Latest news with #UncleSam
The Hill
6 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
The tax rate that may drop below zero
If Republicans in Congress have their way, tax rates will be negative for a large portion of investment income. What does that even mean? Let's start with current law. If you are fortunate enough to have purchased a stock for $1,000 and sell it for $10,000, under current law you would pay tax on the $9,000 capital gain — in other words, on the $9,000 your investment earned. Assuming you are an individual with income between $48,351 and $533,400, the federal tax rate on your $9,000 of investment income would be 15 percent, for a total tax bill of $1,350. The bottom line is that you would have sold the stock you bought for $1,000 at a price of $10,000, paid $1,350 in taxes, and pocketed the remaining $7,650. If, however, Congress passes the Educational Choice for Children Act, instead of selling your stock and pocketing $7,650, you could simply donate your stock in accordance with the legislation and pocket the full $10,000. To be eligible, all you would have to do is give your stock to a 'Scholarship Granting Organization' that funds vouchers for private and religious schools. That would qualify you for a $10,000 credit on your federal taxes. A credit is totally different from the conventional and very familiar charitable deduction. The charitable deduction reduces your taxable income, which reduces your taxes in an amount that is a mere fraction of the amount you donated. Donating stock under this new act is different: It would give you an actual credit on your tax bill — a reduction in the total taxes you owe on all of your other income — for the full $10,000. In other words, if you give your appreciated stock to such an organization, you get $10,000 from Uncle Sam in the form of a tax credit — the same amount of money you could have gotten from selling your stock. The only difference is that, this way, you pay no federal tax. But it gets even better: You will also be able to claim the $10,000 donation as a charitable deduction on your state and local tax return. For high income earners where I live in New York City, this could reduce one's state and local taxes by as much as 11 percent, or $1,100. This would make the tax rate minus-12.2 percent on your $9,000 gain, since the income would not be taxed and it would be enhanced by a $1,100 reduction in the state and local tax bill. In essence, if you sell your stock worth $10,000 and live in a high tax state like New York or California, you could pocket something like $6,550 (the $9,000 profit less $1,350 in federal taxes and $1,100 in state and local taxes). But if you give it away pursuant to the legislation, you could pocket the full $10,000 federal tax credit against your other taxes, plus the state and local tax reduction. The bottom line for those who prefer words to numbers is that for a large portion of investment income, the federal tax rate would go to zero and there would be a state and local tax cash benefit. It would be like having zero federal tax on a teacher's income of $70,000 and then have the local government give the teacher a check for a portion of his or her income. This is something that inconceivable for most workers, but it seems likely to become a reality for most investors. The act does have some limitations. But the wealthier the investor, the more millions they could save in taxes. And every dollar saved by an investor under this act is a dollar some other taxpayer will have to pay. The measure is expected to be enacted by mid-July and has already passed the House. Almost all the discussion concerns the debate over government funding for private and religious schools. Although this debate has merit, it has unfortunately eclipsed the extraordinary tax benefit that this provision would confer upon wealthy investors. Congress would have a hard time directly shifting a substantial part of our nation's tax burden from wealthy investors to working people. Doing it indirectly under the guise of funding school vouchers, has enabled them to evade public scrutiny. Evading public scrutiny will, however, become much more difficult when the act ultimately takes its toll on tax fairness and budget deficits. Howard Yaruss is a lawyer and a professor at NYU. He is the author of 'Understandable Economics.'
