logo
'Fantasy math' masks tax bill's U.S. debt impact, GOP lawmaker said. What the deficit means for your money

'Fantasy math' masks tax bill's U.S. debt impact, GOP lawmaker said. What the deficit means for your money

CNBC2 days ago

The massive package of tax cuts House Republicans passed in May is expected to increase the U.S. debt by trillions of dollars — a sum that threatens to torpedo the legislation as the Senate starts to consider it this week.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the bill, as written, would add about $3.1 trillion to the national debt over a decade with interest, to a total $53 trillion. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates a higher tally: $3.8 trillion, including interest and economic effects.
Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was one of two Republicans to vote against the House measure, calling it a "debt bomb ticking" and noting that it "dramatically increases deficits in the near term."
"Congress can do funny math — fantasy math — if it wants," Massie said on the House floor on May 22. "But bond investors don't."
A handful of Republican Senators have also voiced concern about the bill's potential addition to the U.S. debt load and other aspects of the legislation.
"The math doesn't really add up," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said Sunday on CBS.
The legislation comes as interest payments on U.S. debt have surpassed national spending on defense and represent the second-largest outlay behind Social Security. Federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, a measure of U.S. economic output, is already at an all-time high.
The notion of rising national debt may seem unimportant for the average person, but it can have a significant impact on household finances, economists said.
"I don't think most consumers think about it at all," said Tim Quinlan, senior economist at Wells Fargo Economics. "They think, 'It doesn't really impact me.' But I think the truth is, it absolutely does."
A much higher U.S. debt burden would likely cause consumers to "pay a lot more" to finance homes, cars and other common purchases, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's.
"That's the key link back to us as consumers, businesspeople and investors: The prospect that all this borrowing, the rising debt load, mean higher interest rates," he said.
The House legislation cuts taxes for households by about $4 trillion, most of which accrue for the wealthy. The bill offsets some of those tax cuts by slashing spending for safety-net programs like Medicaid and food assistance for lower earners.
Some Republicans and White House officials argue President Trump's tariff policies would offset a big chunk of the tax cuts.
But economists say tariffs are an unreliable revenue generator — because a future president can undo them, and courts may take them off the books.
Ultimately, higher interest rates for consumers ties to perceptions of U.S. debt loads and their effect on U.S. Treasury bonds.
Common forms of consumer borrowing like mortgages and auto loans are priced based on yields for U.S. Treasury bonds, particularly the 10-year Treasury.
Yields (i.e., interest rates) for long-term Treasury bonds are largely dictated by market forces. They rise and fall based on supply and demand from investors.
The U.S. relies on Treasury bonds to fund its operations. The government must borrow, since it doesn't take in enough annual tax revenue to pay its bills, what's known as an annual "budget deficit." It pays back Treasury investors with interest.
More from Personal Finance:How GOP tax bill could change in the Senate3 key moves to consider while Fed keeps rates higherTrump administration axes barrier for crypto in 401(k) plans
