Latest news with #governmentfunding
CNET
3 days ago
- Business
- CNET
Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Makes Sweeping Tax Changes: Here Are the New Deductions You Can Expect
Trump's OBB adds a few new tax deductions worth keeping in mind. CNET The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" was signed into law by President Donald Trump in early July, and by now, you've probably heard a lot of heated debate about its provisions. Beyond all that divisiveness, you might at least have some new tax deductions coming your way. The OBB is essentially a massive government funding and spending bill, sweeping in scope by design. Initially designed as a measure to extend the tax cuts implemented during Trump's first term in the White House, it was expanded to encompass a much wider range of his second-term political goals. This includes cutting many of the green energy tax credits introduced during the Biden administration and allocating a historically massive increase in funding for ICE. In order to offset the cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts, the bill is also set to make huge cuts to Medicaid, including adding new requirements that could result in nearly 12 million people losing their coverage. All of those provisions have sparked intense debate and scrutiny across the political spectrum, and rightly so, but if you're hoping for even a small silver lining, you're in luck. Included alongside all those huge changes are a handful of new tax deductions. While the extension of the Trump tax cuts might not mean much change for your tax dues, these new policies might do the trick, at least a little bit. To help you get a handle on what new options you'll have come tax season, I've pulled together a list of the new deductions created by the OBB and how you might be able to use them. For all the details, keep reading, and to find out about another new money policy created by the bill, check out my explainer on the newborn investment savings accounts. 'No Tax on Tips' deduction The idea for this new deduction has been floating around for a while, gaining traction from both major party tickets during the 2024 election. I've written about it at length in the past when it was being proposed, but under the OBB, a tax deduction for tipped income is officially on the way. Starting with your income for the 2025 tax year, you'll be able to claim a deduction for tipped income if you work a job that the IRS says is "customarily and regularly receiving tips." Annoyingly, there isn't a list of such professions available yet, but the IRS is required to release one by Oct. 5. Despite that name, there are some limits on how much tipped income you can claim. The maximum deduction is $25,000, and that amount begins to phase out for people making $150,000 or more in a year, or $300,000 for joint filers. So is this deduction even a good idea? While it might be a bit of relief for certain taxpayers, the jury's definitely still out on that question. Critics have argued that a deduction won't address the underlying issue of tipped workers earning low hourly wages and might push more jobs toward a tip-based model to avoid taxation. 'No Tax on Overtime' deduction This one goes hand-in-hand with the "no tax on tips" deduction and works in a similar way. Under this policy, you can deduct the pay you get from working qualified overtime from your reported income. The limit on the deduction is $12,500 for single filers and $25,000 for joint filers. It has the same $150,000/$300,000 income limits as the tipped income deduction. 'No Tax on Car Loan Interest' deduction The third major new deduction you need to know about concerns interest paid on a car loan. This deduction will allow you to claim up to $10,000 in such interest paid throughout the tax year, but the loan will have to originate after Dec. 31, 2024. Essentially, it's meant to encourage new car loans, so that loan you've been working on since, say, 2019 doesn't count, sorry to say. It also applies only to loans on new cars for personal use. So anyone who gets a loan for a used car or a car for their business need not apply for this deduction. The income limits are also slightly different for this one: $100,000 for single filers and $200,000 for joint filers. A tax deduction just for being a senior citizen? Aside from those deductions, there's also the somewhat curious "deduction for seniors" created by the OBB. It's as simple as it sounds: a $6,000 deduction you can claim just for being 65 or older. That goes up to $12,000 for couples where both spouses are senior citizens. And good news if you were born on Dec. 31, 1960: You only need to have turned 65 on or before the last day of the tax year to qualify for this deduction. The income limit is set at $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for joint filers. When do these deductions take effect? All of the deductions I broke down for you above will be in effect for the 2025 tax year and stick around through the 2028 tax year. That neatly lines up with the timeline for Trump's second term in office, a trend that can be seen all over the OBB's provisions. Benefits to the American people last throughout his remaining time in office, while detriments don't kick in until he leaves in 2029. Critics have tarred this as an attempt to avoid the blame for the bill's negative aspects by passing them onto whoever occupies the White House next. For more, check out CNET's in-depth breakdown of Trump's tariff plans.