Time of India
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Donald Trump strikes Iran: How India got its nukes – and defied US and other nuclear-haves
There's a running meme on X, the hellhole formerly known as Twitter, where a doctor asks a patient: 'Do you have a history of mental illness in your family?' To this, the patient replies: 'I have an uncle who believes Iran is close to a nuclear weapon for the last 50 years. ' Perhaps that's why Operation Midnight Hammer – a blow-by-blow remake of Top Gun: Maverick – was carried out with such haste that even half of Donald Trump's base were still railing against it as the bombs dropped on Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. While Iran's Godot-like wait for nuclear weapons continues, it's illustrative to see how India, a nation that didn't evoke very warm feelings from Uncle Sam in the past, became a nuclear superpower. How did a newly freed, partition-bruised, socialist-leaning, and largely illiterate country go from famine queues and imported milk powder to becoming one of the world's most improbable nuclear powers? The truth is that politicians of various vintages played a part, irrespective of their worldview or political leanings. Every one of them was of the opinion that the Ayatollahs of Potomac (a delightful term coined by TOI legend K Subrahmanyam, the father of the current external affairs minister) couldn't be the only ones with the power of the sun in the palm of their hands. As George Fernandes, the erstwhile Defence Minister of India in the Vajpayee government, summed up this grit: 'I am not a former socialist; I am a socialist. I am not a former pacifist; I am a pacifist. I am even today an anti-nuclear weapon man. But as a defence minister of the country, I will do whatever is best to protect its border, and if that means nuclear bomb, then why not?' When pressed on how one could do so at the risk of contradicting oneself, Fernandes dug deep into the Lord Krishna rationale that one's dharma trumps all contradictions, pointing out: 'Yes, even at the cost of contradicting oneself, even at the cost of dying. If the security of the country requires me to die, I shall die. It's about being realistic. It's about being patriotic.' While with the benefit of hindsight, it might seem inevitable that the land that gave the world the Bhagavad Gita would come up with nuclear weapons, here's the tale of how it went down. The Science Segue What is a nuclear weapon — and why do countries want one? Let's say you haven't seen Oppenheimer , skipped physics class, and think 'fusion' is what happens when you have tandoori gravy momos. To understand nukes, we need to rewind to 1905, when a wild-haired Swiss patent clerk named Albert Einstein wrote four papers that changed science forever. One of them suggested that mass and energy are two sides of the same coin. A few months later, he dropped a tiny but terrifying equation: E = mc². That means energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Since light travels really fast — about 300 million metres per second — squaring it makes even a small amount of mass release a huge amount of energy. So, how do we turn that into a weapon? That's where nuclear physics steps in. Certain heavy atoms like uranium-235 or plutonium-239 are naturally unstable. If you shoot a neutron at them, they split — releasing heat, radiation, and more neutrons. Those neutrons hit other atoms, which split too. It's called a chain reaction — kind of like a viral WhatsApp message, but instead of arguments, you get a mushroom cloud. That's how atomic bombs work. The ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki used two designs: Gun-type: smash two pieces of uranium together I mplosion-type: use explosives to compress plutonium until it explodes Both use Einstein's idea: a little mass disappears, and a huge burst of energy takes its place. There's also the hydrogen bomb, which is even more terrifying, but beyond the scope of this piece. By the 1960s, nuclear weapons were the privilege of a select five—America, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China—enshrined as permanent members of the global atomic aristocracy, the kind that liked to invade Vietnam in their spare time and host disarmament conferences in their downtime. There is something about nukes and their miasma. Once you have them, you don't want others to get them. You start doing everything in your power to stop anyone else from joining this super-exclusive club, because deterrence is always more comfortable when it's a monopoly. And then in 1974, India came knocking—with Smiling Buddha, gatecrashing the party with a silent explosion in the Rajasthan desert. If Israel was the nuclear sphinx, India was the grinning intruder who didn't wait for an invitation. Act I: Nehru's Noble Atom and Bhabha's Quiet Calculations How did a socialist, beggared and non-aligned country acquire nuclear weapons? It all started with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Fabian socialist who wasn't beyond making a Faustian deal if it was for the nation's betterment. While he publicly championed atomic energy for rural electrification, privately he laid the groundwork for a weapons programme. Enter Homi Jehangir Bhabha—part physicist, part institution-builder, all ambition, played with élan by Jim Sarbh in the heavily fictionalised Rocket Boys, whose cheekbones are capable of setting off a different sort of chemical reaction. A Cambridge-trained genius with a velvet accent, Bhabha envisioned a self-sufficient Indian nuclear complex. He set up the Atomic Energy Commission in 1948 and Trombay's Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) soon after. His three-stage nuclear