Report shows Americans lost record amount of money to scams in 2024
WXIN/WTTV – An annual report from the Federal Trade Commission reveals losses from scams and fraud reached record levels in 2024.
The annual report from the FTC said Americans lost $12.5 billion to fraud last year–up 25% from $10 billion in 2023. The report showed 38% of fraud reports involved lost money in 2024, compared to 27% in 2023. It also revealed that scam victims are losing higher dollar amounts; median losses were just under $500 in 2024 compared to roughly $300 in 2020.
The greater losses come despite the fact that, according to the report, reports of fraud and identity theft have stayed consistent at about 3.7 million over the last three years. That could simply mean that scammers are getting better at tricking unsuspecting victims.
The FTC said consumers really need to be on the lookout for government imposter scams, which are on the rise right now. Online shopping scams, business scams and job scams follow close behind.
The report also revealed more young people are losing money than senior citizens these days. And for the second year in a row, email was the most common vehicle for scams in 2024.
The FTC report also listed where the most fraud is happening, based on each state's population. Florida, Georgia and Delaware had the most fraud in 2024. Indiana ranked 29th on the list of 50 states.
If you're a victim of fraud or identity theft, you can report it via the website ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Fix the wealth gap by changing the corporate tax code
As Congress crafts yet another budget, it is time to confront a quiet enabler of America's growing wealth gap: the way we tax corporate profits. The U.S. corporate tax system is a maze of complexity, distortion and avoidance. At the same time, the richest Americans — who own the lion's share of corporate stock — see their wealth balloon not from income, but from capital appreciation fueled by retained corporate earnings. They pay little or nothing in taxes until they choose to sell — if ever. Here is a simple idea that could transform that system: Replace the corporate income tax with a flat tax on retained earnings. Instead of taxing corporate profits on paper, tax the portion that companies choose not to distribute — those retained earnings that quietly accumulate on balance sheets, inflate stock values and end up driving inequality. The logic is straightforward. Retained earnings represent profits that aren't reinvested in capital or returned to shareholders. They sit — often offshore and untaxed — fueling stock buybacks or simply increasing book value. Meanwhile, shareholders can borrow against those unrealized gains, grow richer by the year and legally avoid income tax altogether. Under the current system, corporations face a 21 percent statutory income tax rate. But due to loopholes and global tax arbitrage, the effective rate is often much lower — closer to between 9 percent and 15 percent. At the same time, the top 1 percent of Americans own more than 90 percent of stocks and mutual fund wealth, much of which compounds through retained earnings without triggering taxable events. A 20 percent flat tax on retained earnings, applied at the corporate level, would be lower than the statutory income tax but much harder to evade. It would simplify the tax code, eliminate gamesmanship and ensure that profits benefit society, whether distributed or not. Companies could avoid the tax by issuing dividends — thereby transferring the tax burden to shareholders, who would then pay ordinary dividend taxes. Or companies could reinvest in productive capital expenditures or research and development, which could be exempted from the tax base. People often complain that the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes. A retained earnings tax addresses this directly, since the wealthy are by far the largest shareholders. By inducing higher dividend payouts, the tax would convert more untaxed wealth into taxable income — ensuring the rich pay more, proportionally and predictably. This plan is fair. Wealth would no longer accumulate tax-free inside corporations. Ultra-wealthy shareholders would see more of their income flow to dividends, triggering taxes like ordinary Americans face on wages. In 2024, S&P 500 companies earned approximately $1.9 trillion in pre-tax profits. Of that, they paid only about $248 billion in corporate taxes — just 13 percent of total profits — and distributed around $650 billion in dividends to shareholders. That left well over $1 trillion in earnings to be retained or used for stock buybacks. A 20 percent tax on just the retained portion — estimated near $870 billion — would yield $174 billion annually. More importantly, it would encourage companies to issue more dividends — triggering personal income tax obligations at rates of 15 percent to 23.8 percent. For the first time in decades, untaxed paper wealth held by the ultra-rich would convert into real, taxable income. This plan is earnings are already reported as a line item on corporate financial statements, so no need for armies of tax accountants. This plan also encourages efficiency. Corporations would be nudged to either distribute profits or reinvest productively — reducing