CBC
3 days ago
- Health
- CBC
Organizations fighting gender-based violence get millions in funding
Services that support survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault will receive $9.2 million from New Brunswick government for this fiscal year.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump team's ‘pocket rescission' idea runs into GOP opposition
Some Republicans in Congress are uneasy about the possibility the Trump administration will use a 'pocket rescission' to claw back already approved government funding as fears of a fall shutdown rise. The Trump administration has already clawed back funds through the use of a rescissions package that passed both chambers of Congress, and some GOP lawmakers are concerned about having to vote on a second, possibly politically tougher, package of cuts. But these lawmakers say the use of pocket rescissions, an idea floated by the White House's budget chief that could yank back money without input from lawmakers, could create bad feelings not only with Democrats, but also with Republicans. 'Pocket rescissions, I think, are unconstitutional,' said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a spending cardinal, this week. 'So, just like impoundment, I think, is unconstitutional.' 'So we'll see how it goes,' he said. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought referred to pocket rescissions as 'one of the executive tools' that are 'on the table' earlier this month, as the administration continues a sweeping operation aimed at reducing federal spending. 'The president was elected to get us to balance, to deal with our fiscal situation, and we're going to use all of the tools that are there depending on the situation, and as we move through the year,' he said at an event. However, he also noted then that the administration hasn't yet 'made a determination to use it in part because we're making progress during the normal course of business with Congress.' Trump became the first president in decades to successfully claw back funds through the special rescissions process, with the GOP-led Congress agreeing to pull back about $9 billion in previously allocated funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) lays out rules governing that process and allows the administration to temporarily withhold funding for 45 days while Congress considers the request. If Congress opts not to approve the request in the timeframe, the funds must be released. Under a pocket rescission, however, experts say the president would send the same type of request to Congress, but do so within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The targeted funds could then essentially be held until the clock runs out and they expire. Vought has described the tactic as 'no different than a normal rescission, except for the timing of when it occurs.' 'A pocket rescission occurs later in the end of the fiscal year, within 45 days of the time that you have to hold the funding, and then the money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year,' he said. But some budget experts have strongly pushed back on the budget chief's characterization, arguing the tactic is 'illegal' and undermines the intent of the ICA. The Government Accountability Office also said during Trump's first presidential term that the law does not allow 'the withholding of funds through their date of expiration.' 'It is a method through which [Vought] would get to impound funds against congressional intent,' said Bobby Kogan, a former Senate budget aide and senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, in a recent interview. 'Pocket rescission says, 'Well, what if I send up a request 45 days before the end of the fiscal year, then even if Congress says no, I can still end all funding for the rest of the year, right?'' he argued. 'Like that's the concept behind a pocket rescission. Profoundly illegal because it would allow you to impound funds without congressional approval, which is illegal.' At the same time, other experts have argued impoundment law is murky on the matter and have described the tactic as a potential loophole. Some have defended the administration's interpretation of the law and argue lawmakers would have prohibited the maneuver over the years if they wanted to. Not all Republicans are certain about the legality of the use of pocket rescissions, however. 'I don't know. I haven't researched it,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a senior appropriator and former attorney, said this week when asked by reporters whether pocket rescissions were legal. 'I'd prefer that we not do it that way.' The Louisiana Republican, who has been pushing for the White House to work with Congress to get more rescissions packages out the door, instead said it 'wouldn't bother' him if the administration sent 'a rescission package a week and spell out in detail what they want to propose we cut.' There's been concern from members on both sides of the aisle that the administration's plans to continue to claw back federal funding with only GOP support could threaten bipartisan funding talks for fiscal 2026. But Republican rifts over the president's latest rescissions requests were also an issue. The party clashed over potential cuts to programs like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and public broadcasting dollars that help fund not only PBS and NPR, but also local stations some Republicans say their constituents depend on. Under the pocket rescissions strategy, experts say the administration could reduce some funding by strategically holding up appropriations set to expire at the end of the fiscal year. If Congress chooses not to approve the administration's request for cuts, it could still provide funding for the program as part of a deal to keep the government open past September. Congress often opts to keep government funding levels mostly the same at the start of a new fiscal year to buy time for a larger deal updating funding levels. But experts have emphasized that would be 'new funding,' noting funding an account was denied at the end of the fiscal year as part of a pocket rescission likely would not roll over into the next. Asked whether another rescissions plan could worsen the outlook for a funding deal for fiscal 2026, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said this week that 'the only thing that would worry me is if Congress didn't get a chance to vote on it, that's the key thing.' 