Chiquita fires thousands of striking banana workers in Panama, says it suffered $75 million losses
PANAMA CITY — Banana giant Chiquita Brands has fired its workers in Panama who have been out on strike for more than three weeks as part of nationwide protests against reforms to the social security system, the company said Thursday.
Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino had said earlier Thursday that the strike was illegal and included some 5,000 workers.
'Unfortunately, following the unjustified abandonment of work at our plantations and operations centers since April 28 and continuing today, (the company) has proceeded with the termination of all of our daily workers,' the company said in a statement. It said the company had suffered losses of at least $75 million.
Mulino, speaking at his weekly press briefing Thursday morning, had blamed the leader of the banana workers union.
'We don't know how to talk to (union) leader Francisco Smith about the enormous damage his intransigence is causing the Bocas del Toro job sector,' Mulino said. Bocas del Toro is Panama's westernmost province and borders Costa Rica.
The union did not immediately comment.
Protests marches and occasional roadblocks have stretched from one end of the country to the other as teachers, construction workers and other unions expressed their rejection to changes the government said were necessary to keep the social security system solvent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Seniors on Social Security Just Got Some Really Tough News
Social Security's trust funds will be depleted by 2034. This is a year earlier than expected. It's likely the government will reform the program so significant benefit cuts aren't necessary. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › You probably know by now that retirement isn't all about carefree fun. Living off a fixed income can be tough, especially if you weren't able to save as much as you wanted to when you were younger. So every dollar you have, including your Social Security checks, matters. Unfortunately, the latest Social Security Trustees Report has raised concerns about the program's solvency. This is a serious issue for seniors who rely heavily on their Social Security benefits to carry them through the next few decades. But that doesn't mean you'll soon be covering your expenses all on your own either. Social Security has been spending more money than it's taken in every year since 2021, and that problem continues to worsen. Baby boomers retiring en masse and fewer workers in younger generations to replace them has meant that Social Security tax revenue isn't enough to pay out everyone's benefits. So far, the program has stayed afloat by making up the difference with money in the program's trust funds. But this won't work forever. Eventually, those trust funds will run out, and Social Security could face a shortfall when it does. When Social Security will run out of money has always been a bit of a moving target. Last year, the Trustees Report predicted depletion in 2035. But this year's report now estimates that the trust funds will be depleted a year earlier. This may be due to the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act earlier this year, which increased benefits for certain retirees, and which was projected to accelerate trust fund depletion by six months. This wouldn't be the end of Social Security, though. It would continue to receive revenue from workers paying Social Security payroll taxes and seniors who owe income taxes on a portion of their benefits. Together, this would be enough to cover the majority of Social Security benefits payable today. The 2024 Trustees Report estimated that after trust fund depletion, the program could pay out about 83% of scheduled benefits. The 2025 report puts this a little lower -- around 81%. In either case, you'd definitely continue to get something from the program in 2035 and beyond. That said, a nearly 20% benefit cut is a serious concern, particularly for those who have little to no personal savings. But it probably won't happen. Though the deadline has moved up a little, the government has been aware of Social Security's looming insolvency for years, and this isn't the first time this has happened either. Last time, Congress made changes, like adding Social Security benefit taxes, to bring in more money so it wouldn't have to slash benefits. It's likely this happens again, though we don't know when Washington will make the changes or what they'll look like. Benefit cuts remain a possibility, but it's unlikely they would be 20%. And they may not happen at all. The government might decide to increase the Social Security payroll tax rate that workers pay or increase the ceiling on income subject to Social Security tax (currently $176,100 in 2025). This would force wealthier Americans to pay more into the program. For now, all we can do is wait to see what happens. But once there's a plan in place, it'll be time to revisit your budget and figure out how you'll cover your expenses moving forward. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Seniors on Social Security Just Got Some Really Tough News was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress should look to Tennessee as an example for Medicaid reform
