&w=3840&q=100)
Republican proposal to hike tax on millionaires to generate $400 bn
Trump has indicated he is open to higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but not all Republicans are convinced it's a good idea
Bloomberg
By Erik Wasson and Nancy Cook
A Republican proposal to impose a tax hike on millionaires offers to generate about $400 billion over a decade, according to two new estimates provided to Bloomberg News, providing fresh revenue to partially offset the cost of the party's multi-trillion-dollar tax package.
The Budget Lab at Yale projects that taxing income over $1 million at a 40 per cent rate would generate $420 billion over a decade. The Tax Foundation in its own preliminary analysis finds that the new bracket would raise $358 billion over the same 10-year period, according to Garrett Watson, the director of policy analysis for the think tank.
The two estimates from non-partisan think tanks differ slightly because each group uses different assumptions about economic performance. But the figures suggest that the creation of a millionaire tax bracket could help President Donald Trump enact some of his campaign trail pledges, including eliminating taxes on tips, which is estimated to cost $118 billion over ten years.
Lawmakers are slated to return to Washington next week following a two-week recess, with their top priority crafting a package to renew Trump's 2017 cuts for households and closely held businesses. They're also discussing new priorities, including ending taxation on overtime pay and new tax breaks for seniors and car buyers. No taxes on overtime pay would cost at least $680 billion over ten years, according to the Tax Foundation.
The Senate has deployed an accounting gimmick so that the $3.8 trillion cost of extending Trump's first-term tax cuts counts as $0 for budgeting purposes. But Republicans have a strict $1.5 trillion revenue limit for any new reductions, putting pressure on them to scale back some of their ideas or find revenue offsets — such as the millionaire bracket — to pay for new tax breaks.
Trump has indicated he is open to higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but not all Republicans are convinced it's a good idea. The concept of higher levies on top earners runs counter to years of Republican orthodoxy.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise has pushed back, saying they oppose any rate increase. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley told constituents at a town hall last week that an increase in the top rate is slated to be discussed in the Senate Finance Committee, but added 'that doesn't mean it's going to happen.'
'It's certainly on the table,' House Ways and Means Committee member Nicole Malliotakis of New York said Monday on Bloomberg Television.
Lawmakers interested in the idea argue that it would be good politics to raise taxes on the wealthy to create new working class tax breaks, including a possible increase in the child tax credit.
Raising an additional $400 billion from millionaires is approximately enough money to increase the child tax credit for parents to $2,500 from $2,000, according to Andrew Lautz of the Bipartisan Policy Center. The general rule of thumb is that a $1,000 increase in the child tax credit costs about $700 billion, he said.
Lawmakers have wide latitude to debate the level of a new rate and at what income threshold it kicks in. For example, lawmakers could have the higher tax rate kick in at $5 million in income, generating only $150 billion over ten years, the Budget Lab estimates. That would affect 75,000 taxpayers, compared to 650,000 taxpayers who would see their taxes rise if the 40 per cent rate applied to income starting at $1 million.
The analyses don't address if Congress makes any changes to the 20 per cent pass-through deduction. Expanding the top bracket would impact business owners who pay their company taxes on their individual tax returns. Lawmakers like North Carolina's Thom Tillis have said they are open to the millionaire bracket, but want to include some carveouts for business income.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Donald Trump has many ways to hurt Elon Musk
THERE WAS a time, not long ago, when an important skill for journalists was translating the code in which powerful people spoke about each other. Carefully prepared speeches and other public remarks would be dissected for hints about the arguments happening in private. Among Donald Trump's many achievements is upending this system. In his administration people seem to say exactly what they think at any given moment. Wild threats are made—to end habeas corpus; to take Greenland by force—without any follow-through. Journalists must now try to guess what is real and what is for show. So it is with the break-up between Mr Trump and Elon Musk, the world's richest man and until last week a 'special government employee'. A few months ago Mr Musk posted on X, his social-media platform, that he loved the president 'as much as a straight man can love another man'. On May 30th, at a joint press conference in the Oval Office to announce Mr Musk's departure from government, Mr Trump called him 'an incredible patriot' and praised his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (known as DOGE). Yet by June 5th it had all broken down. On his Truth Social media platform the president posted that the billionaire was 'wearing thin' and 'went CRAZY'. Mr Trump then threatened to 'terminate' his government contracts. Mr Musk responded on X, claiming that Mr Trump's name appears in the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier who was convicted of trafficking and having sex with underage girls. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' wrote Mr Musk. Later he agreed with a post saying that Mr Trump should be impeached. He also said he would begin decommissioning his Dragon spacecraft, which transports astronauts to the International Space Station. If carried out, the threats could be disastrous for both men. Mr Trump could lose a valuable donor and the supportive sway of X; Mr Musk's business interests could suffer enormously. But in response to a comment advising him to 'cool off', Mr Musk wrote 'good advice' and backtracked on his call to decommission the Dragon. Where things go from here is anyone's guess. The initial cause of the falling out between Mr Trump and his 'first buddy' was the president's so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. Mr Musk was incensed that the measure would add enormously to the deficit, and so undermine the work of DOGE. On June 3rd he escalated his criticism, calling the bill a 'disgusting abomination'. On June 5th he added another complaint, saying that Mr Trump's tariffs are going to bring about a recession. Mr Trump has his own explanation for Mr Musk's sudden disloyalty. He says the Tesla CEO is unhappy because his bill would cancel a government subsidy for electric cars created by Joe Biden. If Mr Trump does decide to retaliate, the risks to Mr Musk and his businesses are extensive. The threats the president has already made, however, are the least credible. Cancelling the contracts of SpaceX, Mr Musk's space company, would be profoundly disruptive to the government. Without SpaceX rockets, it would struggle to put anything into space, including spy satellites. The Pentagon relies heavily on the firm's Starlink satellites. SpaceX itself could probably weather such moves. Though it has benefited greatly from government contracts, the firm's commercial revenues soared nearly three-fold last year, according to estimates by Quilty Space, a business-intelligence firm. Mr Musk has also wanted to cancel the Dragon spacecraft for some time. Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Mr Trump who is no fan of Mr Musk, has proposed even bigger penalties. He wants the South African-born billionaire to be stripped of his American citizenship—he says Mr Musk is an 'illegal alien'—and his companies nationalised under the Defence Production Act. Such actions also seem unrealistic. Stripping Mr Musk's citizenship would require a judge to rule he committed fraud. The Defence Production Act almost certainly does not permit sudden nationalisation, even if the country is at war. That does not mean Mr Musk can breathe easy, though. His interests are vulnerable to more routine measures. At the time he entered government in January, he and his companies were subject to 65 potential or actual regulatory actions by 11 federal agencies, according to the minority staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, an arm of the Senate. These include accusations that Tesla, Mr Musk's car company, lied about its self-driving technology; that Neuralink, his brain-implant company, violated the Animal Welfare Act with its experiments on monkeys; and that SpaceX repeatedly failed to follow the law when launching rockets. (As head of DOGE, Mr Musk was able to dismantle some of the agencies within the government investigating him, such as the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.) One of the reasons why Silicon Valley magnates like Mr Musk rallied around Mr Trump last year was that he promised a more favourable regulatory environment. But 'there was always the risk that what they were buying instead were the conditions of oligarchy', says Donald Moynihan of the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. That is, business leaders who are loyal to the president get to operate as they like, while those who are critical get the full force of the law. Mr Musk may be about to discover what life is like outside the tent. Perhaps on feeling the cold he will find a way back inside. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Time for a wheelchair': Internet reacts after Donald Trump stumbles on Air Force One steps
(Source: X) US President Donald Trump stumbled while climbing the steps of Air Force One on Sunday, and the internet wasted no time poking fun. Trump was accompanied by US secretary of state Marco Rubio, who was boarding the plane en route to Camp David after speaking with reporters in Hagerstown, Maryland. The moment quickly went viral, drawing comparisons to the times Trump had mocked former US President Joe Biden for similar mishaps. 'Time to get Old Man Trump fitted for a wheelchair,' wrote political commentator Ron Filipkowski on X. Northwestern law lecturer Jason DeSanto added: 'More beta energy.' Political strategist Marco Frieri joked, 'Cannot wait for all the books and wall-to-wall coverage.' Journalist Aaron Rupar said, 'When Joe Biden did stuff like this, Fox would play the clips over and over like it was as significant as the moon landing.' RC Huffman quipped, 'I'm surprised he hasn't replaced those stairs with a portable escalator of some kind.' The stumble came shortly after Trump was asked whether he would invoke the Insurrection Act to respond to escalating protests in Los Angeles following a wave of immigration raids. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' he told reporters. When pressed further on whether he believes such an insurrection is taking place, Trump replied, 'No, no, but you have violent people. And we're not going to let them get away with it.' Asked if he would consider deploying troops even without invoking the law, Trump doubled down. 'We're going to have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden.' Trump, who frequently criticised Biden for falling during public appearances, once called Biden's 2023 fall at a graduation event 'not inspiring.' At a campaign stop in Iowa, he had also said: 'I hope he wasn't hurt. You don't want that.'