plan was audacious: heavy water reactors for plutonium, fast breeder reactors for more fissile material, and eventually, thorium-based systems. In 1955, India obtained the CIRUS reactor from Canada, with heavy water courtesy the United States—both under the Atoms for Peace programme. It was a masterclass in strategic procurement. Act II: The Dragon Strikes, the Buddha Smiles Enter the dragon. In 1962, Chinese troops stormed Indian posts in Ladakh and Arunachal. The result wasn't just military humiliation; it was psychological trauma. Nehru aged a decade overnight. And two years later, when China tested a nuclear bomb in Lop Nur, India realised it wasn't just behind—it was vulnerable. And then came the prodigal daughter. Indira Gandhi had no qualms about the world or any delusions about power. By the early '70s, the scientific community—led by Raja Ramanna, P.K. Iyengar, and M.R. Srinivasan—had weaponised the plutonium harvested from CIRUS. On May 18, 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test in Pokhran, Rajasthan. Codenamed Smiling Buddha, because what better name for a nuclear bomb than the progenitor of peace, the device yielded around 8 kilotons, billed as a 'peaceful nuclear explosion'. Canada fumed and threw a Trudeau-level fit. The US imposed sanctions. But much like she did when Richard Nixon threatened her during the Bangladesh Liberation War, Indira Gandhi didn't flinch. Act III: Recessed Deterrence—Weapons Without Words From 1974 to 1998, India lived in nuclear ambiguity. We had tested a bomb—but never declared a doctrine. This era, later dubbed "recessed deterrence", saw India perfect the art of silent readiness. Prime Ministers like Morarji Desai were openly anti-nuclear. Others, like Rajiv Gandhi, were more nuanced—calling for universal disarmament while funding missile programmes. In this period, India commissioned the Dhruva reactor for weapons-grade plutonium. Ballistic missiles like Prithvi and Agni were tested under the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme, overseen by Dr. Abdul Kalam. Still, New Delhi avoided another test. The 1985 NPT Review Conference slammed the door shut on India's membership. But India refused to sign a treaty that said: 'You can't have nukes, but the P5 can.' Act IV: Narasimha Rao 's Nuclear Poker By the 1990s, India was ready. And P.V. Narasimha Rao, India's philosopher-king of pragmatism, knew it. In 1995, with the Clinton administration distracted by Yeltsin's vodka diplomacy and Pakistani warlords, Rao greenlit preparations for Pokhran-II. Shafts were drilled. Scientists were mobilised. Dr. Kalam, Dr. R. Chidambaram, and their teams stood by. Then, American satellites picked up movement. The CIA raised alarms. A New York Times exposé spooked Washington. Clinton dialled Delhi. Rao, deadpan as ever, stonewalled. The tests were paused. But he didn't stop the programme. Instead, he ensured everything stayed intact—ready for a more audacious successor. As legend has it, Rao whispered to Atal Bihari Vajpayee before leaving office: 'Everything is ready. You just have to press the button.' Rao never took credit. But when the mushroom clouds rose in 1998, they bore his blueprint. Act V: Pokhran-II—India Goes Loud On May 11 and 13, 1998, India conducted five nuclear tests. Codename: Operation Shakti. This time, it wasn't a 'peaceful' explosion. It was a declaration. Fission and fusion devices were tested. Thermonuclear capability was claimed (though some scientists later debated the yield). Prime Minister Vajpayee announced: 'India is now a nuclear weapons state.' Sanctions came. Condemnations followed. India shrugged. The team that delivered this feat: Dr R. Chidambaram – chief scientific coordinator Dr. Abdul Kalam – DRDO's key missile man K. Santhanam – test range commander Anil Kakodkar, V.S. Arunachalam, S.K. Sikka – technical leads Pakistan tested six devices in response. South Asia was officially a two-bomb region. But India's message was clear: deterrence, not domination. Act VI: From Outlaw to Operator—The Indo-US Nuclear Deal Having proven its capabilities, India now wanted respect. In 2005, under Manmohan Singh , India signed the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement with President George W. Bush. It was historic. For the first time, a non-NPT country gained access to civilian nuclear trade. The deal was backed by the US Congress, the IAEA, and the NSG. It marked India's transformation from global pariah to trusted partner—without dismantling a single warhead. Critics cried foul. Proponents hailed it as a realpolitik victory. For India, it was simple: we earned the bomb. Now we wanted the fuel. Epilogue: From Fallout to Future The bomb was never the endgame. It was the insurance policy. A radioactive reminder that India wouldn't be bullied into compliance or bribed into silence. The scientists were the magicians, the politicians their illusionists. But behind them stood a civilisation that never wanted conquest—only the right to decide its destiny. From Bhabha's lab bench to Vajpayee's launch pad, India's nuclear odyssey was built on a foundation of paradoxes: peaceful atoms turned potent, idealism wrapped in pragmatism, and restraint forged through power. Today, India's nuclear arsenal isn't about posturing. It's about posture—calm, calculated, credible. We built the bomb not to drop it, but to make sure no one else could. So the next time someone scoffs at Indian statecraft, remind them: we cracked open the atom, outfoxed the CIA, kept our doctrine unspoken, and still walked into the world's nuclear club with our head held high. We didn't explode to destroy. We exploded to exist. And that, in the final analysis, is how you detonate a dream.