As Congress wrestles with the need to trim spending, attention has turned to Medicaid, and to a lesser extent, Medicare. These are hardly new issues. Within seven years of the 1965 enactment of Medicaid, for those eligible for federal income support (largely those in poverty), and Medicare, primarily for those eligible for Social Security, Congress in 1972 turned its attention to concerns about containing costs in those programs. Tennessee has been a pioneer in managing its Medicaid costs, and Congress might benefit from the Tennessee experience with TennCare, the state's Medicaid program. About 30 years ago, Tennessee faced unsustainable annual increases in its Medicaid program. A popular Democratic governor, Ned McWherter, called the state's Medicaid program the Pac Man of the state's budget. He sought to find a way to pay for the Medicaid increases through a state income tax (Tennessee does not have one) but failed. The TennCare program was designed to address the issue by containing the rate of increase in costs. Tennessee received a waiver so that it could implement a universal and mandatory managed care program. Tennessee had no managed care in Medicaid, and a move to 100 percent managed care was projected to reduce costs by 20-25 percent on a recurring basis. Support from patient advocates was secured by agreeing that cost savings would be used to increase access to Medicaid to previously uncovered persons. The mandatory Medicaid managed care program was deemed such a success that, in 1997, Congress allowed states to implement Medicaid managed care without a waiver. Managed care introduced economic considerations into the process of medical decision-making. While the cost savings projections were pretty much on target; once those savings were fully realized, the projections recognized that the rate of cost escalation would be restored, albeit from a lower cost basis. That projection also turned out to be pretty accurate. A Republican governor, Don Sundquist, succeeded McWherter and unsuccessfully sought to implement an income tax. Another wonderful Democratic governor, Phil Bredesen, was elected to succeed Sundquist under a promise not to seek an income tax. Bredesen was determined to find a way to manage down the rate of increase of Medicaid spending. I served as his outside counsel. A reform team determined that the target for reform should focus on the concept of 'medical necessity.' That insight was informed by work I had done as part of an Institute of Medicine study group, which looked at hospital staffing in a system that had recently merged three hospitals. There were three distinct models, and no consensus about which was the 'right' one. Traditionally, the concept of 'medical necessity' was the term used to define the scope of benefits under health plans, including Medicaid. The concept assumed that there was a single correct way of practicing medicine, and that it had a justification based on scientific consensus. But the existence of clinical uncertainty called into question that traditional view. As it turned out, many alternatives were available at varying costs, and evidence of superiority of one particular approach was often lacking. Those insights led to the policy conclusion that, if a more expensive alternative were proposed, the state should not pay for that more expensive alternative unless there was good scientific evidence that it was superior and worth the additional cost. If an aspirin were adequate, it should be used instead of a more expensive prescription-based alternative. If an adequate outpatient procedure were available at lower cost, TennCare should not pay for a more expensive inpatient option. These insights resulted in a TennCare definition of 'medical necessity' that could serve as a national model at considerable (but hard to measure) cost savings. That definition has been in place for nearly 20 years and has been approved by a federal court. TennCare has kept costs manageable so that the state has been able to live within existing sources of revenue, and the state even proposed to accept financial risk if it could share in the cost savings from TennCare above a projected baseline. The TennCare definition includes the traditional requirement that a medical item or service be recommended by a treating physician (no doctor shopping) and that it be 'safe and effective.' The reasonably anticipated medical benefits must 'outweigh' the reasonably anticipated medical risks 'based on the enrollee's condition and scientifically supported evidence' to be covered under TennCare. That is, a medically based risk-benefit calculation is a requirement as part of medical decision-making. The innovative aspects have three components. First, a medical item or service must be required 'in order to diagnose or treat an enrollee's medical condition.' That circumscribes the type of item or service covered under the program. Second, the medical item or service must be the 'least costly alternative course of diagnosis or treatment.' That expressly incorporates economic factors into medical decision-making. An alternative course of diagnosis or treatment 'may include observation, lifestyle or behavioral changes, or, where appropriate, no treatment at all.' If an item or service can be safely provided in an outpatient setting at lower cost, then that is what TennCare will pay for. More expensive inpatient treatment is not 'medically necessary.' Third, the less costly alternative need only be 'adequate for the medical condition of the enrollee.' The yardstick is not the best possible standard or some comparison with private plans. The standard of 'adequacy' means that sub-standard medicine is not acceptable, but that some differences between benefits for TennCare enrollees and those on private plans are acceptable. These innovations were controversial 20 years ago, when proposed and enacted, but they have become part of the fabric of TennCare and have been in place successfully for two decades. They help shape the medical decision-making culture that costs are to be considered and that the issue is the adequacy of care not what might be available in some private plans. That type of modest stratification, by the way, is expressly endorsed in the Affordable Care Act. Section 1302(b)(5) expressly allows for supplementation by health plans beyond the essential health benefits mandated by the Affordable Care Act. In the discussions that led to these reforms, the estimated range of savings was from 1 percent to 5 percent of total Medicaid spending. In an environment in which a program entails large expenditures, even a 1 percent per year savings could be considerable. James F. Blumstein is University Distinguished Professor at Vanderbilt Law School and the director of Vanderbilt's Health Policy Center. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Miami Herald