If the Republican bill — called the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" — were to raise the U.S. debt and deficit by trillions of dollars, it would likely spook investors and Treasury demand may fall, economists said.
Investors would likely demand a higher interest rate to compensate for the additional risk that the U.S. government may not pay its debt obligations in a timely way down the road, economists said.
Interest rates priced to the 10-year Treasury "also have to go up because of the higher risk being taken," said Philip Chao, chief investment officer and certified financial planner at Experiential Wealth based in Cabin John, Maryland.
Moody's cut the U.S.' sovereign credit rating in May, citing the increasing burden of the federal budget deficit and signaling a bigger credit risk for investors. Bond yields spiked on the news.
Zandi cited a general rule of thumb to illustrate what a higher debt burden could mean for consumers: The 10-year Treasury yield rises about 0.02 percentage points for each 1-point increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio, he said.
For example, if the ratio were to rise from 100% (roughly where it is now) to 130%, the 10-year Treasury yield would increase about 0.6 percentage points, Zandi said. That would push the yield to more than 5% relative to current levels of around 4.5%, he said.
"It's a big deal," Zandi said.
A fixed 30-year mortgage would rise from almost 7% to roughly 7.6%, all else equal — likely putting homeownership further "out of reach," especially for many potential first-time buyers, he said.
The debt-to-GDP ratio would swell from about 101% at the end of 2025 to an estimated 148% through 2034 under the as-written House legislation, said Kent Smetters, an economist and faculty director for the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
It's not just consumer borrowers: Certain investors would also stand to lose, experts said.
When Treasury yields rise, prices fall for current bondholders. Their current Treasury bonds become less valuable, weighing on investment portfolios.
"If the market interest rate has gone up, your bond has depreciated," Chao said. "Your net worth has gone down."
The market for long-term Treasury bonds has been more volatile amid investor jitters, leading some experts to recommend shorter-term bonds.
On the flip side, those buying new bonds may be happy because they can earn a higher rate, he said.
The cost of consumer financing has already roughly doubled in recent years, said Quinlan of Wells Fargo.
The average 10-year Treasury yield was about 2.1% from 2012 to 2022; it has been about 4.1% from 2023 to the present, he said.
Of course, the U.S. debt burden is just one of many things that influence Treasury investors and yields, Quinlan said. For example, Treasury investors sent yields sharply higher as they rushed for the exits after Trump announced a spate of country-specific tariffs in April, as they questioned the safe-haven status of U.S. assets.
"But it's not going out on too much of a limb to suggest financial markets the last couple years have grown increasingly concerned about debt levels," Quinlan said.
Absent action, the U.S. debt burden would still rise, economists said. The debt-to-GDP ratio would swell to 138% even if Republicans don't pass any legislation, Smetters said.
But the House legislation would be "pouring gasoline on the fire," said Chao.
"It's adding to the problems we already have," Chao said. "And this is why the bond market is not happy with it," he added.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The big mistake Labour think Nigel Farage has made - and how the chancellor hopes to capitalise
The big mistake Labour think Nigel Farage has made - and how the chancellor hopes to capitalise