Boston Globe
16-06-2025
- Sport
- Boston Globe
Bruins David Pastrnak, Charlie McAvoy, and Pavel Zacha to play in 2026 Milan Olympics
McAvoy, who has a decorated history with Team USA, was an alternate captain at the 4 Nations Face-Off in February. McAvoy's season ended prematurely at the 4 Nations after he suffered a shoulder injury in the opener. He played in Team USA's raucous win over Canada in Montreal but then dealt with a staph infection that Though McAvoy eventually returned to practice, he never got back to game action. Advertisement 'I don't even feel like I played hockey this year,' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up McAvoy said at the time that one of his goals was still to represent the US in the Olympics, and now he will get that chance. 'That is my dream of dreams, to play in an Olympics,' said McAvoy, who has played for Uncle Sam at two World Championships (2017, 2018) and won a gold medal at the 2017 World Junior Championship. 'Every part of that 4 Nations was a dream come true. There's a reason why I played that [Canada] game, because I'm not missing the game that I've dreamt of my whole life — it's the aftermath of that, that cost me my year. There's a lot of, I don't want to say regret, but an acceptance of what happened. And it sucks that I am still coming to grips with it. But I wouldn't trade it, the experiences, the friendships. I mean, that's what you dream of, and I've dreamt of that on a broader scale of being in the Olympics.' Advertisement Pastrnak has represented Czechia in six World Championships (2016, 2017, 2018, 2022, 2024, and 2025). He led all players in scoring at this year's tournament with 15 points in eight games. He was named to the tournament's All-Star team and named best forward. Zacha also represented Czechia at three IIHF World Junior Championships (2014, 2015, 2016). As rosters expand, it's likely more Bruins will be named. Those who will be under consideration include goalies In addition, Dans Locmelis, a 2022 draftee, has represented Latvia at numerous international tournaments, and would likely get the call again. Among those with Massachusetts connections that were named Monday include Jack Eichel (US/Chelmsford/Boston University), Brady Tkachuk (US/BU), and Cale Makar (Canada/UMass). Jim McBride can be reached at
Time of India
16-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Why top execs of Meta, Palantir, OpenAI and other Silicon Valley companies are ‘joining' US Army
A demonstrator dressed as Uncle Sam attends a protest in Foley Square on the Day of Action for Higher Education, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in New York. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) Top technology executives from Silicon Valley's biggest companies have enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve as part of a groundbreaking new program designed to modernize military operations with cutting-edge tech expertise. The Army announced that four high-profile tech leaders will serve as lieutenant colonels in "Detachment 201," dubbed the Executive Innovation Corps . The inaugural cohort includes Meta CTO Andrew "Boz" Bosworth, Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar, OpenAI Chief Product Officer Kevin Weil, and former OpenAI executive Bob McGrew. The executives will serve approximately 120 hours annually, working on projects ranging from AI-powered military systems to soldier fitness optimization using health data. Unlike traditional reservists, they'll have flexibility to work remotely and won't undergo basic training, though they must complete physical fitness tests and marksmanship training. Tech industry embraces military service after years of resistance by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Arizona: These Companies Are Overcharging You for Auto Insurance Smart Lifestyle Trends Learn More Undo This partnership marks a dramatic shift for Silicon Valley, which historically avoided defense work. The change reflects growing concerns about technological competition with China and lessons learned from conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, where commercial tech has proven crucial. "We need to go faster, and that's exactly what we are doing here," said Gen. Randy George, the Army's chief of staff. The program aims to bridge the "commercial-military tech gap" while helping the Army prepare for future warfare involving ground robots, drones, and AI-coordinated sensor networks. Brynt Parmeter , the Pentagon's chief talent management officer who spearheaded the initiative, plans to expand the program to thousands of participants across all military branches. The tech reservists will advise on commercial technology acquisition and help recruit additional high-tech talent. The executives cited patriotism as motivation, with Sankar noting his desire to serve the country that provided refuge for his family from violence in Nigeria. The program represents part of a wider defense modernization push under President Trump's administration, which has sparked increased venture capital investment in defense technology. Recent deals include Saronic Technologies raising $600 million and drone company Epirus securing $250 million in funding.