9 hours ago
- Miami Herald
SALT income tax deduction takes key step forward on Senate deal
A much followed tax break improvement is inching toward becoming a reality. A proposed tweak to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction - capped at $10,000 since 2018 - could soon offer relief to taxpayers in high-tax states. If passed, the Senate's version of the One Big Beautiful Bill of America (OBBBA) would give taxpayers a temporary boost in their ability to deduct SALT payments, especially for those who've felt the sting of the cap since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) took effect. And as lawmakers inch toward a deal, taxpayers - and their accountants - are watching closely. Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash What is the SALT income tax deduction cap? Under the TCJA, the SALT deduction was capped at $10,000 annually - including the combined total of property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes. That cap, still in place today, is set to expire at the end of 2025. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter But since its enactment, it has disproportionately affected residents in states with high property values and/or income tax rates. Think: New YorkCaliforniaNew JerseyConnecticutMassachusettsMarylandIllinois In these states, many middle-and upper-middle-income households have long paid more than $10,000 in state and local taxes. Related: How the IRS taxes Social Security income in retirement As a result, despite the higher standard deduction that was part of TCJA, some families have been unable to fully deduct those expenses on their federal tax returns-a costly outcome. Both the House and Senate versions of the OBBBA seek to expand the SALT deduction, but with key differences. In the House proposal, the cap would rise to $40,000 for married couples, phased out for households earning over $500,000. The new cap would last until 2034. Related: Social Security income tax deduction clears critical hurdle Not all lawmakers are on board. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), for instance, told Axios he was a "no" on a temporary deal. "I need $40K for my constituents, and it has to be $40K forever," he said. The Senate version takes a different approach. It proposes a temporary SALT cap increase from 2025 through 2029, followed by a return to the $10,000 cap: 2025: Cap rises to $40,0002026: Adjusted to $40,4002027–2029: Cap increases annually by 1%2030 and beyond: Cap returns to $10,000 For married individuals filing separately, these caps are halved. High-Income taxpayers face phase-down of SALT deduction The Senate plan includes a phase-down for high earners, starting in 2025. Here's how it works: The benefit phases down once your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) exceeds $500,000 (or $250,000 for married filing separately).The reduction equals 30% of the amount your MAGI exceeds the the SALT cap cannot fall below $10,000 - even for the wealthiest filers. This means high-income households would still see some benefit from the temporary cap hike, just not the full amount. "For a lot of people, this cap is the difference between taking the standard deduction and itemizing deductions," said Michael Lofley, a financial adviser with HBKS Wealth Advisors. "If they itemize, they now get some additional tax benefit for other deductions, like charitable giving or mortgage interest." Related: Medicare recipients face a growing problem While some taxpayers - particularly small business owners - have used pass-through entity taxes (PTETs) to bypass the cap, W-2 earners such as corporate executives don't have that option. For them, this proposal offers real financial relief. Standard deduction increases under Senate tax plan The Senate tax bill includes more than just SALT deduction relief. It also proposes permanent extensions of the TCJA's higher standard deduction amounts. And for the years 2025 through 2028, it adds an extra boost: $1,000 for single filers$1,500 for heads of household$2,000 for married couples filing jointly That means in 2026, the standard deduction could be: $16,000 for singles$24,000 for heads of household$32,000 for married joint filers After 2026, these amounts would adjust with inflation. Retirees also have reason to pay attention. The Senate bill includes a larger senior tax deduction - $6,000 per eligible filer aged 65 or older (up from $4,000 in the House bill). This enhanced deduction would apply through 2028 and would phase out for incomes above: $75,000 (single filers)$150,000 (married filing jointly) Before the TCJA, about 31% to 32% of taxpayers itemized deductions. But after the law took effect in 2018, that figure dropped significantly: 2018: 11% to 11.5%2020–2022: Just 9% to 10% If the SALT cap is temporarily expanded, even if the standard deduction increases, more taxpayers - especially in high-tax areas - may once again find it beneficial to itemize deductions on their federal tax returns. "If Congress meets President Trump's July 4th deadline for passing the final bill, taxpayers will soon be able to update their 2025 tax projections," says Jean-Luc Bourdon, CPA. "This could prompt some taxpayers to revise their estimated quarterly payments or tax withholdings for the remainder of the year." Related: Workers struggle with one big problem when they retire The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
