Trump Reverses Course, Says GOP Should ‘Probably Not' Increase Taxes on Wealthy
'The problem with even a 'tiny' tax increase for the rich, which I and all others would graciously accept in order to help the lower and middle income workers, ' Trump
'No, Ross Perot cost him the Election! In any event, Republicans should probably not do it, but I'm ok if they do.'
Perot was a businessman and third-party presidential candidate who ran in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections. In the 1992 election, Perot garnered 18 percent of the vote and was widely believed to have taken votes from Bush in his reelection campaign.
A source close to Trump
Specifically, Trump had been considering reestablishing the top individual income tax rate for people earning $2.5 million or more from 37 percent to 39.6 percent, the person said. The source added that the higher rates on wealthier Americans would help offset tax cuts for the middle class and working class, and it would also not force Republicans to slash funding for Medicaid, the government-operated health care service used by millions of poorer Americans.
Related Stories
5/9/2025
5/9/2025
But last month, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he was opposed to the idea,
'We're the Republican Party and we're for tax reduction for everyone,' he said.
During his 2024 campaign, Trump vowed to eliminate taxes on tips, Social Security payments to seniors, and overtime. He reiterated in a post on Truth Social earlier this week that he wants to accomplish those things.
'We are going to do no tax on tips, no tax on seniors' social security, no tax on overtime, and much more. It will be the biggest Tax Cut for Middle and Working Class Americans by far, and it is time for Main Street to win,' he
The current legislative plan calls for offsetting tax cuts by reducing spending on the Medicaid health care program for lower-income Americans and nutrition support programs and by eliminating popular environmental tax credits, changes opposed by Republican centrists.
'The spending reduction side of this equation has been the most challenging, which is a sad commentary on my party and my conference. But it's the reality,' House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told reporters.
Arrington and other House Republicans said failure to achieve $2 trillion in spending cuts over a decade would jeopardize Trump's hopes of making his 2017 tax cuts permanent. A higher tax rate on the wealthy could provide added revenues to compensate for cuts elsewhere.
Reuters contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Web Travel Group Limited (ASX:WEB) is favoured by institutional owners who hold 56% of the company
Key Insights Institutions' substantial holdings in Web Travel Group implies that they have significant influence over the company's share price 51% of the business is held by the top 12 shareholders Insiders have been selling lately Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. A look at the shareholders of Web Travel Group Limited (ASX:WEB) can tell us which group is most powerful. We can see that institutions own the lion's share in the company with 56% ownership. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company. Given the vast amount of money and research capacities at their disposal, institutional ownership tends to carry a lot of weight, especially with individual investors. Hence, having a considerable amount of institutional money invested in a company is often regarded as a desirable trait. Let's delve deeper into each type of owner of Web Travel Group, beginning with the chart below. View our latest analysis for Web Travel Group What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About Web Travel Group? Institutions typically measure themselves against a benchmark when reporting to their own investors, so they often become more enthusiastic about a stock once it's included in a major index. We would expect most companies to have some institutions on the register, especially if they are growing. We can see that Web Travel Group does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company's stock. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. When multiple institutions own a stock, there's always a risk that they are in a 'crowded trade'. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see Web Travel Group's historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story. Investors should note that institutions actually own more than half the company, so they can collectively wield significant power. We note that hedge funds don't have a meaningful investment in Web Travel Group. Our data shows that State Street Global Advisors, Inc. is the largest shareholder with 7.5% of shares outstanding. In comparison, the second and third largest shareholders hold about 6.0% and 5.5% of the stock. In addition, we found that John Guscic, the CEO has 1.6% of the shares allocated to their name. Looking at the shareholder registry, we can see that 51% of the ownership is controlled by the top 12 shareholders, meaning that no single shareholder has a majority interest in the ownership. Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. Quite a few analysts cover the stock, so you could look into forecast growth quite easily. Insider Ownership Of Web Travel Group The definition of company insiders can be subjective and does vary between jurisdictions. Our data reflects individual insiders, capturing board members at the very least. Company management run the business, but the CEO will answer to the board, even if he or she is a member of it. I generally consider insider ownership to be a good thing. However, on some occasions it makes it more difficult for other shareholders to hold the board accountable for decisions. We can see that insiders own shares in Web Travel Group Limited. This is a big company, so it is good to see this level of alignment. Insiders own AU$69m worth of shares (at current prices). Most would say this shows alignment of interests between shareholders and the board. Still, it might be worth checking if those insiders have been selling. General Public Ownership The general public-- including retail investors -- own 38% stake in the company, and hence can't easily be ignored. This size of ownership, while considerable, may not be enough to change company policy if the decision is not in sync with other large shareholders. Next Steps: I find it very interesting to look at who exactly owns a company. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Case in point: We've spotted 3 warning signs for Web Travel Group you should be aware of. Ultimately the future is most important. You can access this free report on analyst forecasts for the company. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. 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
CNN
16 minutes ago
- CNN
Judge Denies DOJ Request To Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Docs - The Lead with Jake Tapper - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Judge Denies DOJ Request To Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Docs The Lead with Jake Tapper 87 mins A slew of new details emerge in the Jeffrey Epstein case just as a judge declines to release some grand jury documents from the criminal investigation. CNN has confirmed that Attorney General Pam Bondi told Trump back in May that his name was one of many in the Epstein files.
Boston Globe
17 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court finds Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship unconstitutional, upholds block
'The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,' the majority wrote. Advertisement The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration's attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The Supreme Court has since But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under Advertisement 'We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,' Judge Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote. Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. He found that the states don't have the legal right, or standing, to sue. 'We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions,' he wrote. Bumatay did not weigh in on whether ending birthright citizenship would be constitutional. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens. Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase 'subject to United States jurisdiction' in the amendment means that citizenship isn't automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone. The states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — argue that ignores the plain language of the Citizenship Clause as well as a landmark birthright citizenship case in 1898 where the Supreme Court found a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil. Trump's order asserts that a child born in the U.S. is not a citizen if the mother does not have legal immigration status or is in the country legally but temporarily, and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. At least nine lawsuits challenging the order have been filed around the U.S. Advertisement Associated Press writer Rebecca Boone contributed to this story.