hoarding, stock buybacks and financial manipulation. The scale of profit hoarding is not theoretical. As of late 2024, Apple held over $65 billion in cash and equivalents. Microsoft held more than $71 billion. Alphabet, parent company of Google, sat on over $95 billion and Amazon was at $100 billion. These figures represent retained capital sitting in balance sheets — largely untouched by taxation. In many cases, this hoarded cash fuels share repurchases or simply adds to paper valuations, thus benefiting the wealthiest shareholders while contributing nothing to public coffers. Of course, this idea has precedents. President Franklin D. Roosevelt experimented with an undistributed profits tax in the 1930s. Today, a version survives as the Accumulated Earnings Tax, but it's rarely enforced and easy to circumvent. This proposal is simpler, bolder and broader. Critics may worry this plan would discourage reinvestment or burden growth. But a well-designed system can exempt reinvested earnings tied to clear capital investment or innovation. What this proposal targets is not growth but excessive hoarding of profits that serves only the wealthy few. Others may fear that such a tax would prompt corporations to switch to alternative structures or shift operations abroad. But a retained earnings tax can be applied based on financial disclosures for U.S.-based public companies and expanded to large LLCs or partnerships. In fact, it may reduce incentives to move profits offshore, since it targets where wealth stays, not where it's reported. The politics are promising. A retained earnings tax is lower than the current corporate income tax — yet may raise more consistent, sustainable revenue. It eliminates the need to police every deduction, credit and carve-out. It also aligns with populist sentiments on both the left and right: no more tax-free stockpiling, no more billionaires (referred to by some today as 'oligarchs') borrowing off their gains while avoiding taxes. Congress has a chance to reset how we think about taxing wealth — not by chasing every dollar of income, but by targeting the retained profits that silently fuel inequality and sidestep the tax system. Fixing the corporate tax code is essential not just for raising revenue but for restoring fairness, transparency and trust in the American economic compact. Peter D. Wells is principal at Ancient Wisdom Consulting. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Escalating ICE raids pull California Democrats back into immigration fight
SAN FRANCISCO — The Trump administration's increasingly aggressive moves on immigration are pulling Democrats back into a border security debate they had tried to ignore. For months, Democrats scarred by the politics of the issue sought to sidestep President Donald Trump's immigration wars — focusing instead on the economy, tariffs or, in the case of deportations, due process concerns. But in the span of a week, that calculation was jolted in California, after a series of high-profile raids and arrests, including of a labor union leader and dozens of other people in Los Angeles, and with President Donald Trump on Saturday announcing the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to the area. In this citadel of Democratic politics, party officials from the governor's mansion to city halls are suddenly tearing into Trump on immigration again, inflaming a debate that worked to Trump's benefit in 2024 — but where Democrats believe they now have a political opening. 'We were wrong on the border,' said Rep. Scott Peters, a Democrat from San Diego who chided Immigration and Customs Enforcement over a raid at a popular restaurant in the city. 'But it is not hard to explain to average Americans why what's happening here is unproductive. It's so un-American, and it's so cruel.' Peters and other San Diego leaders — including Democratic Reps. Juan Vargas, Sara Jacobs and Mike Levin — were quick to condemn the recent raid on an Italian restaurant in the trendy South Park neighborhood, where around 20 masked agents stormed the restaurant and handcuffed workers as a rattled crowd looked on. Four undocumented immigrants were arrested. The lawmakers called the agents' tactics 'needlessly reckless' and said the heavy-handed approach 'terrorized' residents, noting agents used flash-bang grenades to disperse those who gathered outside to protest. But if the enforcement action was aggressive, the response from Democrats represented an escalation in their engagement on immigration, too. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, a Democrat, had previously said little about Trump or his immigration policies in the early months of his second term — similar to other blue-city mayors in California who've sought to avoid drawing the president's ire. But in recent days, Gloria sharply criticized federal officials over the raids. And then came the immigration sweeps in Los Angeles, where union officials said the Service Employees International Union's state president, David Huerta, was injured and arrested. Rep. Derek Tran, a Democrat from Orange County, who last fall flipped a hotly contested GOP seat, said on X that he was 'appalled by this clear violation of first amendment rights,' while Rep. Jimmy Gomez called it part of a 'nationwide pattern of suppression.' Protests erupted in the city, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass decried immigration enforcement tactics she said 'sow terror in our communities.' 