Meta in Talks for Scale AI Investment That Could Top $10 Billion
Meta Platforms Inc. is in talks to make a multibillion-dollar investment into artificial intelligence startup Scale AI, according to people familiar with the matter.
The financing could exceed $10 billion in value, some of the people said, making it one of the largest private company funding events of all time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Has no tax on tips passed? Here's where things stand
As a presidential candidate last year, Donald Trump called for no taxes on tips — an exemption from the federal income tax for all tipped income. So where does that promise stand now? There is a provision in the 'big, beautiful bill' passed by the House in May, which the Senate is now considering. The tax break is included in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, so it seems likely to make it into the final version sent to Trump's desk. Plus, the Senate already voted unanimously on a separate bill that would do the same thing. Here are answers to some common questions about the 'no tax on tips' proposal: Trump first proposed to end taxation on tipped income at a campaign rally on June 9, 2024, in Las Vegas, a direct appeal to the service workers in the swing state's tourism industry. 'So this is the first time I've said this, and for those hotel workers and people that get tips, you're going to be very happy, because when I get to office, we are going to not charge taxes on tips people [are] making,' Trump said. It was part of a broader set of proposals thrown out with little detail during the campaign, including a pledge to exempt overtime pay from income tax. It was one of Trump's more realistic promises, however, as the idea quickly gained bipartisan support, including from Kamala Harris' campaign and Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada plus Republicans such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. It was also one of a number of campaign pledges he promised would be fulfilled right away if he won a second term. The Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed the House, includes an income tax exemption for tips. As with the proposed $1,000 baby bonus and the exemption for income tax on overtime pay in the bill, the tips tax break would expire at the end of 2028, days before Trump's term ends. That helps Republicans in Congress keep the apparent cost of the bill down while setting up another fight on the issue just as the next president takes office. Under the House proposal, workers making less than $160,000 per year would qualify for the exemption. Tips would still have to be reported to the IRS, and they would be subject to withholding — meaning money would be taken out of each paycheck but workers would get it back if they were owed tax refunds the next April. Social Security and Medicare taxes would still apply to tipped income. The exemption would not apply to automatic gratuities for large parties at a restaurant and other service charges. The Senate passed a standalone bill called the No Tax on Tips Act in a surprise vote in late May. Rosen brought up the bill as a "unanimous consent" request, an accelerated process typically reserved for more routine issues, such as renaming post offices. But no senator objected, and the bill was quickly passed. The bill would create an income tax exemption of up to $25,000 for workers in jobs that have traditionally received tips who make less than $160,000. The exact jobs covered by the exemption would be decided by the Trump administration within 90 days of the bill's signing. As with the House bill, the Senate version would expire just as Trump leaves office. If it expires, the total cost of the measure would be about $40 billion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that if the measure is extended over 10 years, it would cost more than $100 billion. The White House Council of Economic Advisers — which works for Trump — estimated that the measure would increase the average take-home pay for tipped workers by $1,675 per year. The Tax Policy Center, however, noted that the amount would vary greatly depending on the job. Half of all wait staff make $32,000 or less a year, which means they already pay little or no federal income tax. But the measure would give a much bigger break to the highest-paid tipped workers who make $60,000 or more a year. "A 20 percent tip on a $200 meal is vastly different than one for the $9.95 special at Mom's Diner," the nonprofit said in an analysis. As with the exemption on overtime pay, there's a wide range of possible outcomes. It's possible that the measure would simply end up reducing the annual tax bill for the top tipped workers and have no other effects. Or it could lead customers to give more — or possibly even less — in tips to wait staff, hairdressers and others once they know the money isn't taxed. Some economists think the exemption would undercut ongoing political efforts to increase the minimum wage for tipped workers, which is currently $2.13 per hour at the federal level. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk can both hurt each other in their feud. Here's how.
