Latest news with #KentSmetters
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
4 Bath and Beauty Items To Stock Up on Now in Case of Tariff-Induced Product Shortages
It's no secret the U.S. introduced new tariffs on imports from China, the European Union and many other countries. While rates have fluctuated, ranging from a baseline of 10% to as high as 145% on certain Chinese goods earlier this year, per Reuters, it's clear that global supply chains are under pressure. According to the Personal Care Products Council, trade policies that raise costs on imported materials could impact the affordability and availability of everyday essentials like toothpaste, shampoo and moisturizer. Be Aware: Try This: If there are bath and beauty products you use daily, now might be a good time to grab an extra bottle or two. Here are four categories that could be most impacted by trade disruptions and rising costs. Many skincare products rely on ingredients that are sourced globally. For example, Volza trade data shows the U.S. imports most of its hyaluronic acid from China, India and France. Products that rely on imported ingredients could become more expensive or harder to restock if global sourcing or shipping delays persist. In an interview with Glamour, Kent Smetters, professor at the Wharton School of Business, said consumers could pay up to 20% more for beauty and skincare products on average due to tariffs. Check Out: Toothpaste and mouthwash are part of a global supply chain. According to Volza, the U.S. imported over 57,000 shipments of toothpaste between late 2022 and late 2023, primarily from Mexico, India and China. While import dependence alone doesn't guarantee disruption, it leaves these products more exposed to rising shipping costs or changing trade policy. In January 2025, Reuters reported Colgate-Palmolive (one of the largest oral care brands in the U.S.) is already taking steps to adjust its sourcing and reduce the potential impact of new tariffs on toothpaste imported from Mexico. While the extent of future price or supply changes remains unclear, keeping an extra tube or brush head on hand might help avoid last-minute shortages or cost spikes. Haircare items like shampoo, conditioner and treatments often rely on global supply chains for both ingredients and packaging. 'It'll affect makeup, hair care, skin care, anything sold in a bottle,' said Perry Romanowski, a cosmetic chemist, in an interview with Allure. He explained that products made with ingredients like coconut oil and palm oil derivatives are more likely to see price spikes. If you have a go-to shampoo, deep conditioner or styling product, grabbing an extra bottle could help you avoid potential price hikes or stock issues later on. According to Volza, the U.S. imported over 130,000 shipments of bath and body products from countries like China, India and Mexico in the past year. While importing data alone doesn't confirm price hikes, the Personal Care Products Council has warned that tariffs on imported materials may impact both affordability and availability across the personal care sector. If you have go-to body care products, like moisturizing body washes or natural deodorants, it may be worth grabbing an extra bottle in case future costs rise or supply becomes more limited. Having an extra bottle or backup item for your daily-use products can save money and stress later. Focus on long shelf-life items, and always check expiration dates before buying in bulk. Prioritize the products you know you'll use, especially if they contain imported ingredients or come in plastic packaging that could be hit by tariffs. More From GOBankingRates 8 Common Mistakes Retirees Make With Their Social Security Checks This article originally appeared on 4 Bath and Beauty Items To Stock Up on Now in Case of Tariff-Induced Product Shortages Sign in to access your portfolio
The Herald Scotland
03-07-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Will Trump's tax bill help or hurt you? It may depend on your income
"It's still higher-income households that are the winners, especially those who are alive today," said Kent Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model. The analysis also found the Senate's version of the tax bill, which narrowly passed on July 1, would lead to higher deficits and slower economic growth compared to its counterpart from the House. The bill heads to the House for final approval. Trump has asked for a final version on his desk and ready for signature by July 4, but acknowledged the deadline may be "very hard to do" as some House Republicans voice frustrations with changes made in the Senate. Trump's big tax bill is a win. It could also be a big problem for GOP What's different under the Senate version of the tax bill? The legislation, dubbed the "One, Big Beautiful Bill" by Trump, would make the 2017 tax cuts from Trump's first term permanent, increase the child tax credit and introduce other tax cuts, including no taxes on tips or overtime wages. To help pay for the cuts, the government would reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, and