Nissan to close its Oppama plant in Japan to cut costs
Vehicle production at the Oppama plant in Kanagawa Prefecture south of Tokyo, will end at the end of the 2027 fiscal year, in March 2028, the Japanese automaker said Tuesday in a statement.
After that, all models that had been made or scheduled for production at Oppama will be made at Nissan Motor Kyushu, in Fukuoka Prefecture. The Oppama plant has been a prized symbol for Nissan Motor Corp., which rolled out its Leaf electric car there in 2010, ahead of key rivals.
The plant's closure was expected, as the maker of the Infiniti luxury models and March subcompact has said repeatedly that it is restructuring its operations to boost its profitability, including by consolidating production sites.
Nissan, based in the port city of Yokohama, says the tariff policies of President Donald Trump have hurt its bottom line.
Earlier this year, Nissan said it was slashing about 15% of its global work force, or about 20,000 employees, which would include a 9,000 head count reduction announced late last year, including in China.
The company has been racking up losses, hurt by slipping vehicle sales in China and elsewhere, huge restructuring costs and ballooning inventories.
Earlier this year, Nissan said it's reducing the number of its auto plants to 10 from 17 to 'create a leaner, more resilient business.'
At that time, it didn't say which plants were being closed but confirmed the closures will include factories in Japan. It's also reducing production capacity to 2.5 million units from 3.5 million.
Nissan racked up a loss of 670.9 billion yen ($4.5 billion) for the fiscal year through March, down from a 426.6 billion yen profit recorded in the previous fiscal year.
Its chief executive, Ivan Espinosa, took up the post in April and was set to speak to reporters later Tuesday. He replaced Makoto Uchida, who stepped down to take responsibility for the faltering results.
___
Yuri Kageyama is on Threads: https://www.threads.com/@yurikageyama
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Yen Advances as Japan's LDP Coalition Projected to Lose Majority
By , Matthew Burgess, and Michael G Wilson Save The yen strengthened against the dollar as traders reacted to Japan's ruling coalition failing to win a majority in the upper house election. Japan's currency gained as much as 0.7% to 147.79 per dollar. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party along with longtime partner Komeito lost its majority in the chamber, public broadcaster NHK reported. It's the first time since 1955 that a leader from the storied Japanese party will govern the country without a majority in at least one of the legislative bodies.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Brazil's Top Court Defies Trump, Signals No Retreat on Bolsonaro
(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump's tariff threat against Brazil over a legal probe into his political ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, caught the Supreme Court in Brasilia off guard. Why the Federal Reserve's Building Renovation Costs $2.5 Billion Milan Corruption Probe Casts Shadow Over Property Boom Mumbai Facelift Is Inspired by 200-Year-Old New York Blueprint How San Jose's Mayor Is Working to Build an AI Capital The top court is in recess during July — not all its judges were even in the country — making it difficult to convene to formulate a response. But a group of justices including Alexandre de Moraes, who is overseeing the former president's case, immediately began discussing a response aimed more at asserting national sovereignty than easing tensions with the US. Just after Trump threatened 50% tariffs on Brazil on July 9, this group advocated for the court to issue a statement challenging the US president's assertion of a 'Witch Hunt,' according to two people with knowledge of how the events unfolded. In the end, Chief Justice Luis Roberto Barroso agreed in a call with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva that the first response should come from the political sphere, a third person said, all of them asking not be named discussing private deliberations. Lula then made the point, in a statement that evening, that Brazil is 'a sovereign country with independent institutions.' The reaction was calibrated to underline the division between the executive and the judiciary in Brazil, and how the US demands had overstepped that mark. Yet it also shows a shared determination to fight back rather than give in to his demands that the Bolsonaro case be dropped. 'If there was some expectation that the threats would generate some fear in the Brazilian Supreme Court, the effect is the opposite,' said Thiago de Aragao, head of Arko International, a Washington-based consultancy. 