logo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more

Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more

Yahoo10-06-2025
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen.
The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%.
The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy.
Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico.
What is a remittance?
Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP).
Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges.
"Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement.
"Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added.
However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico.
"Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system."
Crucial source of revenue
Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras.
"Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing."
However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón.
"Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it."
Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How US adults feel about legal abortion 3 years after Roe was overturned, according to AP-NORC poll
How US adults feel about legal abortion 3 years after Roe was overturned, according to AP-NORC poll

Chicago Tribune

timea few seconds ago

  • Chicago Tribune

How US adults feel about legal abortion 3 years after Roe was overturned, according to AP-NORC poll

Three years after the Supreme Court opened the door to state abortion bans, most U.S. adults say abortion should be legal — views that look similar to before the landmark ruling. The new findings from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason. That level of support for abortion is down slightly from what an AP-NORC poll showed last year, when it seemed that support for legal abortion might be rising. The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. Most states have either moved to protect abortion access or restrict it. Twelve are now enforcing bans on abortion at every stage of pregnancy, and four more do so after about six weeks' gestation, which is often before women realize they're pregnant. In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing. Last year, an AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that 7 in 10 U.S. adults said it should be available in all or most cases, up slightly from 65% in May 2022, just before the decision that overruled the constitutional right to abortion, and 57% in June 2021. The new poll is closer to Americans' views before the Supreme Court ruled. Now, 64% of adults support legal abortion in most or all cases. More than half the adults in states with the most stringent bans are in that group. Similarly, about half now say abortion should be available in their state when someone doesn't want to continue their pregnancy for any reason — about the same as in June 2021 but down from about 6 in 10 who said that in 2024. Adults in the strictest states are just as likely as others to say abortion should be available in their state to women who want to end pregnancies for any reason. Democrats support abortion access far more than Republicans do. Support for legal abortion has dropped slightly among members of both parties since June 2024, but nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 4 in 10 Republicans say abortion should be legal in at least most instances. Seeing what's happened in the aftermath of the ruling has strengthened the abortion rights position of Wilaysha White, a 25-year-old Ohio mom. She has some regrets about the abortion she had when she was homeless. 'I don't think you should be able to get an abortion anytime,' said White, who calls herself a 'semi-Republican.' But she said that hearing about situations — including when a Georgia woman was arrested after a miscarriage and initially charged with concealing a death — is a bigger concern. 'Seeing women being sick and life or death, they're not being put first — that's just scary,' she said. 'I'd rather have it be legal across the board than have that.' Julie Reynolds' strong anti-abortion stance has been cemented for decades and hasn't shifted since Roe was overturned. 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller. She said her view is shaped partly by having obtained an abortion herself when she was in her 20s. 'I would not want a woman to go through that,' she said. 'I live with that every day. I took a life.' The vast majority of U.S. adults — at least 8 in 10 — continue to say their state should allow legal abortion if a fetal abnormality would prevent the child from surviving outside the womb, if the patient's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, or if the person became pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Consistent with AP-NORC's June 2024 poll, about 7 in 10 U.S. adults 'strongly' or 'somewhat' favor protecting access to abortions for patients who are experiencing miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies. In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus. This is a major concern for Nicole Jones, a 32-year-old Florida resident. Jones and her husband would like to have children soon. But she said she's worried about access to abortion if there's a fetal abnormality or a condition that would threaten her life in pregnancy since they live in a state that bans most abortions after the first six weeks of gestation. 'What if we needed something?' she asked. 'We'd have to travel out of state or risk my life because of this ban.' There's less consensus on whether states that allow abortion should protect access for women who live in places with bans. Just over half support protecting a patient's right to obtain an abortion in another state and shielding those who provide abortions from fines or prison time. In both cases, relatively few adults — about 2 in 10 — oppose the measures and about 1 in 4 are neutral. More Americans also favor than oppose legal protections for doctors who prescribe and mail abortion pills to patients in states with bans. About 4 in 10 'somewhat' or 'strongly' favor those protections, and roughly 3 in 10 oppose them. Such telehealth prescriptions are a key reason that the number of abortions nationally has risen even as travel for abortion has declined slightly.

Iran says it's ready for nuclear talks with the US but only if Washington rebuilds trust
Iran says it's ready for nuclear talks with the US but only if Washington rebuilds trust

Chicago Tribune

timea few seconds ago

  • Chicago Tribune

Iran says it's ready for nuclear talks with the US but only if Washington rebuilds trust

