Big Tax Breaks for Health Savings Accounts Get Even Better in the GOP Bill
Health savings accounts are already a sweet deal for many Americans. They could soon get sweeter.
The sprawling tax-and-spending bill passed by the House of Representatives on May 22 includes changes to HSAs, as they're called. If enacted by the Senate, which takes up the legislation in June, they would expand access to these tax-favored accounts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
DAVID MARCUS: Why do elite universities take in students tied to foreign foes? Money, of course
For centuries, the traditional role of elite universities like Harvard has been to train the next generation of leaders in every field of endeavor, to hold before them an open door to power and influence. So why on Earth are we holding that door open to communist Chinese nationals? I had a good friend in high school, sharp as a tack, double legacy at Yale, graduated Harvard Law and by 30 she was at the State Department. The joke was, "Don't piss off Becca, she can pick up the phone and have you killed." The point here is that, for better or worse, and it's often the latter, graduates of top schools are meant to create a class of people who lead the country, who lead its industries and sciences, who stay at the Princeton Club in midtown, and wear their college ties. A top American degree opens up a world of the powerful that most Americans don't even know exists, much less ever interact with. Yet thousands and thousands of communist Chinese nationals are invited to this table every year. Why? There may have been a time when this influx of foreign students could be seen as exerting informational power around the globe, the idea being these students will go home and spread the gospel of democracy, free markets, and blue jeans. But let's not kid ourselves, these scions of Chinese Communist Party members who pay their way at Harvard aren't going home and creating movements for democracy in Beijing, not if they want to make it to grad school alive and well. In fact, we are the decided losers in this informational power exchange, as not just the Chinese, but Qataris, and 10,000 Iranian students for good measure, bring ideas and attitudes that undermine American foreign policy to the doorstep of the very people who will implement it. This brings us back to the question: Why are we doing this? Why are we training our foes and giving them access to the inner corridors of American power, and I'm sure nobody will be shocked that the answer is money. Foreign interests lavish our top universities with gifts like a rich guy who got caught cheating on his wife. In just the last five years, the Harvard Crimson reports $151 million from foreign governments and over a billion from foreign donors flowed to Cambridge. For hundreds of years, Harvard had educated the nation's great industrialists, financiers, and business magnates who kept the coffers of its endowment, still at a robust $52 billion, overflowing. But the blue-blood spigot is running dry. No, the non-binary womyns studies majors at the Harvard Divinity School are not going to be donating a new football stadium anytime soon. For that, these institutions have learned to rely on foreign money, and we all know that money ain't free. The money buys influence, it buys some say in how our nation conducts itself. During COVID, with a few notable exceptions, our country's entire healthcare apparatus just nodded along slavishly to every lie China and its mouthpiece the World Health Organization uttered. Why do you think that happened? It happened because China pays for research. It happened because China infiltrates the highest levels of our society, and sadly, they have become quite expert at it. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is obviously right to insist that we vigorously investigate any student from any nation that is a political or ideological foe of the United States, and frankly, any association with the Chinese Communist Party should be a dealbreaker. The first Harvard graduate to become the president of the United States was John Adams, who once famously wrote of his revolutionary adventures, "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy." But today, it is our sons and daughters losing opportunities to study mathematics and philosophy to people from countries that hate America, and it is also those countries which stand the most to gain in terms of politics and war. American universities need to be American universities, not cosmopolitan, non-affiliated islands of corrupt foreign influence, and if the Harvards of the world can't be that, then places like conservative Hillsdale College or the University of Austin may well need to replace them. If Harvard and other storied elite universities want to return to serving the mission of helping America to be great, it would be welcome. But in the meantime, we don't have to give them taxpayer money, and we don't have to let them invite our enemies into the inner circle of American power.
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
New Washington State Tax Law Threatens Active Traders
Traders with high-volume activity could face tax on gross trading gains—even if they lose money overall. Washington State B&O Tax: Are Traders At Risk? Self created Darren Neuschwander, CPA, and Adam Manning, CPA, contributed to this blog post. Washington State has taken an aggressive stance on taxing investment and trading income under its Business & Occupation (B&O) tax regime. The October 2024 Antio court ruling and the enactment of HB 2081 in May 2025 have reshaped the landscape, potentially pulling active traders—both individuals and entities—into the tax base. The B&O tax applies to gross receipts, not net income. RCW 82.04.080 defines gross income to include trading gains, interest, dividends, and investment income—without deducting trading losses. This poses a major risk to traders with large volumes of proceeds but net losses overall. HB 2081 carved out exemptions for Family Investment Vehicles (FIVs) and Collective Investment Vehicles (CIVs). However, these exemptions are narrowly defined. FIVs are limited to estates, trusts, and certain educational savings plans. CIVs require unrelated investors and external managers—criteria typical hedge funds meet, but not personal or family trading entities. Most active traders operating through husband-wife LLC/partnerships, or S-Corps, will not qualify for either entity exemption. Individual traders claiming federal Trader Tax Status (TTS) and reporting expenses on Schedule C and gains under Section 475 MTM could inadvertently signal 'business activity,' triggering B&O tax liability. We submitted a formal letter to the Washington Department of Revenue requesting guidance on whether traders are considered 'engaged in business' under state law and whether net trading results—not just gross gains—can define the taxable base. Washington-based traders seeking federal tax savings through TTS may now face unexpected state tax obligations. The situation demands clarity from the state and awareness among traders. Please look at the longer-form version of this blog post on which includes a letter I sent to the WA DOR.
Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
Sean Plankey, Trump's CISA Pick, Takes Center Stage In Cyber Showdown
Sean Plankey will testify on June 5 as President Trump's nominee to lead the Cybersecurity and ... More Infrastructure Security Agency. His confirmation hearing comes amid heightened cyber threats and political scrutiny of the agency's future. A United States Senate committee will convene Thursday to determine the future of America's top cyber defense agency. Former Coast Guard officer Sean Plankey, President Trump's nominee to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, will testify before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. If confirmed, he won't just inherit a title, he'll inherit an agency in turmoil. From aggressive Chinese cyberattacks to sweeping internal layoffs and a political crossfire threatening its very existence, CISA is at a crossroads. The stakes are high. The threats are real. And the clock is ticking. Plankey is no political unknown. With two decades of military service and senior cyber roles at the Department of Energy and National Security Council, he's built a career at the intersection of infrastructure, intelligence and cybersecurity. He's respected in both public and private sectors, particularly for his expertise in operational technology in systems such as pipelines, power grids and ports. His resume checks all the right boxes. But stepping into the director's chair at CISA means more than credentials. It means navigating one of the most politically charged and strategically vital agencies in the U.S. government. CISA was born in 2018 out of necessity as a rising tide of cyberattacks on America's most vital systems demanded a central agency to defend federal networks and critical infrastructure. Its first director, Chris Krebs, gained national recognition for leading efforts to secure the 2020 election. But after publicly pushing back on claims of election fraud, he was dismissed by President Trump. Under President Biden, Jen Easterly was asked to take a broader approach. She expanded the agency's mission to include ransomware defense, supply chain resilience and public-private coordination. CISA's headcount grew to over 3,400 employees and its budget rose to $3.1 billion, making it a ripe target for political scrutiny and budget cuts. But it was Easterly's push to counter disinformation on social media, especially around elections, that drew the most controversy. Critics saw it as mission creep, arguing that the agency was drifting from its core infrastructure protection role into politically sensitive territory. Easterly defended the initiatives by pointing out that election infrastructure had been officially designated as critical infrastructure following past foreign interference attempts. Following President Trump's return to office in 2025, Easterly stepped down. The timing was notable just as the administration moved to cut CISA's funding and dismantle advisory panels. The administration also laid off hundreds of CISA employees and terminated contracts supporting red team operations and election security. According to reports in The Wall Street Journal and The Register, these moves have raised concerns about the agency's ability to meet its mission at a time when cyber threats from nation-state adversaries are escalating. Now, CISA stands leaderless and politically vulnerable right as America's enemies are stepping up their game. The numbers are telling. The Trump 2025 budget proposal cuts CISA funding by nearly $500 million. Employees have been laid off. Veteran leadership has exited in droves. Cybersecurity professionals both inside and outside the agency are sounding alarms. Meanwhile, China-linked adversaries operating under names like 'Salt Typhoon' and 'Volt Typhoon' have penetrated American telecom networks, exploiting long-ignored vulnerabilities. These are not theoretical threats. They're live intrusions into the infrastructure that powers everything from hospitals to air traffic control. And if that weren't enough, the agency's mandate is under political attack. Senator Rand Paul has floated plans to defund or dissolve CISA altogether, arguing that it has infringed on civil liberties. Department Of Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem echoed similar criticisms, accusing the agency of silencing conservative voices under the guise of cybersecurity. Despite the turbulence surrounding CISA, Sean Plankey's nomination has drawn an unusually wide and bipartisan base of support. Michael McLaughlin, co-author of Battlefield Cyber, praised Plankey's 'deep commitment to strengthening our national security' and noted his 'firsthand experience' securing critical infrastructure. Tatyana Bolton, along with the Operational Technology Cybersecurity Coalition, endorsed the nomination as well, citing Plankey's cross-sector experience and his ability to bridge public-private divides. A formal letter of support co-signed by the Association of U.S. Cyber Forces, Cyber Threat Alliance, McCrary Institute and others, urged the Senate to confirm him without delay. Mark Montgomery of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission called him 'a great hire' with the 'interagency savvy' required to navigate today's complex threat landscape. Even his predecessor, Easterly, lent her voice: 'Sean will bring great cyber expertise, private sector creds, a warrior spirit and steady leadership to Team CISA.' The loudest opposition comes from Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, who has placed a hold on the nomination, though his objection is not personal. Wyden is demanding the public release of an unclassified 2022 report that allegedly outlines years of cybersecurity negligence by major U.S. telecom companies. He accuses CISA of suppressing the report to avoid exposing systemic vulnerabilities. Wyden argues the document is essential to understanding how Chinese threat actors gained a foothold in U.S. infrastructure and insists that Plankey's confirmation should be delayed until the full facts are made public. While his move may not target Plankey directly, it could stall the confirmation process. Despite the hold, Plankey's chances remain strong. With Republican backing and industry support, a pathway to confirmation exists. But it may require compromise either through redactions or supplemental briefings to appease Wyden's demands. The June 5 hearing will be a pivotal moment. If Plankey performs well, momentum may shift toward a swift vote. If confirmed, Plankey must move quickly and decisively. His top priorities should include: Plankey didn't create the challenges facing CISA but if confirmed, he'll be tasked with stabilizing an agency under immense pressure. He brings the right combination of credentials, bipartisan support and mission clarity. But success will require more than technical know-how. It will take political finesse, steady leadership and a return to disciplined, quiet execution. In cybersecurity, the best leaders aren't the loudest. They're the ones who keep the lights on and the threats out without making headlines. June 5 will tell us whether Plankey gets that chance. America's cyber defense may hang in the balance. If and when he is confirmed, let's work together as an industry to make cybersecurity boring again.