'Their willingness to go through this all the way to the end is much higher, especially because they want to demonstrate their sovereignty and independence.' That reality signals turbulence ahead between Latin America's economic and political heavyweight helmed by a seasoned leftist leader and an unapologetically mercantilist US under a president who is now largely unfettered by legal constraints. Since then, Trump reiterated his tariff threats in an open letter, Brazil's top court ordered Bolsonaro to wear an ankle monitor alleging a flight risk, and the US State Department revoked US visas for Moraes and other justices. Early Warnings It's a clash of personalities and political cultures that's been building for some time. Since early this year, officials from the US embassy in Brasilia had reached out to Brazil's Supreme Court to warn that the ongoing investigation into whether Bolsonaro had sought to overturn his 2022 election loss threatened to harm trade relations, according to one of the people with knowledge of the conversations. Brazil's Supreme Court didn't reply to a request for comment. The US embassy said it has made clear its 'concern about the politicization of the investigations' involving Bolsonaro and his supporters. The issue has been raised 'during interactions with Brazilian authorities, for some time now,' according to the July 18 statement issued by the embassy's press office in Portuguese. Brazilian justices aware of the advisories initially shrugged them off as absurd. There was no way, they reasoned, the US would intervene in what was ultimately a domestic legal affair, one of the people said. But if Brazilian judges had underestimated the White House, it quickly became clear that Trump, too, had miscalculated. To the majority of the court's members, the Bolsonaro case is part of a larger fight to safeguard a relatively young democracy the former Army captain allegedly put in peril. And unlike the US Supreme Court, which helped clear the way for Trump's return to power despite charges that he illegally conspired to overturn his 2020 defeat, Brazil's has no intention of giving in. The court's determination is typically ascribed — by supporters and critics alike — to Moraes, the crusading justice overseeing both the coup trial and spearheading an aggressive campaign against social-media disinformation that has also drawn the ire of Trump and members of his movement. As part of his efforts, the 56-year-old judge has ordered the removal of accounts accused of spreading fake news from platforms like X, Rumble and Meta's Facebook. He's clashed with right-wing journalists and commentators who say he's abusing his power to target political opponents, and last year waged a public tussle with Elon Musk after banning access to X in Brazil. His prominent role in Brazil's most high-profile legal fights has turned him into the supervillain of Bolsonaro's movement: Eduardo Bolsonaro, a son of the former president, has spent months in the US lobbying Washington to put sanctions on the judge. Moraes has declined requests for comment. US, Brazil Parallels In reality, the majority of the court's 11 members are united in the belief that they are waging an existential fight for Brazilian democracy — one with implications that stretch far beyond Brazil's borders. It's a view that solidified in the wake of the 2023 insurrection attempt in which thousands of Bolsonaro supporters ransacked major government buildings, including the Supreme Court, the presidential palace and Congress — events that drew natural comparisons to the Capitol riots in Washington that followed Trump's 2020 defeat. Even the dates were similar: the US rioting came on Jan. 6; Brazil's attempted coup was Jan. 8. As clear as the parallels are, the responses from the country's Supreme Courts couldn't be much different. The US tribunal ruled in 2024 that Trump enjoyed some immunity from criminal charges over his efforts to overturn the results, effectively killing chances of a trial before last year's election. His subsequent victory put an end to the case altogether. 'I see Brazil with mechanisms to protect its democracy that are much efficient what we've seen in the US,' said Robert Dias, a professor of constitutional law at Getulio Vargas Foundation law school in Sao Paulo. 'The American constitution only has force when institutional actors are loyal to it.' Brazil, by contrast, moved swiftly: In 2023, its electoral court — a separate body made up of a rotating cast of Supreme Court justices — barred Bolsonaro from holding office for eight years for spreading voter fraud conspiracies, ending any chance of a swift return to the presidency. The judicial system has moved similarly rapidly to find the culprits the Jan. 8 2023 insurrection in Brasilia. Federal police recommended the coup attempt charges in November 2024. Within months, the Supreme Court had approved them and set the stage for a trial. More outspoken by tradition than their American counterparts, the justices have left little doubt about their motivations: They want to conclude the trial before Brazilians vote again in October 2026. That has added fuel to claims that they've predetermined the outcome and robbed Bolsonaro of due process. But in recent days, judges have pushed back, arguing that their aggressive approach was necessary to avoid the sort of democratic collapse that has happened elsewhere. 