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The big mistake Labour think Nigel Farage has made - and how the chancellor hopes to capitalise

Next week, the chancellor will unveil the first spending review since 2021. It will set Whitehall budgets for the remainder of this parliament and it will be a big moment for a government struggling to tell a story about what it is trying to achieve to voters. Rachel Reeves, flanked by transport workers in a bus depot in Rochdale, knows it. She came to the North West armed with £15bn of funding for trains, trams and buses across the Midlands and the North. Much more will be announced next week when the chancellor sets out her capital spending plans for the remainder of the parliament, having loosened her fiscal rules in the budget for capital investment. More is coming. Next week, the chancellor is expected to announce plans to spend billions more on a new railway line between Manchester and Liverpool, as well as other transport schemes for northern towns and cities. This will be the backbone of the "Northern Arc" that Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has been arguing for as a northern version to the much-vaunted Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. Labour will pour £113bn into capital investment over the course of this parliament and there is an economic and political imperative for a chancellor to talk up capital spending in rail and roads, houses, power stations. On the economic side, she is in search for growth and hopes investment in infrastructure will create jobs and fire up the economy. On the politics, Labour need to show voters in their red wall seats that it is the Starmer government and not Nigel Farage that will improve the lives of working people. Ms Reeves spent a lot of time in her speech talking about the need to invest right across the country. She is overhauling the Treasury's "Green Book" that assesses value for money for public projects to make sure that funding decisions don't just get concentrated in the South East but are weighted to the Midlands and the North. She also, in reiterating her commitment to her fiscal rule to not borrow to fund day-to-day government spending (the annual budgets for our schools, councils, courts, police, hospitals), sought to draw out the "choice" between Labour and Reform, as Labour seeks to capitalise on Mr Farage's decision last week to promise up to £80bn worth of new spending - including scrapping the two-child benefit cap and increasing winter fuel payments - while not explaining exactly how they could be paid for. Expect to hear lots more from Labour in the coming weeks about how Mr Farage is an iteration of Liz Truss, ready to pursue "fantasy economics" and trash the economy. Labour are gleeful that Mr Farage has opened up this line of attack and think it was an uncharacteristic political misstep from the Reform leader. Read more:We asked AI to do Rachel Reeves' job "Farage was a politician for vibes, now he's turned himself into a politician of policy and he didn't need to do that yet," observed one senior Labour figure. But if that is the sell, here is the sting. While the Chancellor has loosened her fiscal rules for capital spending, she is resolute she will not do the same when it comes to day-to-day departmental spending, and next week harsh cuts are on the way for some departments, with Yvette Cooper at the Home Office, Angela Rayner at local government, and Ed Miliband at energy still wrangling over their settlements. Ms Reeves was at pains in Rochdale to talk about the extra £190bn the government has put into day-to-day spending in this parliament in order to see off the charges of austerity as those spending cuts kick in. Her allies point to the £300bn in total Ms Reeves has poured into capital projects and public services over this parliament. "You just can't say we aren't a tax-and-spend government," said one ally. But this isn't just a chancellor fighting Mr Farage, she is also battling with those in her own party, under extreme pressure to loosen her fiscal rules, or tax more, as MPs - and her prime minister - demand she spends more on welfare and on getting the UK warfare-ready. You can see it all playing out. After a local election drubbing, the chancellor U-turned on her seemingly iron-clad decision to take the winter fuel allowance away from all pensioners. Now, I'm hearing that the prime minister is pressing to lift the two-child benefit cap (no matter his chief of staff is opposed to the idea, with the cap popular with voters) and MPs are demanding a reverse to some disability cuts (one government insider said the backbench revolt is real and could even force a defeat despite Sir Keir's whopping 165-strong working majority). Meanwhile, the prime minister is under pressure from US President Donald Trump for NATO to lift defence spending to 3.5% of GDP. Spending demands and rising borrowing costs, there is no wonder that attention is already moving towards possible tax rises in the Autumn budget. Ms Rayner, the deputy prime minister, wrote to the chancellor, arguing for targeted wealth taxes. Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, told me this week on Electoral Dysfunction that he wanted more taxes on assets and a revaluation of council tax bands so those with large, valuable homes pay more. "We have not taxed assets and wealth properly and I'd come up with something that can be controversial but council tax has not been revalued since the early 90s so there are homes in London worth tens of millions of pounds that pay less council tax than many average properties here in Greater Manchester so I would look at reforms in that space," Mr Burnham told me this week. "I would look further at land taxation and land taxation reform. If you put in new infrastructure, what I learned through Crossrail, Elizabeth Line - you lift the values of that land. "So why don't we capture some of that uplift from that? I personally would go for a land value tax across the country. So there are things that you can do that I think can be seen to be fair, because we haven't taxed those things fairly. "I've said, and I'll say it again, we've overtaxed people's work and we've undertaxed people's assets and wealth and that balance should be put more right." I asked the chancellor on Wednesday if Ms Rayner and Mr Burnham had a point, and would she level with people that taxes might have to go up again as she struggles with spending demands and self-imposed borrowing constraints - she, of course, swerved the question and said the priority for her is to growth the economy. These questions will, I suspect, only get louder and more frequent in the run-up to the budget should borrowing costs continue to go up alongside demands for spending. The chancellor, at least, has a story to tell about rewiring the economy as a means to national renewal. But with the spoils of infrastructure investment perhaps decades off, Ms Reeves will find it hard to frame this spending review as a reboot for working people rather than a kicking for already stretched public services.

San Francisco leaders blast Trump for trying to erase gay rights icon Harvey Milk's name from ship
San Francisco leaders blast Trump for trying to erase gay rights icon Harvey Milk's name from ship

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

San Francisco leaders blast Trump for trying to erase gay rights icon Harvey Milk's name from ship