'I don't want to see things up here that get jammed where Congress doesn't vote.' Cole was asked whether he was referring to pocket rescissions. 'I don't care procedurally what you want to call it,' he responded. 'I expect Congress to vote on these things, and you know that would worry me, and I know that would worry my colleagues in the other chamber, on both sides of the aisle, certainly worry my Democratic colleagues here.' 'And there's a lot of Republican concern about this too,' he added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Fox News
23-07-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Schumer, Democrats try to save face, blame GOP for possible government shutdown
Congressional Democrats are trying to get on the same page and display a unified front after threatening to derail the government funding process. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., met behind closed doors Tuesday night, along with the top Democrats in the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, to plot a course forward in the forthcoming government funding fight. The meeting came after Democrats in the upper chamber overwhelmingly supported the first government funding bill to hit the Senate floor, one that would fund military construction and Veterans Affairs. Ahead of the vote, Senate Democrats had signaled they may vote against the bill and further obstruct the appropriations process because of highly partisan legislation rammed through the upper chamber by Senate Republicans. "We all want to pursue a bipartisan, bicameral appropriations process," Schumer said. "That's how it's always been done, successfully, and we believe that, however, the Republicans are making it extremely difficult to do that." The meeting just off the Senate floor was meant to get congressional Democrats on board with a messaging plan over the next weeks and months ahead of the Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government. It was also likely designed to prevent a repeat of the Democratic debacle in March, when Schumer broke with Jeffries and threatened to shutter the government before ultimately caving and providing Republicans the votes necessary to advance yet another government funding extension, known as a continuing resolution. Republicans are quick to point out that when Schumer led the upper chamber, none of the House GOP's spending bills made it to the floor — in Congress, the spending process begins in the lower chamber. Since taking over earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has committed to returning to regular order, or passing each of the dozen spending bills to fund the government, and trying to get the appropriations process back to normal. However, it's a feat that hasn't been successfully done in Washington since the late 1990s. "Frankly, I think a lot of us around here think [this] is long overdue," Thune said. However, Democrats contend that their trust in Republicans is wearing thin after two major partisan bills, one being President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," and the other the president's $9 billion clawback package, were pushed through the chamber without any Democratic input. Thune argued that Senate Democrats were using the rescissions package to shut down the appropriations process and effectively shut down the government. In the Senate, most bills that come to the floor require at least 60 votes to smash through the filibuster, meaning that most legislation requires bipartisan support to some extent. Earlier this year, the House GOP produced a partisan government funding extension that was a tough pill for Senate Democrats to swallow, but they still ultimately opted to vote for it. This time around, they're demanding more involvement in the process. Jeffries said that congressional Democrats would play ball if the process was "bipartisan and bicameral in nature" and put the onus of a partial government shutdown at the feet of congressional Republicans. "House Republicans are, in fact, marching us toward a possible government shutdown that will hurt the American people," he said. However, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., threw the responsibility on Democrats over whether the government would shutter or stay open come the end of September. "They're gaming out how they can shut the government down," Johnson told Bloomberg Government.
Irish Times
23-07-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Eager Ministers line up for their spending money as Coalition announces National Development Plan
'Here's your envelope of money now for next year. That's all you're getting. So don't go spending it all on the one developer!' Picture the scene: Government Ministers lined up before the Taoiseach after a final Cabinet meeting to definitively nail down the lack-of-detail in the rebooted National Development Plan (NDP). Micheál Martin sits at a table with Tánaiste Simon Harris beside him. When he greets each nervous-looking Minister by name, Simon rummages through a box, finds a corresponding envelope and hands it to Micheál, who hands it on to a silent Cabinet member. READ MORE 'One for you ... one for you ... one for you ...' Ministers back out the door, scuttle off to quiet corners and, with trembling hands, rip open their envelopes. Anxious advisers hover nearby. Colleagues lean in, all ears. 'Two point two billun,' announces Patrick O'Donovan, the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport. 'Arragh, 'tis all right, I suppose.' 'I got nine point two billion. Whoop! Whoop!' carols Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, the Minister for Health. 'Twenty-two point three billion. Not bad Patrick, wha? I'm off now to New York to address the UN,' chortles Darragh O'Brien, Minister for Transport. 