'These are fear-driven, military-style operations that have no place in a democratic society,' said Mark Gonzalez, a Democratic state Assemblymember whose downtown LA district was the epicenter of Friday's raids. The next day, when Trump announced the Guard's deployment, Democrats rushed to take a stand in a fight shifting from deportations to the deployment of the Guard. Gov. Gavin Newsom blasted the measure as 'purposefully inflammatory.' And when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth threatened to deploy the U.S. military, too, Newsom posted on social media, 'This is deranged behavior.' In a note to his super PAC list, he said, 'These are not people who have some deep conviction about protecting law enforcement. This is a President who failed to call up the National Guard when it was actually needed — on January 6th — and then pardoned the participants as one of his first acts as president. They want a spectacle. They want the violence.' For the party at large, it's a notable swing from the immediate aftermath of Trump's victory in November, when many Democratic leaders in California and elsewhere sought to moderate on the issue — or at least strike a more muted tone than they did during Trump's first term. Polling suggests that voter frustration over Democrats' handling of border security and crime played a strong role in Trump's sweeping return to power, and many elected officials adjusted in response. Newsom was among them. He has avoided using the word 'sanctuary' to defend the state's immigration laws that limit police cooperation with ICE. He also vowed to veto a Democratic-led bill that would have applied such restrictions to state prisons and is now proposing steep cuts to a health care program for undocumented immigrants. Earlier this year, he suggested the legal fight over Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident mistakenly deported by the Trump administration and imprisoned in El Salvador — he is now back in U.S. custody and facing federal human trafficking charges — was a 'distraction' intended to take Democrats' focus away from other parts of Trump's agenda (Newsom's office later said his remarks were misconstrued). But in recent days, the governor has criticized federal deportation efforts, including reports that federal authorities threatened the family of a Bakersfield girl with a rare, life-threatening medical condition with deportation, despite the family earlier being granted humanitarian protection. 'The @GOP are sending a 4 year old off to her death without a care in the world. It's sick,' Newsom posted on X. The Trump administration has accused Democrats and the media of distorting the facts of the case, noting the girl wasn't actively being deported. Department of Homeland Security Officials said the family has since been approved to stay in the U.S. while she receives medical care. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in an email that the left's 'unhinged smears' of immigration-enforcement tactics have led to a surge of assaults on ICE agents. 'President Trump is keeping his promise to the American people to deport illegal aliens,' she said. 'It's disturbing that Democrats would side with illegal aliens over Americans and stoke hatred against American law enforcement.' In a social media post, Trump said, 'If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!' ICE officials have also defended the agency's actions in the San Diego raids, saying agents wear masks due to escalating death threats and online harassment. The agency said it deployed flash-bang grenades when the crowd outside the restaurant 'became unruly' and posed a potential danger. Regarding the arrest of SEIU's leader, federal authorities said Huerta had blocked an ICE vehicle while agents were serving a warrant. Still, the headline-grabbing incidents and images of residents clashing with ICE agents have provided an opening for Democrats to put the Trump administration on the defensive — over raids, accounts of children being separated from their parents during ICE detentions and migrants being arrested in federal courthouses while attending legal proceedings. Recent polling suggests that after making gains with Latino voters in 2024, Trump's support among Latinos is falling off. 'It's one thing when you're talking about illegal aliens in the abstract,' said Mike Madrid, a veteran political consultant and anti-Trump Republican. 'It moved from the abstract to the real. It's cruelty for cruelty's sake, and that's where you're going to lose support.' Chris Newman, legal director with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said while Democrats were hurt in the 2024 election by the Biden administration's handling of immigration, the politics are shifting as Trump tries to carry out his promise of mass deportations. 