'An independent and active court was necessary to prevent the collapse of institutions, as has occurred in several countries around the world, from Eastern Europe to Latin America,' Chief Justice Barroso wrote in a letter published on its website on July 13. 'The Supreme Federal Court will judge independently and based on the evidence.' Despite the July recess, Moraes continued working, and Bolsonaro's case proceeded as normal. the Prosecutor General's Office submitted its closing arguments on July 14, requesting his conviction for the attempted coup. The Supreme Court is expected to return from recess in August and likely to conclude the case soon. What remains uncertain is how far Trump is willing to go to support Bolsonaro. Eduardo Bolsonaro and conservative digital influencer Paulo Figueiredo, grandson of the last president of the military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985, spent the past several days in Washington in meetings at the State Department and, according to them, at the White House. In a sign of Trump's unconventional diplomacy, Eduardo and Figueiredo have become key sources of information about Brazil for his administration, according to diplomatic sources. 'Everyone's position was unanimous: There will not be a millimeter of concession unless Brazil takes the first step,' Figueiredo said Wednesday of the meetings held in Washington. 'The warning we heard was: 'If things continue at this pace, President Trump may take additional measures, which could even involve the financial market.'' Donald Trump has so far said he won't back down. 'It is my sincere hope that the Government of Brazil changes course, stops attacking political opponents, and ends their ridiculous censorship regime,' Trump wrote in the letter addressed to Bolsonaro Thursday night. 'I will be watching closely.' --With assistance from Andrew Rosati. A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border Thailand's Changing Cannabis Rules Leave Farmers in a Tough Spot How Starbucks' CEO Plans to Tame the Rush-Hour Free-for-All What the Tough Job Market for New College Grads Says About the Economy How Taylor Swift Turned a Glitter Freckle Maker Into a Sensation ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
No Tax On Tips Explained
TOPSHOT - US President Donald Trump (C) shows his signature on the "Big Beautiful Bill Act" at the ... More White House in Washington, DC, on July 4, 2025. US President Donald Trump signed his flagship tax and spending bill on July 4 in a pomp-laden Independence Day ceremony featuring fireworks and a flypast by the type of stealth bomber that bombed Iran. Trump pushed Republican lawmakers to get his unpopular "One Big Beautiful Bill" through a reluctant Congress in time for him to sign it into law on the US national holiday — and they did so with a day to spare Thursday. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / POOL / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) Should gratuities be tax-free? That's the premise behind the 'No Tax on Tips' provision of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Starting in 2025, tipped workers will be able to deduct up to $25,000 from their taxable income—though not from payroll taxes. It is an applause line with broad political appeal, especially among workers in tip-heavy industries like hospitality. But, just like the overtime deduction, this isn't strictly speaking a pure tax cut—it's a narrowly tailored deduction that chooses winners and losers and comes with a host of administrative headaches. While it may seem like relief for low-wage workers, under the hood it is quite a bit more complicated. What No Tax on Tips Does To start, the 'no tax on tips' provision of the OBBBA, Section 70201, isn't a tax exemption—it's a deduction. Specifically, it is an above the line deduction of up to $25,000 for tips received in the course of ordinary employment, as long as they are voluntary and properly reported. Like the overtime deduction, this one is also temporary: it applies through tax year 2028. It is also gated. Tips must be reported on a W-2 or other IRS-recognized form, and the job must be one that customarily receives tips—the Treasury Department will be issuing guidance fleshing out that latter bit. If you work in hospitality, you will probably qualify. If you're a flyfishing instructor collecting Venmo payments and occasional cash thank-yous, maybe not. The deduction doesn't apply to automatic service charges, like those mandatory 20% gratuity tack-ons for large parties. The deduction is also completely unavailable