Thai Conservative Party Quits Ruling Coalition in Blow to PM
The second-largest party in Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra's government quit the ruling coalition, a major setback for the leader facing calls for resignation for blaming her own military for escalating a border dispute with neighbor Cambodia.
The executive committee of conservative Bhumjaithai Party with 69 lawmakers in the 500-member House of Representatives decided late on Wednesday to part ways with Paetongtarn's ruling bloc. Eight ministers of the party including leader Anutin Charnvirakul have submitted their resignations to the prime minister, which will be effective from Thursday, the party said in a statement.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Rep. Jesús ‘Chuy' García: Donald Trump's remittance tax is a cruel double-tax on immigrant's dignity
Every week, millions of immigrants in the United States wire money across borders to their families and hometowns, not because they can afford to, but because they have to. Those funds can mean food on the table, payment of school fees or medicine for someone sick. Now, President Donald Trump and the Republicans want to impose a burdensome tax on those remittances, as part of the big, ugly bill that recently passed the House of Representatives. The Senate version of this section of the bill, which was released Monday, still contains a 3.5% tax on remittances, but with new loopholes. It now applies mostly to noncitizens paying for remittances in cash — a regressive tax on poorer and underbanked immigrants. When immigrants send money abroad, it's not just for their parents or kids; it also keeps whole communities standing. It might help rebuild a school or buy an ambulance for the town's hospital. Even with limited funds, immigrants find a way to pool money and send what they can because someone is counting on it — sometimes a parent, sometimes an entire village. Remittances aren't a luxury; they're a lifeline. Estimates show immigrants pay nearly $580 billion in federal, state and local taxes yearly; unauthorized immigrants alone pay approximately $100 billion, and that doesn't even include the millions of U.S.-born citizens with immigrant families. Meanwhile, the 400 wealthiest families in our country pay a lower tax rate than the average American. In 2024, Elon Musk's company Tesla paid zero dollars in federal income tax, despite reporting $2.3 billion in income. Between 2013 and 2018, the combined wealth of 26 of the richest billionaires grew by $500 billion; they paid only $24 billion in federal income taxes. Taxing remittances doesn't just reduce the amount of hard-earned money that gets sent. It also reduces financial stability for families in countries such as Mexico, India, Nigeria and the Philippines. In many of the receiving countries, those dollars go further than foreign investment, often reaching people and communities that banks and governments don't. For countless families, remittances are the only safety net they have. Taxing them only adds pressure, driving families deeper into poverty, forcing more people to leave home, and fueling the very displacement and migration Republicans claim they want to stop. If remittances become too expensive or hard to send, people won't stop sending them; they'll just be pushed toward riskier ways of doing it. That means using unregulated apps, handing off cash to couriers or trusting someone down the block who 'knows a guy.' And that's when scams, theft and predatory fees become prevalent. It also opens the door for organized crime to fill the gap, stepping in where governments fall short and gaining influence not just abroad, but here in the U.S. When you tax dignity, you don't just take money. You push people into danger. This is a double tax on the people who do some of the hardest jobs in this country with meager salaries and the least labor protections. While billionaires exploit tax loopholes, this administration wants to hand the bill to the essential workers — the people doing work that keeps this country going. This is part of a steady campaign to make life harder for all working families. We've seen it in the cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and in the constant political attacks that turn immigrant identity into something to fear. This tax has to be rejected in its entirety. It should never have been added to the bill, and its passage in the House is an insult to all those who work hard to keep our country running. That's why I'm calling on my colleagues in the House and Senate to oppose this tax in the final version of the bill. If this administration cared about reducing migration, it wouldn't be making life harder for the families migrants leave behind. Immigrants already meet their financial obligations here. They should have the freedom to use their hard-earned money as they choose — whether it's sending it to rebuild a bridge or buy medicine for their mothers. If we're serious about fairness, we should be taxing billionaires, not the people who clean our offices, care for our elders and carry this economy on their backs. U.S. Rep. Jesús 'Chuy' García, a Democrat, represents Illinois' 4th Congressional District.