'When you see these types of Gestapo-style tactics playing out in real life, the whole country is recoiling to that,' said Newman, who represents the family of Abrego Garcia. He has criticized Democrats, including Newsom, over their response to the Abrego Garcia case, which captured national headlines due to Trump's defiance of multiple federal court orders. In that case, Democrats focused their messaging not on the humanitarian toll of deportations, but due process and the rule of law. Newman said the latest raids show Democrats hesitant to attack Republicans over their immigration policies have misread the moment: 'The wrong lesson (from the 2024 election) is that immigration is inherently a losing issue for Democrats at the top level. The right lesson is that what … the American public wants is a clear, legible immigration policy.' Among the most outspoken California Democrats in recent days has been San Diego Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who was pilloried by conservative media outlets over his Instagram post that included a photo labeling ICE agents as 'terrorists' in the restaurant raid. The post drew national attention, with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller accusing politicians on the left of 'openly encouraging violence against law enforcement to aid and abet the invasion of America.' Elo-Rivera, who's also a member of the progressive Working Families Party, said while the restaurant incident made headlines, it was indicative of more aggressive ICE actions that have rattled his district near the U.S.-Mexico border — tactics he argues are designed to stoke fear. He said while Democrats did a lot of 'hemming and hawing' post-election over the party's stance on immigration, they now have a chance to make a sharp contrast with the GOP by consistently advocating for the dignity and rights of migrants. 'Immigration is not a distraction for Democrats. We just need to have the conversation on our terms,' Elo-Rivera said. 'Unfortunately, there's folks that think they need to see a poll first before they take a position.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Cory Booker says he won't accept campaign donations from Elon Musk
Sen. Cory Booker on Sunday said he would not accept campaign donations from tech mogul Elon Musk but urged the former Trump adviser to 'get involved right now in a more substantive way' in Democrats' push against the sweeping GOP-backed spending bill. 'This bill is disastrous for our long-term economy,' Booker told NBC News' 'Meet the Press.' 'This is an American issue, and I welcome Elon Musk not to my campaign. I welcome him right now, not to sit back and just fire off tweets, get involved right now in a more substantive way in putting pressure on Congress people and senators to not do this.' Asked directly whether he would ever accept campaign funding from Musk, Booker said, 'I would not accept money from Elon Musk for my campaign, but I would be supportive of anybody, including Elon Musk, putting resources forward right now to let more Americans know' about the bill. Booker's remarks come as other Democrats, like Rep. Ro Khanna of California, have floated welcoming Musk into the Democratic Party after a feud between President Donald Trump and the Tesla and SpaceX CEO exploded into public view last week. 'We should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with,' Khanna told Politico last week after Musk and Trump fired off a series of social media posts criticizing each other. The falling out started after Musk called the budget bill a 'disgusting abomination' in a post on X. In subsequent posts on Truth Social, the president accused Musk of 'wearing thin' and said 'he just went crazy.' Musk later accused Trump of 'ingratitude' in another post on X after he spent $250 million boosting Trump's campaign in 2024 and accused Trump of links to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a now-deleted post. On Saturday, in a phone call with NBC News, Trump said he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk after their public spat. The president also responded to a direct question about what might happen if Musk decided to financially support Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections, days after Musk wrote in a post on X, 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,' appearing to refer to Republicans who voted for the GOP-backed spending bill in the House. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC News, adding that there could be 'serious consequences.' In May, House Republicans passed a sweeping domestic policy bill called the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that would extend tax cuts passed in the first Trump administration, increase funding for border security and eliminate federal taxes on tips and overtime pay. The bill has also drawn scrutiny from Democrats for slashing funding for Medicaid and some food stamps while adding work requirements for Medicaid, which provides health care for low-income Americans. Musk and some Senate Republicans have blasted the bill for estimated effects it could have on the federal debt and deficit, though Trump and House Republicans have downplayed those concerns. 'More Americans have to understand that if this bill passes, average Americans are going to see their costs skyrocket as this president again pushes legislation that is indicative of his chaos, corruption and cruelty towards Americans,' Booker said on Sunday. This article was originally published on