to anyone working in Specified Service Trades or Businesses (SSTB), which is an exclusion category that includes lawyers, financial advisors, and any job where the key asset is skill. Whether employees of SSTBs are also excluded remains an open question. As with the overtime deduction, this one phases out for higher earners—specifically those with modified adjusted gross income over $150,000 for a single filer or $300,000 for joint filers. The tips also remain subject to payroll taxes, so this isn't a full tax holiday but is instead a narrow, federally blessed deduction for some earnings stemming from very specific kinds of labor. Who Benefits From No Tax on Tips? The political pitch is pretty simple: this is for the hardworking bartender, waiter, or barista trying to make their paycheck stretch over an ever-increasing cost of living. But, as with the overtime deduction, the real story lies in the actual tax math—and who has enough income to fully benefit. More than 4 million Americans work in tipped occupations, but many of them earn too little to owe federal income tax in the first place. Between the standard deduction and other credits, a huge share of tipped workers—many single parents and part-time employees that could most benefit—already have zero income tax liability. For them, the deduction is a mirage. As a deduction, it does not generate a refundable credit if it brings an employee's taxable income below $0. Thus, the real winners are middle-income workers in full-time, tip-heavy jobs who report all their tips by the book. A bartender earning $35,000 in wages and $15,000 in tips might save $2,000 or more per year on their tax bill, assuming proper reporting. But that is a narrow slice of the labor market: not too poor to owe tax, not too rich to phase out, and perfectly tax-compliant. There is another catch in that, to claim the deduction, both the worker and, if applicable, their spouse must have valid Social Security numbers. That rules out many immigrant workers, particularly those in mixed-status households. Equity and Distortions At first glance, 'no tax on tips' reads like a gesture of economic respect to service workers. In practice, it is a policy that distorts how compensation is structured and who gets rewarded for what kind of work. In short, it picks winners and losers. Two workers earning $50,000 a year could face very different tax bills depending on whether some of that income came as tips. And yet, tip income and wage income each spend equally. This violates basic horizontal equity—the principle that similar taxpayers should shoulder similar tax burdens. As with the overtime deduction, the tips deduction doesn't say 'work matters;' it says how you get paid matters more than what you get paid. Employers now have a new incentive to lean into tip-based compensation, and lower base wages. This disincentivizes employers from providing stability for their workers and could put more workers at the mercy of customer generosity. Some employers may even reclassify service charges or performance bonuses as 'tips'—pushing compliance boundaries in the hope of creating deductible income for workers. At the same time, workers will face the opposite pressure. The more they can convert income into voluntary tips, the more tax they avoid. That's not just an incentive for dishonesty; it's an invitation to creative classification and perhaps a shift in employment. In a gig economy already rife with precarity and underreporting, this could widen the gulf between what workers earn and what they disclose. While the policy may feel like a reward for hustle, much like its overtime cousin, it quietly erodes the wage floor, complicates enforcement, and pushes a compensation model that depends on customer generosity rather than employer obligation. Policy Tradeoffs and the Politics That Drive Them The 'no tax on tips' provision may cost less than the overtime deduction—early estimates suggest perhaps as little as just tens of billions of dollars—but it still represents a diversion of public funds. Every dollar spent subsidizing voluntarily-reported tip income is a dollar not spent in service of raising the minimum wage or providing a refundable benefit that can assist the broader service economy. Instead of lifting wages systemically, Congress is opting to privilege a narrow slice of income for a narrow subset of workers, conditioned on proper paperwork. Politically, however, it is bulletproof. You don't lose elections by giving tax breaks to waiters. It polls well, headlines even better, and offers lawmakers an easy applause line to show support for the working class. Most importantly, it asks nothing of employers. And yet, no one wants to admit what 'no tax on tips' really is: a tax code preference for irregular, customer-subsidized income over salary; a subsidy for volatility over stability; and an incentive for gratuities at the expense of guarantees.