Yahoo
15-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
I rolled over my 401(k) and was taxed and charged a penalty. What happened?
I rolled over my 401(k) last year and my company automatically withheld $15,000 for taxes. I got the remainder (about $60,000) into my IRA way ahead of the 60-day deadline, but my accountant insists that I owe a $1,500 penalty because of the withholding. That doesn't seem right or fair. What can I do about this? —Ticked off in Tempe My husband is in hospice care. Friends say his children are lining up for his money. What can I do? These defense stocks offer the best growth prospects, as the Israel-Iran conflict fuels new interest in the sector Walmart's stock looks like it's in trouble. What the chart says may come next. 'He failed in his fiduciary duty': My brother liquidated our mother's 401(k) for her nursing home. He claimed the rest. My mother-in-law thought the world's richest man needed Apple gift cards. How on Earth could she fall for this scam? This happens often in part because the terminology is confusing. Unfortunately, unless an exception applies, I don't think you can do anything about it if you were under age 59½ at the time the money came out of the 401(k). If you were over age 59½ the penalty should not apply but there is still a tax consequence. Nonetheless, you can prevent this from happening again with future rollovers. If a distribution is deposited into another plan or IRA within 60 days of receipt, there is no tax. The default for 401(k)s and some other retirement plans is to withhold 20% for taxes from distributions out of the plan. This is called 'mandatory withholding,' but it is not truly mandatory as I'll discuss in a bit. (Note this 20% withholding regime does not apply to distributions out of IRAs.) Read: I transferred company stock out of an old 401(k). Now I'm worried I'm facing a nasty tax surprise. What I suspect happened here is that the plan distributed $75,000 but only $60,000 got to the IRA because $15,000 went to Uncle Sam via withholding. The $15,000 withheld was therefore distributed, but not rolled over. Any portion of the distributed amount that are not redeposited in time becomes taxable income and the 10% penalty will apply if you are under 59½. Look closely at your return and you should see $15,000 of taxable income included on Line 5b. Not only are you subject to the penalty, you paid income tax on that $15,000, too. The taxes and penalty could have been avoided if you had deposited $15,000 from other funds in the IRA within the 60-day window. The easiest way to avoid this in the future is to do rollovers as 'direct' rollovers, also called 'direct transfers' or 'trustee to trustee transfers.' Direct rollovers enable a transfer with no tax withholding, so all the funds end up in the receiving account. Rolling over funds this way eliminates the issues with both the 60-day clock and the once per 12-month rules that apply to indirect IRA to IRA rollovers. With a direct rollover the check will not be payable to you. Instead, it will be made payable to the receiving firm and account even if it is mailed to you. These checks would read something like 'Payable to XYZ company FBO (for benefit of) the John Doe IRA.' Though the 20% withholding is described as 'mandatory' 401(k) plans must offer the option to perform rollovers as direct transfers with no withholding. 'I am getting very frustrated': My mother's adviser has not returned my calls. He manages $1 million. Is this normal? I'm in my 80s and have 2 kids. How do I choose between them to be my executor? Gundlach says gold is no longer for lunatics as the bond king says wait to buy the 30-year 'It might be another Apple or Microsoft': My wife invested $100K in one stock and it exploded 1,500%. Do we sell? 'I was pushed out of her life when she was 18': My estranged daughter, 29, misuses drugs. Should I leave her my Roth IRA? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
