Trump's 'big beautiful' budget bill includes a new tax break worth up to $2,000—around 90% of filers could take advantage
The bill promises continuity for taxpayers by permanently extending the cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as well as a raft of new cuts, including breaks for tipped and overtime income.
The new law also includes a throwback: an above-the-line deduction on charitable contributions.
The bill allows taxpayers who don't itemize to deduct up to $1,000 for single filers and $2,000 for married couples filing jointly.
"This could provide some tax savings for folks," says Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation. "That could be something unexpected if you're not currently deducting charitable giving."
Most people don't currently deduct charitable contributions — and it's not because they're not generous or don't want a tax break. Other than under the Covid-19 relief bill, taxpayers generally have had to itemize deductions in order to get a break for charitable giving.
For most people, that doesn't make sense. Some 9 in 10 taxpayers take the standard deduction, which in 2025 is $15,000 for single filers and $30,000 for joint filers. You'd typically only itemize if the sum of your deductions would save you more money than just taking the standard deduction.
In short, the new law allows anyone who donates to charity to get a tax break — not just the mega-philanthropists among us.
Because these deductions reduce your taxable income, they're the most beneficial for people in the highest tax brackets. A $1,000 deduction from income is effectively worth $100 to someone in the 10% tax bracket. The same deduction is worth $350 to someone in the 35% bracket.
You'll still have to follow the IRS' rules on charitable giving to get the break. Donations must be made to qualifying charitable organizations — donations to political campaigns, crowdfunding efforts and, in the case of the proposed tax break, donor-advised funds won't be eligible.
Before you make a donation you plan on deducting, check the IRS' search tool to make sure the organization is tax-exempt. And be sure to get a receipt for your donation; the IRS generally requires written acknowledgement of any donation in excess of $250.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
28 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump Speaks Out After Using Term Considered as Antisemitic
President Donald Trump has spoken out after sparking criticism for using a term widely considered to be antisemitic during a speech. Addressing a crowd in Iowa on Thursday, Trump used the term 'Shylock' when discussing his now-signed 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' When approached by a reporter on Friday about his use of the term that's 'widely viewed as an antisemitic' phrase, Trump was asked if he intended for the word 'to be used in that way.''No, I've never heard it that way. To me, 'Shylock' is somebody that's a moneylender at high rates. I've never heard it that way. You view it differently than me. I've never heard that,' he said, before opening up to other questions on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews. Trump had used the word when discussing taxes, telling an Iowa crowd: 'No death tax, no estate tax, no going to the banks and borrowing some from, in some cases, a fine banker and in some cases Shylocks and bad people.' Jewish advocacy groups came out to condemn the usage of the term, tracing its history back to the villain of William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, which sees the dubious character demand a pound of flesh from a Christian merchant unable to pay his debt. The play has long been regarded as antisemitic and problematic. Read More: How Trump Fits Into the Long, Fraught History of the Relationship Between Israel and American Jews 'The term 'Shylock' evokes a centuries-old antisemitic trope about Jews and greed that is extremely offensive and dangerous. President Trump's use of the term is very troubling and irresponsible,' said the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in a statement posted on social media. 'It underscores how lies and conspiracies about Jews remain deeply entrenched in our country.' Former President Joe Biden used the term 'Shylocks' in a speech in 2014 when he was Vice President, but said afterwards that it was a 'poor choice of words.' Trump's use of the term comes at a precarious time, as instances of antisemitism and hate crimes towards Jewish Americans have surged in recent years, especially since the start of the Israel-Hamas war. The ADL reported that antisemitic incidents skyrocketed 360% in the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7, 2023. Furthermore, according to the State of Antisemitism in America 2024 report, published in February 2025, 33% of American Jews said they have been the personal target of antisemitism, in-person or virtually, at least once over the past year. An attack in Boulder, Colorado, in June and the fatal shooting of two Israeli embassy employees in Washington, D.C., in May, are two recent incidents of anti-Jewish violence that have rocked communities in the U.S. Read More: The Rise of Antisemitism and Political Violence in the U.S. Meanwhile, the Jewish Council on Public Affairs spoke out on Friday against Trump's "deeply dangerous" use of the term 'Shylocks,' calling it 'among the most quintessential antisemitic slurs in his remarks,' and claiming that the moment 'follows years in which Trump has normalized antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories.' Jewish members of Congress have also come out to condemn the use of the word. Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, a Democrat, described the history of the term, calling it 'one of the most recognizable antisemitic slurs in the English language' that has 'fueled discrimination, hatred, and violence against Jews.' 'I condemn Donald Trump's dangerous use of this blatantly antisemitic slur and his long history of trafficking in antisemitic tropes," Nadler said. "I have often said that if Donald Trump was serious about fighting antisemitism, he could start with the antisemites in his own Administration... If Donald Trump were serious about fighting antisemitism, he could start with himself." This is far from the first incident that has prompted concern in regards to Trump's use of antisemitic tropes. Trump previously appeared to indulge an antisemitic trope of Jewish people controlling things behind the scenes. In 2015, at an event with Jewish donors, he told the crowd, 'I don't want your money. You want to control your own politician.' Prominent Jewish voices also raised concerns about Trump's rhetoric in 2019, when he told reporters: "In my opinion, you vote for a Democrat, you're being very disloyal to Jewish people, and you're being very disloyal to Israel… and only weak people would say anything other than that." His comment came shortly after he had said: "I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.' Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL responded to Trump's comments of 'disloyalty,' saying the President had "made it clear he thinks Jews have a dual loyalty to Israel. This antisemitic trope has been used to persecute Jews for centuries and it's unacceptable to promote it.' In 2021, Trump revisited that line of rhetoric, saying in an interview that 'people in this country that are Jewish no longer love Israel. I'll tell you the evangelical Christians love Israel more than the Jews in this country.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump branded, browbeat and prevailed. But his big bill may come at a political cost
WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama had the Affordable Care Act. Joe Biden had the Inflation Reduction Act. President Donald Trump will have the tax cuts. All were hailed in the moment and became ripe political targets in campaigns that followed. In Trump's case, the tax cuts may almost become lost in the debates over other parts of the multitrillion-dollar bill that Democrats say will force poor Americans off their health care and overturn a decade or more of energy policy. Through persuasion and browbeating, Trump forced nearly all congressional Republicans to line up behind his marquee legislation despite some of its unpalatable pieces. He followed the playbook that had marked his life in business before politics. He focused on branding — labeling the legislation the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' — then relentlessly pushed to strong-arm it through Congress, solely on the votes of Republicans. But Trump's victory will soon be tested during the 2026 midterm elections where Democrats plan to run on a durable theme: that the Republican president favors the rich on tax cuts over poorer people who will lose their health care. Trump and Republicans argue that those who deserve coverage will retain it. Nonpartisan analysts, however, project significant increases to the number of uninsured. Meanwhile, the GOP's promise that the bill will turbocharge the economy will be tested at a time of uncertainty and trade turmoil. Trump has tried to counter the notion of favoring the rich with provisions that would reduce the taxes for people paid in tips and receiving overtime pay, two kinds of earners who represent a small share of the workforce. Extending the tax cuts from Trump's first term that were set to expire if Congress failed to act meant he could also argue that millions of people would avoid a tax increase. To enact that and other expensive priorities, Republicans made steep cuts to Medicaid that ultimately belied Trump's promise that those on government entitlement programs 'won't be affected.' 'The biggest thing is, he's answering the call of the forgotten people. That's why his No. 1 request was the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime, tax relief for seniors,' said Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. 'I think that's going to be the big impact.' Hard to reap the rewards Presidents have seen their signature legislative accomplishments unraveled by their successors or become a significant political liability for their party in subsequent elections. A central case for Biden's reelection was that the public would reward the Democrat for his legislative accomplishments. That never bore fruit as he struggled to improve his poll numbers driven down by concerns about his age and stubborn inflation. Since taking office in January, Trump has acted to gut tax breaks meant to boost clean energy initiatives that were part of Biden's landmark health care-and-climate bill. Obama's health overhaul, which the Democrat signed into law in March 2010, led to a political bloodbath in the midterms that fall. Its popularity only became potent when Republicans tried to repeal it in 2017. Whatever political boost Trump may have gotten from his first-term tax cuts in 2017 did not help him in the 2018 midterms, when Democrats regained control of the House, or in 2020 when he lost to Biden. 'I don't think there's much if any evidence from recent or even not-so-recent history of the president's party passing a big one-party bill and getting rewarded for it,' said Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst with the nonpartisan University of Virginia's Center for Politics. Social net setbacks Democrats hope they can translate their policy losses into political gains. During an Oval Office appearance in January, Trump pledged he would 'love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.' 