make cuts to Medicaid, a program that provides health insurance to more than 71 million low-income Americans. The version in the Senate has some key differences from the House bill, including: Permanent tax breaks for corporations that allow businesses to deduct the full cost of qualifying investments and research projects immediately, rather than over a number of years. In the House's bill, these tax breaks were in effect from 2025 to 2029. Permanently enhancing the standard deduction, adding $750 for single filers, $1,125 for heads of households and $1,500 for married couples starting in 2025. There was a temporary adjustment in the House's version that added $1,000 for single filers, $1,500 for heads of households and $2,000 for couples from 2025 to 2028. Permanently raising the child tax credit to $2,200 starting in 2026, compared to a temporary increase to $2,500 through 2028 in the House bill. "The Senate one makes things more permanent," Smetters told USA TODAY. "On the one hand, we don't have to revisit the same politics in four years. On the other hand, there's a fiscal cost associated with that. That means more debt and more burdens inherited by future generations." More Americans would also lose Medicaid under the Senate's version, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, with an estimated 11.8 million people uninsured by 2034, compared to previous estimates of 10.9 million people under the House's proposal. 5 takeaways: Trump asserts dominance with 'big, beautiful bill' Senate passage Impact on future generations Various analyses suggest Trump's tax bill would reward higher-earning Americans more than their lower-earning counterparts. A June analysis of the House bill by the Congressional Budget Office, for instance, found resources for the poorest would decrease by about $1,600 per year under the legislation, largely due to cuts to Medicaid and food aid - which would be more aggressive under the Senate bill. Meanwhile, the wealthiest would gain about $12,000 on average. Another June report from the Yale Budget Lab suggests the bottom fifth of earners would lose about $560 per year while the top 20% would gain $6,000. But all future generations, no matter their income, would experience lifetime losses, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. High-income households are set to lose $5,700 under the Senate's bill, while low-income households would lose $22,000. The report points to a reduced social security net and lower wages as the main drivers. Under the House bill, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projected lifetime losses ranging from $500 for high-income households to $15,800 for low-income households. "The future generations, they're going to be worse off. It doesn't matter where on the income bracket they fall," Smetters said. "Ultimately, someone has to pay for (the tax bill), and we're basically passing it on to the next generation." Slower economic growth While the House version showed a 0.4% gain in GDP by year 10, according to the Budget Model's previous analysis, the Senate's version would yield a 0.3% loss. After 30 years, GDP would drop 4.6% under the Senate bill compared to a 1.5% drop under the House version. Higher deficits Primary deficits are projected to increase $3.1 trillion over the next decade through the Senate's tax bill, compared to roughly $2.7 trillion under the House bill, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. Other reports have also found a higher debt load under the Senate bill. The Congressional Budget Office projects it would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, $800 billion more than the House's bill. And a July report from the Yale Budget Lab says the Senate's bill would add $3 trillion to the debt by 2034, compared to an estimated $2.4 trillion under the House bill. How much do lower-income Americans stand to lose? According to the most recent Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis, the lowest-earning households stand to lose after-tax-and-transfer income in both the short- and long-run, while higher earners would see gains under the Senate bill. Those earning less than $18,000 would lose $235 on average in 2027 and $1,380 by 2033. Those earning between $18,000 and $52,999 would lose $75 in 2027 and $1,625 by 2033. Those earning between $53,000 and $95,999 would gain $1,350 in 2027 but lose $130 by 2033. Those earning between $96,000 and $178,999 would gain $3,880 in 2027 and $2,825 by 2033. Those earning between $179,000 and $271,999 would gain $6,615 in 2027 and $4,985 by 2033. Those earning between $272,000 and $400,999 would gain $9,360 in 2027 and $7,670 by 2033. Those earning between $401,000 and $1,019,999 would gain $20,605 in 2027 and $18,645 by 2033. Those earning between $1,020,000 and $4,450,999 would gain $36,020 in 2027 and $29,430 by 2033. Those with an income above $4,451,000 would gain $290,485 in 2027 and $82,255 by 2033. Smetters said figures may be slightly adjusted as more information on specific amendments becomes available.
