Nigeria's Tinubu Signs New Tax Law in Latest Step in Reform Push
Nigerian President Bola Tinubu has signed four new tax laws, marking the latest chapter in his push to reform the economy of Africa's most populous nation.
The new rules, which overhaul some levies that date back to Nigeria's colonial era, are designed to boost government revenue as a share of gross domestic product from levels that rank it among the lowest in the world.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Wall Street Bigwig Says He's Confused How He Ended Up Funding an Armed Coup in African
Who among us hasn't stumbled headfirst into a violent coup attempt involving millions of dollars of black market weaponry? That's the argument Robert Granieri, multimillionaire cofounder of trading firm Jane Street, is invoking after being caught funneling hoards of cash to an opposition party in South Sudan. The funding allegedly included millions of dollars in backing to purchase rifles, Stinger missiles, bulletproof vests, and grenades meant to topple South Sudan's government. Granieri says he was "duped" into providing the funds by a man claiming to be an activist in the region. "Granieri is a longtime supporter of human rights causes," his lawyer told Bloomberg. "In this case, the person Rob thought was a human rights activist defrauded Rob and lied about his intentions." Jane Street is notably the launchpad of financial fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried before he launched his now-cratered cryptocurrency platform, FTX. Granieri, meanwhile, has a record of donations to NGOs like Ideas Beyond Borders in Afghanistan, which have been accused of treating third-world violence and suffering as "ample photo opportunities" with which to attract donors. The Wall Street hotshot's role in the plot was uncovered amidst the prosecution of Peter Ajak, a Sudanese political activist who was indicted last year for trying to smuggle the massive weapons cache from the US to the war-torn region. Though Ajak and his co-conspirator, Abraham Chol Keech, are alleged to be the masterminds behind the dramatic plot, it hadn't been fully explained who was funding the expensive venture. Far from the Mr. Magoo scenario that Granieri's attorneys are claiming, Ajak's lawyers paint a picture of a Wall Street financier who was "vital to the plan." In May, the Sudanese rebel's lawyers claimed that "without the significant financing that Mr. Granieri could and agreed to provide, the alleged conspiracy would have been impossible." Perhaps the most bizarre twist is the alleged involvement of Soviet chessmaster Garry Kasparov, who came to know both Granieri and Ajak through his work as chair of the Human Rights Foundation, according to Bloomberg. For his part, Kasparov denies involvement, saying that his "record and values are clear, and they remain unchanged." South Sudan officially separated from Sudan in 2011, following years of upheaval amidst a broader struggle by the United States and China for control over resources in the region. In 2021, a military coup toppled the transitional Sudanese government, leading to mass unrest and a resurgence of state violence. In the few short years since, over 10 million Sudanese residents have been displaced by war, while nearly 17 million people are considered food insecure. If Granieri is found guilty of knowingly funding the coup, he'll be the latest in a long list of American moguls caught meddling in the affairs of foreign lands — and unleashing devastating consequences on sovereign people in the process. More on Wall Street: This May Be the Most Terrifying Sign of Global Warming Yet
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill
President Donald Trump is using false claims to promote his massive domestic policy bill. In a White House speech on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed Medicaid is 'left the same' by the bill. In fact, both the version of the legislation that was narrowly passed by the House in May and the latest version now being contemplated by the Senate contain major Medicaid policy changes and funding cuts that are expected to result in millions of people losing insurance coverage. Trump also falsely claimed that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security benefits. The legislation would not actually fulfill Trump's campaign promise to completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, though it would temporarily give seniors a substantially bigger tax deduction. And Trump falsely claimed that 'there'll be a 68% tax increase' if Congress doesn't approve the bill; there is no credible estimate of anything close to a 68% hike. One caveat: since Congress has not yet sent a final bill to Trump's desk, it's possible that legislators will make major changes before the Senate votes. But Trump's claims are inaccurate with regard to the House-approved version and the version senators are considering. Asked for comment on the president's false claims, the White House provided an on-record response that touted the benefits of the bill but did not defend Trump's specific assertions. 'The One, Big, Beautiful Bill is chock-full of the policies that the American people elected President Trump – and Congressional Republicans – to implement,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a Friday email. Here is a fact check. Trump claimed in his Thursday address that people are 'not going to feel any' of the spending cuts included in the bill. He then said, 'Your Medicaid is left alone. It's left the same.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Medicaid is false. The version of the bill that was passed by the House last month would make multiple significant changes to Medicaid and would reduce federal funding for the program by hundreds of billions of dollars. The legislation's Medicaid provisions are expected to result in 7.8 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to more than 71 million low-income Americans, including children, people with disabilities, senior citizens, parents and other adults. The House bill would require certain able-bodied adults without dependent children to work, volunteer or participate in other activities for at least 80 hours a month to retain their coverage. It would also enact several provisions that would make it more difficult to sign up for or reenroll in Medicaid. And it would reduce federal support to certain states that provide state-funded coverage to undocumented immigrants. Regardless of the merits of these policies, they are major changes that would not leave Medicaid 'the same.' All told, the changes would reduce federal support for the program by roughly $800 billion over a decade, the Congressional Budget Office projects; the Senate version of the bill has yet to be finalized but contains many similar provisions. Asked for comment on Trump's claim that Medicaid would be 'left the same' by the bill, a White House official provided background material that did not try to corroborate the claim. Rather, the White House defended the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid – saying, for example, that the majority of people the Congressional Budget Office estimated would lose Medicaid under the bill 'are able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and work less than 20 hours per week.' Trump campaigned in 2024 on a promise of no more taxes on Social Security benefits. On Thursday, he said the bill is 'so good' because it includes 'hundreds of things' that will benefit Americans – including 'no tax' on Social Security. He then said in a social media post on Friday that the legislation left Republicans 'on the precipice' of delivering achievements including 'NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR OUR SENIORS.