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Leaders in San Francisco are blasting the Trump administration for stripping the name of gay rights activist Harvey Milk from a U.S. naval ship, and especially during Pride Month, when people gather to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community. Milk is a revered figure in San Francisco history, a former city supervisor and gay rights advocate who was fatally shot along with Mayor George Moscone in 1978 by disgruntled former supervisor Dan White. Just last month, California marked what would have been Milk's 95th birthday with proclamations heralding his authenticity, kindness and calls for unity. He served for four years in the Navy during the Korean War, before he was forced out for being gay. Milk later moved to San Francisco, where he became one of the first out gay politicians in the world with his election to the Board of Supervisors in 1977. Cleve Jones, a close friend and LGBTQ+ activist, dismissed the renaming as an attempt by the Trump administration to distract the American public from far more serious concerns, including the ongoing war in Gaza and looming cuts to Medicaid and Social Security. "Yes, this is cruel and petty and stupid, and yes, it's an insult to my community," Jones said. 'I would be willing to wager a considerable sum that American families sitting around that proverbial kitchen table this evening are not going to be talking about how much safer they feel now that Harvey's name is going to be taken off that ship.' The Pentagon has not confirmed news of the renaming, a highly rare move, but unnamed officials say the change was laid out in an internal memo. It is in keeping with attempts by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the broader Trump administration to purge all programs, policies, books and social media mentions of references to diversity, equity and inclusion. A new name has not yet been selected for the USNS Harvey Milk. Milk's nephew, Stuart Milk, said in a phone call Wednesday that he and the Harvey Milk Foundation have reached out to the Pentagon, which confirmed there is a proposed name change on the table. 'And our hope is that the recommendation is put aside, but if it's not, it will be a rallying cry not just for our community but for all minority communities,' said Stuart Milk, who is executive chair of the foundation, adding that his uncle always said that gay rights, and those of other marginalized communities, required constant vigilance. 'So I don't think he'd be surprised," Milk said, 'but he'd be calling on us to remain vigilant, to stay active.' Elected officials, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, called the move a shameful attempt to erase the contributions of LGBTQ+ people and an insult to fundamental American values of honoring veterans and those who worked to build a better country. Pelosi and Newsom are both San Francisco Democrats. Newsom took aim at Hegseth, calling the attempt 'A cowardly act from a man desperate to distract us from his inability to lead the Pentagon" on the social platform X. The USNS Harvey Milk was named in 2016 by then-Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who said at the time that the John Lewis-class of oilers would be named after leaders who fought for civil and human rights. Sean Penn portrayed Milk in an Oscar-winning 2008 movie depicting his audacious rise in politics and his death by a supervisor who cast the sole "no" vote on his legislation banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. While the renaming attempt is rare, the Biden administration also changed the names of two Navy ships in 2023 as part of the effort to remove Confederate names from U.S. military installations.

State Department shifts $250 million from refugee aid to 'self-deportations'
State Department shifts $250 million from refugee aid to 'self-deportations'

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

State Department shifts $250 million from refugee aid to 'self-deportations'

By Jonathan Landay WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. State Department has moved $250 million to the Department of Homeland Security for voluntary deportations by migrants without legal status, a spokesperson said, an unprecedented repurposing of funds that have been used to aid refugees uprooted by war and natural disasters. The money has been transferred "to provide a free flight home and an exit bonus to encourage and assist illegal aliens to voluntarily depart the United States," the State Department spokesperson told Reuters. Historically, those funds have been used "to provide protection to vulnerable people" overseas and to resettle refugees in the U.S., said Elizabeth Campbell, a former deputy assistant secretary of state. The re-routing of the money comes as President Donald Trump pushes to reshape U.S. government agencies to serve his 'America First' agenda. The State Department's planned reorganization explicitly states that the agency's refugee bureau now largely will focus on efforts to 'return illegal aliens to their country of origin or legal status.' The funds came from Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) overseen by the Bureau of Population, Refugee and Migration. Its website says its mission is to "reduce illegal immigration," aid people "fleeing persecution, crisis or violence and seek durable solutions for forcibly displaced people." Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, citing the law authorizing the funding, said in a May 7 Federal Register notice that underwriting the repatriation of people without legal status will bolster the "foreign policy interests" of the U.S. He did not mention the $250 million transfer to DHS. The DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump's administration is working to speed up deportations in a crackdown that the Republican president vowed during the 2024 campaign would expel millions of people illegally in the U.S. It has encouraged migrants to leave voluntarily by threatening steep fines and deporting migrants to notorious prisons in Guantanamo Bay and El Salvador. But the volume of deportations since he took office in January appears to be less than those overseen by his predecessor Joe Biden in the February-May period of 2024, about 200,000 people versus 257,000. On May 9, Trump announced Project Homecoming, an initiative overseen by DHS that offers $1,000 stipends and travel assistance to migrants who "self-deport." DHS said in a May 19 news release that 64 people had "opted to self deport" to Honduras and Colombia on a charter flight under the program. Some experts said that while legal, sending the money to DHS for deportation operations was an unprecedented use of MRA funds. The main purpose of the funds historically has been "to provide refugee and displacement assistance, refugee processing and resettlement to the U.S., and respond to urgent and emerging humanitarian crises - not to return those very people to the harm or persecution they fled,' said Meredith Owen Edwards, senior director of Policy and Advocacy at the Refugee Council USA.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store