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran is ready to engage in talks on its nuclear program with the United States, but only if Washington takes meaningful steps to rebuild trust, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Thursday. Iran is set to meet Friday in Istanbul with Britain, France and Germany, known as the E3 nations, and the European Union's deputy foreign policy commissioner. They will be the first talks since Iran's 12-day war with Israel in June, which involved U.S. B-52 bombers striking nuclear-related facilities in Iran. Gharibabadi said in a social media post Thursday that to enter negotiations, Iran sought 'several key principles' to be upheld. He said these included 'rebuilding Iran's trust — as Iran has absolutely no trust in the United States — avoiding the use of talks as a platform for hidden agendas such as military action, though Iran remains fully prepared for any scenario; respecting and recognizing Iran's rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, including enrichment in line with its legitimate needs; and the lifting of sanctions.' Friday's talks will be held at the deputy ministerial level, with Iran sending Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-e Ravanchi. A similar meeting was held in Istanbul in May. The stakes are high. European leaders have threatened to trigger a 'snapback' mechanism included in a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which would reimpose sanctions that were lifted in exchange for Iran accepting restrictions and monitoring of its nuclear program. The U.K., France and Germany were signatories to the 2015 deal. The U.S. withdrew in 2018 during the first term of President Donald Trump, who insisted the agreement wasn't tough enough. Iranian officials have warned that a move to reimpose sanctions would have consequences. Gharibabadi said earlier this week that it could force Tehran to withdraw from key non-proliferation agreements. In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the E3 of hypocrisy, saying they failed to uphold their obligations under the 2015 deal while supporting Israel's recent strikes on Iran. In the recent conflict, U.S. B-52 bombers struck Iranian nuclear facilities in support of Israel's air campaign. Iran responded with missile attacks, including a strike on a U.S. base in Qatar, which President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted was not directed at the Qatari state. In an interview with Al Jazeera that aired on Wednesday, Pezeshkian said Iran is prepared for another war and accused Israel of attempting to assassinate him during a June 15 meeting of Iran's national security council in Tehran. Pezeshkian reiterated that Iran's nuclear program will continue within the framework of international law and insisted the country has no intention of pursuing nuclear weapons. 'Our nuclear capabilities are in the minds of our scientists,' he said, emphasizing Iran's position that future negotiations must be rooted in mutual respect, not threats. According to the official judicial news agency Mizan, at least 13 Iranian nuclear scientists were killed during the 12-day war between Iran and Israel. A spokesman for Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said Thursday the country's nuclear industry would recover from the recent attacks by Israel and the United States. 'Our nuclear industry is deeply rooted. What has roots cannot be harmed by attack or pressure — it will grow back and thrive again,' state TV quoted Behrouz Kamalvandi as saying. The International Atomic Energy Agency, known by the acronym IAEA, reported in May that Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% had grown to over 400 kilograms (882 pounds). That material, just below weapons-grade level, remains a central concern for the West. Despite the growing stockpile, Iran has said it remains open to diplomacy, though it recently suspended cooperation with the IAEA following legislation signed by Pezeshkian. The road ahead remains uncertain. While European officials say they want to avoid further conflict and are open to a negotiated solution, they have warned that time is running out.

After $220 million Columbia deal, Trump promises more to come
After $220 million Columbia deal, Trump promises more to come

USA Today

timea few seconds ago

  • USA Today

After $220 million Columbia deal, Trump promises more to come

After commending Columbia University for "agreeing to do what is right," President Trump indicates his pressure campaign to reshape prestigious colleges isn't stopping any time soon. WASHINGTON – After announcing a $220 million deal with Columbia University to restore its federal funding, President Donald Trump indicated his pressure campaign to reshape prestigious colleges isn't stopping anytime soon. Not long after the settlement was reached, he wrote on his social media platform that similar agreements with "Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming." Columbia, a selective and wealthy Ivy League school in New York City, on July 23 agreed to pay more than $220 million in fines over several years to the government for allegedly violating federal civil rights laws. Last year, the campus became the epicenter of student protests related to the Israel-Hamas war. At the time, the tense environment drew nationwide concern over a spike in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents. The heightened scrutiny also focused the ire of many conservative politicians, who have long accused higher education more broadly of being too left-leaning. Read more: How Columbia University became the epicenter of disagreement over the Israel-Hamas war Trump's criticisms of the campus, however, have extended far beyond its compliance with antidiscrimination protections. In March, he demanded that the school overhaul its hiring, admissions and teaching practices. Columbia's president, Claire Shipman, said the university would appoint an independent monitor to oversee the campus in conjunction with federal officials, and to ensure administrators are abiding by the terms of the deal. The 22-page agreement contains sweeping concessions from the college, including handing over admissions data to the independent monitor, new faculty appointments, conducting reviews of some academic departments and more greatly scrutinizing foreign student enrollment. In return, the Trump administration promised to reroute more than $400 million in paused federal funding, largely for research, back to the college. In an interview on CNN the morning after the arrangement was announced, Shipman indicated billions more dollars were at stake. "It's not just money for Columbia," she said. "This is about science. It's about curing cancer, cutting edge, boundary breaking science that actually benefits the country and humanity." The unprecedented agreement came weeks after the administration struck a separate accord with the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, another member of the Ivy League, to unfreeze $175 million in return for apologizing to swimmers who competed against a transgender athlete years ago. "I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right," Trump wrote. "I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!" Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store