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
A look at soaring border tensions between Cambodia and Thailand
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — Tens of thousands of people gathered in Cambodia's capital Phnom Penh on Wednesday for a march to show their solidarity with the government and military, amid soaring tensions with neighboring Thailand following a border row that erupted last month. Here's what to know about the latest dispute between the two Southeast Asian neighbors. The recent dispute was triggered in May after armed forces of Thailand and Cambodia briefly fired at each other in a relatively small 'no man's land' territory along their border that both countries claim as their own. Both sides have said they acted in self-defense. One Cambodian soldier was killed. While the countries said afterwards they have agreed to de-escalate the situation, Cambodian and Thai authorities continue to implement or threaten measures short of armed force at each other, keeping tensions high. Thailand has added restrictions at the border such as limiting crossing times and barring Thai casino tourists and workers from crossing into Cambodia. Cambodia has banned Thai movies and TV shows, stopped the import of Thai fruits and vegetables and boycotted its neighbor's international internet links and power supply. Border disputes are long-standing issues that have caused periodic tensions between the two neighbors. Thailand and Cambodia share more than 500 miles of land border. The contesting claims stem largely from a 1907 map drawn under French colonial rule that was used to separate Cambodia from Thailand. Cambodia has been using the map as a reference to claim territory, while Thailand has argued the map is inaccurate. In February, Cambodian troops and their family members entered an ancient temple along the border in one of the disputed areas and sang the Cambodian national anthem, leading to a brief argument with Thai troops. The most prominent and violent conflicts broke out around the 1,000-year-old Preah Vihear temple. In 1962, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) awarded sovereignty over the area to Cambodia and that became a major irritant in relations. Cambodia went back to the court in 2011, following several clashes between its army and Thai forces which killed about 20 and displaced thousands of people. The court reaffirmed the ruling in 2013, a decision that still rattled Thailand. Similar to the Phear Vihear area, Cambodia is seeking a ruling again from the ICJ over several disputed areas, including where the deadly clash happened. Thailand has said it doesn't accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ and that any conflicting border claims between the two should be solved by the existing bilateral mechanism, including a joint committee which was established in 2000 as a technical means to discuss the survey and demarcation of the land border. Cambodia nevertheless said it has submitted the case to the ICJ, and insisted that it would no longer discuss these areas under the two countries' bilateral mechanism. Tensions have soared as they engaged in a war of words that appeared intended to mollify nationalistic critics on both sides of the border. The ill feeling between the two neighbors is not just about overlapping border claims, but also deep-seated cultural enmity that has its roots from centuries ago, when they were large and competing empires. In more modern times, bad feelings have lingered, as Cambodia's development, hindered by French colonialism and, in the 1970s, the brutal rule of the communist Khmer Rouge, has fallen well behind Thailand. Both have fought over claims on cultural products ranging from boxing, mask dancing, traditional clothing and food. Cheang and Saksornchai write for the Associated Press. Jintamas Sakssornchai contributed to this report from Bangkok.
CNBC
4 hours ago
- CNBC
Senate version of 'big beautiful' bill calls for $6,000 senior 'bonus'
The Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes a temporary enhanced deduction for seniors ages 65 and up. The House of Representatives also proposed such a tax break in its text, calling it a "bonus." Notably, the Senate is calling for a deduction of up to $6,000 per qualifying individual. The House included a $4,000 deduction. The senior "bonus" is in lieu of the elimination of taxes on Social Security benefits that President Donald Trump pitched on the campaign trail. The Republicans' tax bill is being done through reconciliation, a process that generally prohibits changes to Social Security. The White House has said the proposed deduction is a "historic tax break" for seniors. The full deduction amount would be available to individuals with up to $75,000 in modified adjusted gross income, and $150,000 if married and filing jointly. More from Personal Finance:'SALT' deduction in limbo as Senate Republicans unveil tax planHow Senate GOP 'no tax on tips' proposal differs from House plan Senate tax bill includes $1,000 baby bonus in 'Trump accounts' Notably, the Senate version calls for a faster 6% phase-out rate for incomes above those thresholds, compared to the House version's 4% phase-out rate, according to Alex Durante, senior economist at the Tax Foundation. The faster phase-out means the full $6,000 benefit is lost more quickly, said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. For people who would be eligible for the full proposed senior deduction, the Senate's $6,000 version is more generous, he said. "It really depends on where you are on the income distribution," Gleckman said, with middle-income taxpayers poised to benefit most. In the House version, the proposed senior deduction would be available to taxpayers whether they take the standard deduction or itemize their tax returns. There are not many taxpayers in the income ranges for the deduction who itemize their returns, Gleckman said. To qualify for the break, all individual taxpayers and spouses, if filing jointly, would need to have Social Security numbers. The temporary senior deduction would be in place for tax years 2025 through 2028. The House of Representatives passed its version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on May 22. Both chambers will have to agree on the changes before it is sent to Trump's to sign. "I think it's pretty clear, since this was in both bills, that there's going to be a version of a senior deduction," Durante said. Eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits would have been a more expensive provision, he said. Tax-free Social Security benefits would have benefited higher-income people most, according to Gleckman. Currently, Social Security benefits are taxed based on a formula known as combined income — the sum of adjusted gross income, nontaxable interest and half of Social Security benefits. Up to 85% of Social Security benefits are taxed for single taxpayers with combined income above $34,000 and joint filers with more than $44,000. Meanwhile, up to 50% of benefits are taxed for individuals with $25,000 to $34,000 in combined income and for couples with between $32,000 and $44,000. In contrast, the proposed senior "bonus" would not benefit high-income taxpayers and instead focuses on middle-income taxpayers with incomes less than $75,000 if single or $150,000 if married. "It's better because it helps the people who need the help more," Gleckman said.