Mint
20 minutes ago
- Mint
How Trump's trade war is supercharging fast fashion industry
Sydney, When US President Donald Trump introduced sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports the goal was to bring manufacturing back to American soil and protect local jobs. However, this process of re-shoring is complex and requires years of investment and planning – far too slow for the world of ultra-fast fashion, where brands are used to reacting in weeks, not years. Many clothing companies started to move production out of China during Trump's first term. They relocated to countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia when the initial China-specific tariffs hit. This trend accelerated with the newer 'reciprocal' tariffs. Instead of re-shoring production, many fashion brands are simply sourcing from whichever country offers the lowest total cost after tariffs. The result? The ultra-fast fashion machine adapted quickly and became even more exploitative. From Guangzhou to your wardrobe in days Platforms such as Shein and Temu built their success by offering trend-driven clothing at shockingly low prices. A USD 5 dress or USD 3 top might seem like a bargain, but those prices hide a lot. Much of Shein's production takes place in the so-called 'Shein village' in Guangzhou, China, where workers often sew for 12–14 hours a day under poor conditions to keep pace with the demand for new items. When the US cracked down on Chinese imports, the intention was to make American-made goods more competitive. This included raising the tariff on Chinese goods as high as 145 per cent , and closing the 'de minimis' loophole, which had allowed imports under USD 800 to enter tariff-free. But these tariffs did not halt ultra-fast fashion. They just rerouted production to countries with lower tariffs and even lower labour costs. The Philippines, with a comparatively low tariff rate of 17 per cent, emerged as a surprising alternative. However, the country can't provide the industrial scale and infrastructure to match what China can offer. So why does Australia matter? Much of the cheap fashion previously bound for the US is now flooding other markets, including Australia. Australia still allows most low-value imports to enter tax-free, and platforms such as Shein and Temu have taken full advantage. Australian consumers are among the most frequent Shein and Temu buyers per capita globally. Just 3 per cent of clothing is made in Australia and most labels rely on offshore manufacturing. This makes Australia an ideal target market for ultra-fast fashion imports. We have high purchasing power, lenient import rules and strong demand for low-cost style, especially due to the cost-of-living crisis. The hidden costs of cheap clothes The environmental impact of fast fashion is well known. However, amid the chaos of Trump's tariff announcements, far less attention has been paid to how these policies – together with the retreat from climate commitments – worsen environmental harms, including those linked to fast fashion. The irony is that the tariffs meant to protect American workers have, in some cases, worsened conditions for workers elsewhere. Meanwhile, consumers in Australia now benefit from faster delivery of even cheaper goods as Temu, Shein and others have improved their shipping capabilities to Australia. Australian consumers send more than 200,000 tonnes of clothing to landfill each year. But the deeper problem is structural. The entire business model is built on exploitation and environmental damage. Factory workers bear the brunt of cost-cutting. In the race to stay competitive, many manufacturers reduce wages and overlook hazardous working conditions. Will ethical fashion ever compete? Fixing these problems will require a global rethink of how fashion operates. Governments have a role in regulating disclosures about supply chains and enforcing labour standards. Brands need to take responsibility for the conditions in their factories, whether directly owned or outsourced. Transparency is essential. Alternatives to fast fashion are gaining traction. Clothing rentals are emerging as a promising business model that help build a more circular fashion economy. Charity-run op shops have long been a sustainable source of second-hand clothing. Australia's new Seamless scheme seeks to make fashion brands responsible for the full life of the clothes they sell. The aim is to help people buy, wear and recycle clothes in a more sustainable way. Consumers also matter. If we continue to expect clothes to cost less than a cup of coffee, change will be slow. Recognising that a USD 5 t-shirt has hidden costs, borne by people on the factory floor and the environment, is a first step. Some ethical brands are already showing a better way and offer clothes made under fairer conditions and with sustainable materials. These clothes are not as cheap or fast, but they represent a more conscious alternative especially for consumers concerned about synthetic fibres, toxic chemicals and environmental harm. Trump reshuffled the deck, but did not change the game Trump's trade rules aim to re-balance global trade in favour of American industry, yet have cost companies more than USD 34 billion in lost sales and higher costs. This cost will eventually fall on US consumers. In ultra-fast fashion, it mostly exposed how fragile and exploitative the system already was. Today, brands such as Shein and Temu are thriving in Australia. But unless we address the systemic inequalities in fashion production and rethink the incentives that drive this market, the true cost of cheap clothing will continue to be paid by those least able to afford it. PY PY This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