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Social Security is false. The bill would temporarily beef up seniors' standard tax deduction, but it would not completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. The House-approved version would give people age 65 and older a $4,000 increase to their standard deduction from 2025 through 2028, whether or not they are receiving Social Security payments yet. The Senate version would provide a $6,000 boost to seniors. In both versions, the benefit would start to phase out for individuals with incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with incomes of more than $150,000. This measure is a move in the direction of Trump's campaign promise to end taxes on Social Security benefits; lawmakers could not eliminate those taxes under the rules of budget reconciliation, which Republicans are using to advance the package by a simple majority vote and without Democratic support in the Senate. But whatever the reason, Trump's claim that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security, period, remains incorrect. Asked for comment on the Trump claim, the White House asserted in its background material that, under the bill, the vast majority of seniors receiving Social Security income would pay no tax on that income. Trump's own assertion was bigger. Trump warned Thursday of the consequences of allowing the temporary tax cuts from his 2017 tax law to expire rather than making them permanent by passing this new bill – and he invoked a figure he has frequently deployed when promoting the 2025 legislation. 'If the bill doesn't pass, there'll be a 68% tax increase,' he said. 'Think of that: 68%.' Trump again repeated the '68%' warning during Friday remarks at the White House. Facts First: Trump's claim is false. There is no credible basis for the claim that failing to pass the bill would result in anywhere near a 68% tax increase. One analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center think tank found that taxes would rise by an average of about 7.5% in 2026 if Trump's bill didn't pass. Asked for comment by CNN, the White House did not attempt to address the '68%' figure even on condition of anonymity; it also provided no comment to other fact-checkers earlier in the month. In their articles, PolitiFact and noted that it's possible Trump has been wrongly describing a different Tax Policy Center estimate. The think tank found that about 64% of households would pay more taxes in 2026 if the 2017 law's temporary cuts in individual income tax and the estate tax were allowed to expire. That's clearly not the same as saying Americans will face a 64% (or 68%) tax increase. And this wasn't a one-time slip of the tongue by the president.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senators prep for a weekend of work to meet Trump's deadline for passing his tax and spending cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is expected to grind through a rare weekend session as Republicans race to pass President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks and spending cuts by his July Fourth deadline. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday. Senators were expected to take a procedural vote Saturday to begin debate on the legislation, but the timing was uncertain and there is a long path ahead, with at least 10 hours of debate time and an all-night voting session on countless amendments. Senate passage could be days away, and the bill would need to return to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. 'It's evolving,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., as he prepared to close up the chamber late Friday. The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up, even as he sometimes gives mixed signals, allowing for more time. At recent events at the White House, including Friday, Trump has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line. 'We can get it done,' Trump said in a social media post. 'It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country.' The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the spending cuts that Republicans are relying on to offset the lost tax revenues are causing dissent within the GOP ranks. Some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he is concerned about the fundamentals of the package and will not support the procedural motion to begin debate. 'I'm voting no on the motion to proceed,' he said. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pushing for deeper cuts, said he needed to see the final legislative text. The release of that draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the bill to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals were determined to be out of compliance by the chief arbiter of the Senate's rules. One plan would have shifted some food stamp costs from the federal government to the states; a second would have gutted the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to a Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary objections and opposition from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. Most states impose the provider tax as a way to boost federal Medicaid reimbursements. Some Republicans argue that is a scam and should be abolished. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The CBO has not yet publicly assessed the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the poorest Americans would face a $1,600 tax increase, the CBO said. One unresolved issue remains the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states. The cap is now $10,000. The White House and House Republicans had narrowed in on a plan for a $40,000 cap, but for five years instead of 10. Republican senators says that's too generous. At least one House GOP holdout, Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, said he cannot support the compromise. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what's in it. 'There's no good reason for Republicans to chase a silly deadline,' Schumer said. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington, said they are 'very close' to finishing up. 'We would still like to meet that July Fourth, self-imposed deadline,' said Johnson, R-La. With the narrow Republicans majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board to ensure passage. Johnson and Thune have stayed close to the White House, relying on Trump to pressure holdout lawmakers. ___ Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report. Lisa Mascaro, The Associated Press
