should travel to Texas to survey the damage and meet with people affected by recent flooding.' Meanwhile, 20% said he should not do this, and 15% said they were not sure.