An explosive breakdown in the relationship between President Donald Trump and his biggest political donor turned part-time employee, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has been foreshadowed since their alliance first took shape. When Trump brought Musk along for the ride as he moved back into the White House, the looming question was always how long the two could possibly stay in sync. After all, neither the most powerful person in the world nor the richest person on Earth is known for keeping his ego in check. The main thrust of the Trump-Musk feud boils down to who can assert dominance over the other. In the intense back-and-forth that had everyone glued to their screens Thursday, we saw bullies used to getting their way desperately trying to find leverage over each other. But unlike the flame wars of old, where internet trolls would hurl insults at each other across message board forums, Trump and Musk can do serious damage to each other in the real world — and to the rest of us in the process. Musk first gained access to Trump through his vast fortune; he donated almost $300 million during last year's election and hasn't been afraid to throw his money around in races this year. Though he said in May he would be 'spending a lot less' on funding political races, he has also been quick to threaten pumping money into the midterms should lawmakers back the massive budget bill currently working its way through the Senate. And Musk has made clear that he expects a return on his investments, having already snidely claimed on his X platform that Trump would have lost and Democrats would have taken Congress without his backing. Trump is reportedly more focused on the midterms than he was during his first term, worried that a new Democratic majority would lead to more investigations and/or a third impeachment. While he's already sitting on $600 million to help hold on to a GOP majority, Musk's money could throw a spanner in the works, especially if he follows through on his public musing about bankrolling a third party to 'represent the 80% of Americans in the middle.' Though Trump has his own social media platform, Truth Social, X remains a much louder microphone to amplify Musk's messaging to the right, including his supposed 'bombshell' about Trump's presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files. (Musk provided no evidence for the claim and Trump has previously denied any involvement with Epstein's criminal behavior.) Trump, in turn, has threatened Musk's lucrative government contracts, which would include billions of dollars funneled toward his SpaceX company, as well as the subsidies that Tesla receives for its electric car production. Musk responded by warning about cutting off access to SpaceX launches, which would potentially cripple NASA and the Defense Department's ability to deploy satellites. But that would prove a double-edged sword for Musk, given how large a revenue stream those contracts have become. By Thursday evening, Musk had already backed down from his saber-rattling about restricting access to the Dragon space capsule, but he could change his mind again. That he made the threat in the first place has raised major alarm bells among national security officials. The Washington Post reported Saturday that NASA and the Pentagon have begun "urging [Musk's competitors] to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft" to lessen his chokehold on the industry. Notably, Trump isn't alone in his fight against Musk, though as ever those wading into the brawl have their own motives. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon took the opportunity to launch a broadside against Musk. 'People including myself are recommending to the president that he pull every contract associated with Elon Musk,' Bannon told NBC News on Thursday night. Bannon requested that 'major investigations start immediately' into, among other things, Musk's 'immigration status, his security clearance and his history of drug abuse.' There are already several federal investigations of Musk's companies that have been underway for years, which critics had previously worried might be stonewalled due to his influence with Trump. While the extremely public breakup makes for high drama and more than a little schadenfreude, the pettiness masks a deeper issue. The battle Musk and Trump are waging is predicated on both wielding a horrifying amount of unchecked power. In a healthy system of government, their ability to inflict pain on each other wouldn't exist, or at least such an ability would be severely blunted. Musk being able to funnel nearly unlimited amounts of spending into dark money super PACs is an oligarchical nightmare. Trump using the power of the presidency to overturn contracts and launch investigations at a whim is blatant authoritarianism in action. In theory, there are still checks to rein each of them in before things escalate much further. Musk's shareholders have been unhappy with his rocky time in government, and the war of words with Trump sent Tesla's stock price tumbling once more. Trump needs to get his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed into law and — next year — ensure Congress doesn't fall into Democrats' hands. Trump and Musk have incentives, then, to stay in each other's good graces despite their wounded pride. Trump made clear to NBC News in an interview Saturday that he has no real interest in patching things up with Musk, warning that there will be "very serious consequences" if his one-time ally funds Democratic campaigns. Even if the two eventually reach a détente, it's unlikely to be a lasting peace, not so long as one feels his authority is challenged by the other. The zero-sum view of the world that Trump and Musk share, one where social Darwinism and superior genetics shape humanity, doesn't allow for long-term cooperative relationships. Instead, at best they will return to a purely transactional situationship, but one where the knives will gleefully come back out the second a new opening is given. Most importantly, there is no protagonist when it comes to the inciting incident in this duel, as a total victory won't benefit the American people writ large. Trump wants Congress to pass his bill to grant him more funding for deportations and to preserve his chances of staying in power. Musk wants a more painful bill that will slash the social safety net for millions. No matter what the outcome is as they battle for supremacy over each other, we're the ones who risk being trampled. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Just 10% of bills passed in CT's 2025 legislative session. Here are the major ones