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
GOP bill could shift wealth from young to older generations, study finds
The Republican budget package aims to make President Donald Trump's tax cuts permanent while offering a host of new financial breaks. Yet the "big, beautiful bill," as the legislation is dubbed, could also effectively transfer wealth from younger generations to older Americans over their lifetimes, a recent study finds. Long-term, the primary beneficiaries of the GOP bill would be older, wealthier Americans, while younger, middle- to low-income people would see fewer benefits, according to the analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a University of Pennsylvania think tank that studies the fiscal issues. The group's projection assesses the impact of proposed tax cuts under the bill, as well as reductions in federal programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, better known as food stamps. Penn Wharton also factors in the long-term fiscal impact of the debt the U.S. would likely have to issue to pay for the bill's tax cuts, the group said. "Somebody has to pay" Younger Americans would bear the brunt of the nation's spiraling debt, Kent Smetters, director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, told CBS MoneyWatch. "Somebody has to pay — nothing is for free. In this case, that's the future generations," he said. "We have finally reached this inflection point where under any reasonable estimation, younger people are going to be worse off in the future" if the current version of the bill is passed. For example, the bill would cost an infant born into a low-income family $14,100 over their lifetime. This loss stems from factors including reduced social safety net benefits and lower wages resulting from slower economic growth driven by increased national debt and deficits. On the other hand, a high-income 70-year-old stands to gain $120,000 over his remaining years due to the proposed legislation's tax cuts and other benefits, the analysis found. The House narrowly passed the legislation in May. Senate lawmakers are pressing to vote on the measure by the end of the week. The White House took issue with Penn Wharton's analysis. "So-called 'experts' panning the One, Big, Beautiful Bill without a smidge of humility should remember that they made these same exact gloomy predictions about President Trump's tax cuts during his first term – tax cuts that helped usher in historic job, wage, investment and economic growth along with the first decline in wealth inequality in decades," White House spokesman Kush Desai told CBS MoneyWatch. Biggest winners Like Penn Wharton, other researchers have said the Republican bill is likely to benefit wealthy Americans at the expense of people lower down the ladder. The measure would likely reduce the financial resources available to the lowest-earning 10% of U.S. households by $1,600 per year, or almost 4% of their annual income, according to a report published earlier this month by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. White House officials have previously questioned the CBO's scoring of the bill. But the highest-earning 10% of households would see a gain of $12,000 per year in resources, while middle-income households would see a gain of $500 to $1,000, the CBO projected. Its analysis is based on the bill's tax breaks, as well as reductions for federal programs and reductions in state funds for safety net programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. In considering the impact of higher U.S. debt on future generations, the cost would come in the form of lower wages and higher costs, such as more expensive mortgages, Smetters said. Already, the U.S. is spending more than $1 trillion a year to service its debt — almost double the amount it was paying five years ago, according to Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data. That's more than the nation currently spends on defense, data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows. Clock ticking Taking on more debt to pay for the GOP bill could make it tougher for the federal government to pay for programs like Social Security as more of its budget is eaten up by interest payments. Higher debt would also likely result in higher interest rates, as well as slowing economic growth, the Yale Budget Lab projects. Elements of the bill are still under debate on Capitol Hill, with congressional Republicans racing to meet a self-imposed July 4 deadline to send the package to President Trump for his signature. The last scheduled day in session for both the House and Senate before they leave town for the holiday is Friday, leaving little time to reach a deal. Some Republicans are at loggerheads over certain provisions, such as the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT, with House lawmakers pushing for a bigger deduction than in the Senate. If the bill moves ahead, the long-term combination of benefit reductions and swelling federal debt could outweigh the benefits of tax cuts for younger Americans, the Penn Wharton analysis said. "Sometimes people say, 'If I'm in 40th-60th [percentile of income], I won't get SNAP or Medicaid,' but actually there is a chance that you could still," Smetters said. "There is a chance anybody could be unemployed or be on food stamps." Young Cuban girl asks Trump to lift travel ban stopping her from joining mom in U.S. Hegseth gets heated over reporting on Iran strikes initial assessments Supreme Court allows South Carolina to block Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood
CBS News
26-06-2025
- Business
- CBS News
GOP budget bill could transfer wealth from young Americans to older generations, study finds
The Republican budget package aims to make President Donald Trump's tax cuts permanent while offering a host of new financial breaks. Yet the "big, beautiful bill," as the legislation is dubbed, could also effectively transfer wealth from younger generations to older Americans over their lifetimes, a recent study finds. Long-term, the primary beneficiaries of the GOP bill would be older, wealthier Americans, while younger, middle- to low-income people would see fewer benefits, according to the analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a University of Pennsylvania think tank that studies the fiscal issues. The group's projection assesses the impact of proposed tax cuts under the bill, as well as reductions in federal programs such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, better known as food stamps. Penn Wharton also factors in the long-term fiscal impact of the debt the U.S. would likely have to issue to pay for the bill's tax cuts, the group said. "Somebody has to pay" Younger Americans would bear the brunt of the nation's spiraling debt, Kent Smetters, director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, told CBS MoneyWatch. "Somebody has to pay — nothing is for free. In this case, that's the future generations," he said. "We have finally reached this inflection point where under any reasonable estimation, younger people are going to be worse off in the future" if the current version of the bill is passed. For example, the bill would cost an infant born into a low-income family $14,100 over their lifetime. This loss stems from factors including reduced social safety net benefits and lower wages resulting from slower economic growth driven by increased national debt and deficits. On the other hand, a high-income 70-year-old stands to gain $120,000 over his remaining years due to the proposed legislation's tax cuts and other benefits, the analysis found. The House narrowly passed the legislation in May. Senate lawmakers are pressing to vote on the measure by the end of the week. The White House took issue with Penn Wharton's analysis. "So-called 'experts' panning the One, Big, Beautiful Bill without a smidge of humility should remember that they made these same exact gloomy predictions about President Trump's tax cuts during his first term – tax cuts that helped usher in historic job, wage, investment and economic growth along with the first decline in wealth inequality in decades," White House spokesman Kush Desai told CBS MoneyWatch. Biggest winners Like Penn Wharton, other researchers have said the Republican bill is likely to benefit wealthy Americans at the expense of people lower down the ladder. The measure would likely reduce the financial resources available to the lowest-earning 10% of U.S. households by $1,600 per year, or almost 4% of their annual income, according to a report published earlier this month by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. White House officials have previously questioned the CBO's scoring of the bill. But the highest-earning 10% of households would see a gain of $12,000 per year in resources, while middle-income households would see a gain of $500 to $1,000, the CBO projected. Its analysis is based on the bill's tax breaks, as well as reductions for federal programs and reductions in state funds for safety net programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. In considering the impact of higher U.S. debt on future generations, the cost would come in the form of lower wages and higher costs, such as more expensive mortgages, Smetters said. Already, the U.S. is spending more than $1 trillion a year to service its debt — almost double the amount it was paying five years ago, according to Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data. That's more than the nation currently spends on defense, data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows. Clock ticking Taking on more debt to pay for the GOP bill could make it tougher for the federal government to pay for programs like Social Security as more of its budget is eaten up by interest payments. Higher debt would also likely result in higher interest rates, as well as slowing economic growth, the Yale Budget Lab projects. Elements of the bill are still under debate on Capitol Hill, with congressional Republicans racing to meet a self-imposed July 4 deadline to send the package to President Trump for his signature. The last scheduled day in session for both the House and Senate before they leave town for the holiday is Friday, leaving little time to reach a deal. Some Republicans are at loggerheads over certain provisions, such as the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT, with House lawmakers pushing for a bigger deduction than in the Senate. If the bill moves ahead, the long-term combination of benefit reductions and swelling federal debt could outweigh the benefits of tax cuts for younger Americans, the Penn Wharton analysis said. "Sometimes people say, 'If I'm in 40th-60th [percentile of income], I won't get SNAP or Medicaid,' but actually there is a chance that you could still," Smetters said. "There is a chance anybody could be unemployed or be on food stamps."