'Well. Oh. I've got seven hundred and ninety-five million,' says Norma Foley, the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, voice trailing off. And so on. An ashen-faced James Browne, the Minister for Housing, is last one out. He carefully opens his envelope. 'They've given me thirty-five point nine billion. Oh God.' It's a lot of responsibility. For all of them. Between now and the actual budget in October, the various Ministers have been ordered by their Government masters to come up with the best and most feasible ways to spend their money. 'Each individual Minister has now received an envelope,' the Taoiseach told the Tuesday launch. 'They have huge, significant envelopes.' The next step is that they must identify priority projects, cost them and get cracking. In an ideal world, they should have no money left over at the end of the financial year and concrete results to show for their work. No pie-in-the-sky promises to keep constituents sweet and voters in high hopes. No woolly lists of works pending and possible completions. Just real deals, shovel-ready schemes and projects in the pipeline. This is not the same as the last plan, which was launched four years ago by then taoiseach Micheál Martin in Cork and which promised 'a huge pipeline of projects'. It was produced in the aftermath of the Covid crisis and called the 'renewed NDP'. The new model is called the 'revised NDP'. The difference between them? Over €100 billion. Back then, the word being bandied about was 'gigantic' when it came to describing the depth of capital investment in the plan. 'It's on a scale the like of which we've never seen before,' said Michael McGrath, who was minister for public expenditure at the time and has since become Ireland's EU Commissioner. That's peanuts now. At the time, Micheál had to deny claims that the Government merely came up with a 'wish list' of things to do rather than a 'to-do list' of things that would most likely be done. The 2021 version was roundly criticised for having too much detail. The 2025 edition is being roundly criticised for having very little detail. 'It was too long. The last NDP was too big a document, to be quite frank,' shrugged Micheál at the launch of this shrinkflation declaration. It's a very slim volume – nearly a quarter of the size of what went before. If the last one ran to almost 200 pages, the revised NDP runs to 46 pages, 11 of which are devoted to the names of chapters. Jack Chambers of Commerce, the Minister for Public Expenditure, gets a full page for his foreword and the 'three leaders' get another page for their foreword. The 'three leaders', as they were described at the beginning of the briefing, being the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Seán Canney, who is a Minister of State and leader of the Coalition Supporters' Club. The CSC is bravely battling for the right not to be known as the Lowry Independents. The rejigged NDP 'is unprecedented in scale and scope', said the Tánaiste. 'But now, our watchword must be delivery.' 'The scale and scope of this review of the National Development Plan is unprecedented,' said Seán, speaking on behalf of 'the Independent Ministers who I represent on the podium here today'. He omitted to say that their watchword is delivery too. Indeed, it was unkindly suggested at the event in Government Buildings press centre that the main reason for such a lack of detail – apart from announcing how many billions are being lashed out on infrastructure and in what quantities and what general areas – was that the Government doesn't want the Opposition to know how much has been allocated for the pet projects championed by members of the Coalition Supporters' Club. Despite repeated questioning, the three leaders were unable to give specific detail of how all this money will be spent, apart from a few 'mega-projects' such as the long-awaited Dublin's MetroLink, which is now on a par with draining the Shannon. [ Ireland's latest investment plan: A sceptic's guide Opens in new window ] It was a pity the Minister for Transport couldn't be present to supply more information, but he was in New York making a statement on behalf of Ireland at the UN High-level Political Forum. Probably the best place for him to be. 'There's more chance of world peace than a Dublin metro,' remarked one veteran of promises past. It was an upbeat performance by Martin, Harris and Canney. With a fair wind and calm economic conditions, this NDP will work wonders, they promised. The framework is in place, the money is allocated and all that needs to be done is for the Ministers to get to work. Or, as Micheál put it: 'The bottom line is that a major infrastructure plan is now agreed ... and Ministers will deal with the sectoral manifestations of that in the next number of weeks.' Simple. Or is it? Next up were the two money men: Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe and Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers. They were not as optimistic about the future, but they tried their best as they talked about the NDP and their just-released Summer Economic Statement (SES). This could turn out to be a Short-lived Economic Statement. It transpired that their figures are based on no tariff increases, whereas Ireland and the EU are waiting on tenterhooks to see if Donald Trump carries through on his threat to impose huge tariffs on goods exported to the US from August. Jack's hope is that, whatever happens, there is 'headroom to deliver additionality'. 'We are going to take a flexible approach,' said Paschal. It's all about 'certainty', they agreed. And what is certain is that they will tweak things depending on what happens in the run-up to the budget. If there is a serious economic deterioration, 'we will revisit it', said Jack. So really, this was more a Provisional Economic Statement (PES) than a summer economic statement. Taking the PES with this SES, is what the Opposition will probably say in the Dáil. Oh, wait. There is no Dáil until September. Brilliant timing.