After months of clashes on multiple issues, the 2025 legislative session ended last week with new legislation passed on the state budget, early childhood education, gun safety, affordable housing and electricity prices. When the smoke cleared as time expired at midnight on June 4, fewer than 10% of the proposed bills had passed both chambers of the legislature. In all, about 3,800 bills were filed this year on a wide variety of subjects in more than 25 committees. Of those, more than 900 bills were passed by the legislative committees. Eventually, state officials said, 286 bills were passed by both chambers and will be sent to Lamont's desk for his signature. A small sampling of some of the major bills includes : The state's new two-year, $55.8 billion budget was hailed by Democrats for providing additional money for Medicaid, nonprofit organizations, special education, and the working poor. But the measure was ripped by Republicans for too many taxes on businesses and too much spending, including an increase of about $1.2 billion in the first year over this year's spending. The massive, 693-page budget passed both chambers in the final days after 66 hours of public hearings and multiple revisions. The measure passed on strict party lines in the Senate, while two conservative Democrats joined with all Republicans in voting against the budget in the state House of Representatives. Lamont said it was important to him that lawmakers passed a two-year budget, rather than one year as House Speaker Matt Ritter had mentioned, so that the state could plan further into the future. 'I think it's an honestly balanced budget,' Lamont told reporters in his office after the session. 'We did it without raising anybody's tax rates. That was not happening previously.' Among the highlights was a tax rebate of $250 for working families who already qualify for the federal earned income tax credit. Ritter had pushed for a visible method of relief and so checks for $250 per year will be sent to lower-income households with children. The money will be directed to the neediest families after budget negotiators dropped a more expensive Democratic plan that would have provided a child tax credit for families earning as much as $200,000 per year. Republicans charged that Lamont had derailed the bipartisan fiscal guardrails set in 2017 and eviscerated the spending cap. Republicans and the Connecticut Business and Industry Association were also concerned that the budget includes Lamont's change to the 'unitary' tax that they said would lead to tax increases for about 20 major corporations like Electric Boat, Wal-Mart, Raytheon, Amazon, Home Depot, Lowe's, AT&T, Verizon, and the parent company of Sikorsky helicopters, among others. The tax has not been mentioned much at the state Capitol in recent years, but Fairfield-based General Electric Co. cited the tax among the reasons that the company decided to move its headquarters to Boston during the tenure of then-Gov. Dannel P. Malloy. But Lamont and his team have frequent contact with top business leaders, and he said after the initial proposal was released that the leaders had not raised major concerns. Republicans have ripped Lamont with a consistent theme that he has 'folded like a lawn chair' on various issues where they believe he has flip-flopped. Senators even set up lawn chairs outside their third-floor caucus room at the state Capitol that mentioned various issues such as the spending cap and fiscal guardrails. 'Our observation that Gov. Lamont 'folded like a lawn chair' to his fellow Democrats apparently struck a nerve,' said Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield. 'Gov. Lamont performed his lawn chair-folding impression multiple times in recent weeks: On the 'sacrosanct' spending cap, on 'no new taxes', on the Trust Act, and on $60 steak-loving CSCU Chancellor Terrence Cheng's new $440,000 no-defined duties job. The truth hurts.' Lamont seems to have grown tired of Republican criticisms, saying the Senate Republicans have thrown stones from the sidelines without offering their own fiscal plan this year as state budget surpluses have continued. 'I wish they would spend less time on folding chairs and more time on coming up with a budget of their own,' Lamont said when asked by The Courant. 'Their numbers don't add up. They couldn't come up with a budget of their own. If you want to have a place at the table, come up with a constructive idea.' Lawmakers approved landmark legislation to fund an endowment account to create more affordable child care in Connecticut in the coming years. Legislators agreed with Lamont to set aside as much as $300 million per year from the state's future budget surpluses in order to create a large endowment fund that would be invested by the state treasurer and could grow in future years. This year's allocation is expected to be $200 million, based on the size of the current surplus. 'The most important initiative, from my point of view, in this budget is what we're doing in early childhood,' Lamont told reporters after the session. 'I think it's absolutely important to economic growth. It gives mom and dad a chance to get back to work. It's all about affordability because you know how big a chunk early childhood and day care can be to a family just getting started out. We're going to have universal pre-K and universal early childhood for early single family, at no cost, earn up to about $100,000 and discounts from there.' Under the plan, families earning $100,000 or less would pay nothing for child care starting in 2028, as it would be paid by the endowment, lawmakers said. The goal is for the endowment to help pay the costs to create 16,000 spaces for preschool, infants, and toddlers by 2030. While those under $100,000 would be free, those earning more than $100,000 would not pay more than 7% of their household income, lawmakers said. But Republicans said that the projected 12% annual draw down in the first two years is too much, saying it would sharply decrease the size of the endowment. They questioned the use of large amounts of money to create an off-budget endowment instead of allocating more money for the state's unfunded liabilities like pensions for state employees and public school teachers. 'It really is the beginning of the end of good fiscal practices,' said House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford. 