Fast Company
25-06-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Trump's Big Beautiful Bill would transfer wealth from young to older Americans. Here's how
U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut legislation would effectively transfer wealth from younger Americans to older generations, nonpartisan analysts say. Though the bill contains tax breaks for parents, newborns, private-school students and other younger Americans, those benefits would be outweighed by the trillions of dollars it would add to the $36.2 trillion national debt, they say. That could push down economic growth over the long term and leave younger people saddled with higher taxes and mortgage payments. 'Future generations are kind of left holding the bag,' said Kent Smetters, director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model. The nonpartisan research organization found that a 40-year-old earning close to the median income would effectively lose $7,500 over the course of a lifetime if the bill became law. A 70-year-old with the same income, by contrast, would end up $17,500 richer. Several factors contribute to this disparity. Younger workers, who typically earn less, would not benefit as much from the bill's income tax cuts compared to those at the peak of their earning years. They would also be more exposed to cutbacks in student aid and the Medicaid health program, which covers four out of 10 hospital births in the United States. 'In the short term the benefits are certainly tilted towards higher earners, which is often a good proxy for age,' said Jessica Riedl of the conservative Manhattan Institute. But the biggest factor, analysts say, is the $3 trillion the bill would add to the national debt. That is likely to push up interest rates in the years to come and require the government to devote a growing portion of its budget to debt service rather than other purposes. 'There is an obvious intergenerational transfer here,' said John Ricco of the Yale Budget Lab, which found that the bill would add $4,000 to the annual cost of a home mortgage in the year 2055, when today's newborns will be 30 years old. Republican lawmakers say the bill, which passed the House of Representatives and is now pending in the Senate, would help younger Americans by putting Medicaid on a more sustainable footing and boosting economic growth and entrepreneurship, which would help younger people entering the workforce. The bill also follows through on Trump's campaign promises by carving out new tax breaks for tipped income and overtime pay, which Republicans say could help younger workers in service and hourly wage jobs. SAVINGS ACCOUNTS The bill also would set up $1,000 savings accounts for newborns and expand a child tax break, though the details differ between the House and Senate versions of the bill. No. 2 House Republican Representative Steve Scalise said after the bill's passage in May that the legislation would increase take-home pay for a median income household with two children by $4,000 to $5,000. That calculation, however, does not factor in the increased costs many lower- and middle-income families would have to pay for health care, student loans and groceries due to the bill's cutbacks in those areas. The Congressional Budget Office and other outside analysts have found that those costs would outweigh any savings those households might gain from tax cuts, while the child tax credit and other targeted tax breaks also would not be fully available to low-income families. That pattern holds true for poor Americans of all ages. The bill includes a targeted tax break for people over 65 promised by Trump during last year's election, but many do not pay enough income tax to qualify for it, said Brendan Duke of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'The tax cuts basically do nothing for the lower-income half of seniors,' he said. Still, those seniors benefit from another Trump campaign promise, as the bill spares Medicare, the health plan for seniors, and Social Security, the U.S. pension program, from the sort of cost-cutting it applies to Medicaid. Medicare and Social Security are growing rapidly as the population ages, crowding out other government spending, and are projected to run short of funds in 2033. But Trump and his Democratic rivals have both vowed to shield the two politically popular programs from restructuring, which will leave future generations to confront the problem. 'I think ultimately Republican and Democratic lawmakers have been engaged in intergenerational theft for a long time,' Riedl said.