'We're not going to do anything with that, other than if we can find some abuse or waste, we'll do something,' Trump said. 'But the people won't be affected. It will only be more effective and better.' That promise is far removed from what Trump and the Republican Party ultimately chose to do, paring back not only Medicaid but also food assistance for the poor to make the math work on their sweeping bill. It would force 11.8 million more people to become uninsured by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimates the GOP has dismissed. 'In Trump's first term, Democrats in Congress prevented bad outcomes. They didn't repeal the (Affordable Care Act), and we did COVID relief together. This time is different,' said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. 'Hospitals will close, people will die, the cost of electricity will go up, and people will go without food.' Some unhappy Republicans Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., repeatedly argued the legislation would lead to drastic coverage losses in his home state and others, leaving them vulnerable to political attacks similar to what Democrats faced after they enacted 'Obamacare.' With his warnings unheeded, Tillis announced he would not run for reelection, after he opposed advancing the bill and enduring Trump's criticism. 'If there is a political dimension to this, it is the extraordinary impact that you're going to have in states like California, blue states with red districts,' Tillis said. "The narrative is going to be overwhelmingly negative in states like California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.' Even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who eventually became the decisive vote in the Senate that ensured the bill's passage, said the legislation needed more work and she urged the House to revise it. Lawmakers there did not. Early polling suggests that Trump's bill is deeply unpopular, including among independents and a healthy share of Republicans. White House officials said their own research does not reflect that. So far, it's only Republicans celebrating the victory. That seems OK with the president. In a speech in Iowa after the bill passed, he said Democrats only opposed it because they 'hated Trump.' That didn't bother him, he said, 'because I hate them, too.'
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
North Carolina governor vetoes Republican-led anti DEI and trans legislation
North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein has vetoed four controversial bills that target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and transgender rights, setting up a political clash with the Republican-led General Assembly. Stein, a Democrat, blasted the three DEI-focused bills as being "mean-spirited" that would "marginalize vulnerable people" and took aim at Republicans who failed to pass a fiscal budget for the year that just began. The DEI bills ought to ban DEI training, hiring practices and staff positions in state and local governments as well as outlawing the use of state funds for DEI programming. The legislation would have imposed civil penalties on workers who violate the rules. No Democrats supported the three DEI bills. "At a time when teachers, law enforcement, and state employees need pay raises, and people need shorter lines at the DMV, the legislature failed to pass a budget and, instead, wants to distract us by stoking culture wars that further divide us," Stein said in a statement. "These mean-spirited bills would marginalize vulnerable people and also undermine the quality of public services and public education. Therefore, I am vetoing them. I stand ready to work with the legislature when it gets serious about protecting people and addressing North Carolinians' pressing concerns." The measures cutting or eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in state and local governments, K-12 public schools and the university system have been a major priority for GOP lawmakers. They argue the programs targeted have overemphasized identity to the detriment of merit and societal unity. The transgender bill began as a bipartisan measure to curb sexual exploitation by enforcing age verification and consent rules for pornography websites. But lawmakers later added controversial provisions, including a ban on state-funded gender-affirming procedures for prisoners. It also affirms the recognition of two sexes and requires the state to officially attach a transgender person's new birth certificate to their old one if they change their sex assigned at birth. Stein said in a veto message that he strongly supported the anti-sexual exploitation provisions in the bill, but the final measure went too far. "My faith teaches me that we are all children of God no matter our differences and that it is wrong to target vulnerable people, as this bill does," he added. One Democrat backed the fourth bill before Stein vetoed it. All four bills now return to the General Assembly, which could reconvene later this month to attempt veto overrides. Republicans are one vote short of a veto-proof supermajority in the House. The vetoes bring Stein's total to 11 since taking office in January — all within the past two weeks. Stein was previously North Carolina's attorney general since 2017 after serving in the state Senate from 2009 to 2016. The progressive attorney and politician campaigned on a platform of lowering the cost of housing, increasing job creation, expanding access to abortion and improving education.