'They are turning the faucet off on Connecticut paying down its unfunded liabilities. The glory days are over of paying down unfunded liabilities. … This legislation right now is doing away with surpluses as we know it.' Among the most contentious and heavily debated issues was electricity prices and exactly how to solve the long-running dilemma of sky-high energy costs in Connecticut. After numerous revisions, the Senate passed the final version in a 134-page bill by 34-1 with state Sen. John Fonfara of Hartford as the lone dissenting vote. One of the most knowledgeable lawmakers in the building, Fonfara had crafted his own version of electricity reform in the tax-writing finance committee, but the final version did not include all of his ideas, something he called a missed opportunity. While estimates varied, lawmakers said the average residential customer might save about $100 or more per year. Businesses could save $100 per month, or $1,200 per year, depending on their size and usage. Republicans and Democrats have been squabbling publicly about electricity prices for more than a year, both before and after the election. Ritter described the matter as 'the wedge political issue of 2024.' In addition, the twists and turns between the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority and the state's electric utilities have sparked a long-running soap opera with lawsuits and ongoing drama that has continued on a heavily-lobbied issue. Even after the session, the situation remained in flux as Lamont said he had a handshake deal that is also backed by the law to fill the spots on the PURA board to five members, up from the current three. Fonfara and former Republican state legislator Holly Cheeseman of Niantic have been the two most-mentioned candidates for the jobs since Christmas, but Lamont still has not officially announced his picks. 'We've got a deal for five people, and I'll do it sooner than later,' Lamont told reporters after the session. 'Holly is very well regarded. I think she would be at the top of our list.' Lamont declined to comment on Fonfara, who has been in the middle of various battles related to PURA. Lamont, though, added that he is looking for a highly qualified candidate with deep knowledge of electricity and the regulatory world. 'I haven't found that person yet,' Lamont said. After long debates in both chambers, lawmakers passed a gun safety bill that would make it easier to file civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers and make it harder for some residents to obtain a pistol permit. House Bill 7042 allows the state attorney general, as well as private citizens and cities and towns, to file civil lawsuits against those 'who fail to implement so-called reasonable controls in preventing the sale of firearms to straw purchasers, firearm traffickers, and individuals who are prevented from purchasing firearms under our laws.' Democrats said the bill is necessary because the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, known as PLCAA, was passed by Congress in 2005 that provided special immunity protections for gun manufacturers. So far, nine other states have passed similar legislation to expand the possibility of gun-related lawsuits, including New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, Illinois, Colorado and others. Republicans blasted the bill as an attack on Second Amendment rights. The multi-pronged bill also makes it harder for some residents to obtain a gun permit if they committed crimes in other states. Currently, Connecticut residents who commit felonies and 11 'disqualifier misdemeanors' are not permitted to obtain a pistol or revolver permit. But residents who commit essentially the same misdemeanors in other states, and then move to Connecticut, are still able to obtain a permit. The bill would cover anyone convicted of those misdemeanors in another state during the past eight years; they would now be blocked from getting a pistol or revolver permit, lawmakers said. After struggling for years to solve an elusive problem, legislators voted for steps to increase affordable housing in one of the nation's most expensive states. Lawmakers expressed frustration as renters and homeowners of all ages have complained of the price of housing — whether a small studio for a recent college graduate, a modest home for a young family, or a larger home in a sought-after town in Fairfield County. The legislation calls for allowing residential developments in commercial zones, eliminating mandatory minimum parking requirements in some cases to spark more housing, and spurring transit-oriented development, among others. But Candelora rejected the ideas that were unveiled with constant references during the debate to a 'carrot-and-stick' approach. 'These aren't carrots that we are eating,' Candelora said. 'These are rocks that people will be swallowing. … To suggest because we oppose this bill, we are opposing homelessness is an insult to us.' In order to help the homeless, the multi-faceted bill calls for a pilot program for mobile, portable showers in trailers that can be transported from town to town to help residents. The trailers, lawmakers said, are readily available online. For years, nonprofit providers have complained constantly that they have received few increases for providing services for the state under contracts to help the needy by operating group homes, among others. But the nonprofits were pleased with the 2025 session, which came through months of persistent lobbying and testimony at the state Capital. 'The biennial budget agreement will provide more than $200 million in new general fund dollars that will be a lifeline for health and human services providers, their staff and the people who depend on their services,' said Gian Carl Casa, a former top state budget official who now heads the statewide community nonprofit alliance. 'Nonprofit leaders were heartened that rank-and-file legislators, including the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, Moderate Caucus and progressives, stood together to add important funding, and that legislative leaders and the governor agreed. Importantly, the legislature also passed a bipartisan bill that, if signed into law, would index future funding levels to inflation.' He added, 'The support of legislators from both parties can help keep us on track as the state faces federal funding challenges this year and beyond.' Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@
