One in three businesses says they plan to raise prices as Trump's tariffs begin and inflation grows
The online lending marketplace LendingTree issued a report stating that more than 30 percent of businesses included in the company's survey expect their prices to rise within the next six months. Roughly five percent said their prices would go down, and 65 percent estimated that they would remain the same.
The report comes as uncertainty grows regarding President Donald Trump's tariff policy and continued tension stemming from inflation.
LendingTree chief consumer finance analyst Matt Schulz stated in a press release that 'Tariffs are likely playing a significant role in these concerns, but so is the overall sense of uncertainty that remains in the American economy.'
'There are so many unknowns that it's nearly impossible to predict what the next few weeks will look like, much less six months from now,' he added. 'However, this report makes it clear many businesses see continued rising prices ahead.'
On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Home Depot will soon raise its prices even as the company has worked to reduce the impact of tariffs by using domestic products and broadening its supply chain.
Both political strategists and economist have shared their alarm regarding rising costs during the year so far, even as Trump promised before the election that he would drive down prices.
Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Vermont businesses were the most likely to say that they foresee price increases in the next few months, as more than 36 percent of surveyed companies in each of those states said that they're likely to change their prices, the polling shows.
Companies in West Virginia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, New Mexico, Indiana, South Dakota, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington, D.C. were the least likely to say that they would raise prices, with more than 20 percent in each of those areas expecting price hikes.
Among the businesses surveyed across the U.S., more than half said they expected their costs for goods and services to increase over the course of the next six months, meaning that their bottom lines will be negatively affected if they choose not to raise their prices.
'Pricing pressure may force other choices, such as staffing reductions, in the hopes of remaining competitive,' said Schulz.
The LendingTree survey was conducted between June 2 and June 15, with analysts using data from the U.S. Census Bureau Business Trends and Outlook Survey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
41 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's clean energy cuts put future of wind, solar power in peril
Instead, the administration is promoting energy production from oil, natural gas and coal, which the Biden administration had made more expensive through regulations Trump is now dismantling. "They're basically trying to make it impossible or next to impossible to build wind or solar power in this country while at the same time rolling back regulations on fossil fuels," said Nick Krakoff, senior attorney with the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation, a nonprofit environmental organization. Wind and solar power are two of the fastest-growing energy sectors in the United States and produced as much as 17% of the country's electricity last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistical agency of the Department of Energy. Since taking office, the Trump administration has paused permits on all new wind and solar projects on public land, onshore and offshore. The vast majority of renewable energy projects - 95% - are on private land, according to a report by the Brookings Institution. But many of those require some type of federal approval and are also being stalled by the new rules. It's this push to end large-scale energy projects on private property as well that some in the energy industry consider especially troubling. "It's expected that every time you have a major change in administrations, policies on public land might change," said Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association. "But the willingness of this administration to create political and bureaucratic barriers to private economic activity on private land is something nobody anticipated." A shift that began Jan. 20 The dozens of new rules, mostly issued by the Department of the Interior, add multiple layers of permit requirements to an already thorough process - requirements that could slow or stymie some projects. "It looks like they are just trying to find any moment at which the federal government interacts with a project and putting it on this list," said Michelle Solomon, manager of the electricity program at Energy Innovation, Policy and Technology, an energy think tank based in San Francisco. The flood of new regulations began on Jan. 20 when the administration temporarily withdrew all permits for offshore wind projects. On July 7, all subsidies for wind and solar projects were ended, though federal subsidies for coal, oil and natural gas were left in place. On July 15, the Department of the Interior added multiple layers of review for all wind and solar projects on public land, including a requirement that the secretary of the interior sign off on each one. It was not clear whether these requirements will stop new projects from being permitted, but "at the very least it will slow decisions down - and a lot of the decisions are not controversial, they're routine," Krakoff said. On July 29, the department required wind or solar projects that have been approved but are being sued by opponents be federally reviewed and possibly canceled. Nearly a third of solar projects and half of wind projects that completed Environmental Impact Statements faced lawsuits, according to research by Resources for the Future, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit research institute. Targeting the renewable energy industry Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin said in March that the administration's efforts "are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion." The new rules will ensure that wind and solar projects "receive appropriate oversight when federal resources, permits or consultations are involved," Department of the Interior senior public affairs specialist Elizabeth Pease said in a statement emailed to USA TODAY. The directives are already having an effect. On Aug. 6, the agency announced it was reversing a permit for a 1,000-megawatt wind facility that had been approved in Idaho. "They're canceling meetings and taking down web pages," Grumet of American Clean Power said, adding that he sees the moves as "an unprecedented effort to weaponize bureaucracy to undermine an American industry." In early August, Nevada's Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo complained to the secretary of the interior in a letter that solar projects deep in the project pipeline have been frozen. "This is part of a pattern of targeting the renewable energy industry," said the Conservation Law Foundation's Krakoff. "It's pretty unprecedented to target an entire industry and undermine the rule of law." Power demands are at an all-time high and rising These actions could stop cold what has been the biggest contributor to U.S. power supplies at a time when power demands driven by global warming and the needs of artificial intelligence and data centers are pushing power consumption to all-time highs. "We need to build more power generation now, and that includes renewable energy. The U.S. will need roughly 118 gigawatts (the equivalent of 12 New York Cities) of new power generation in the next four years to prevent price spikes and potential shortages," said Ray Long, CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy." Only a limited set of technologies - solar, wind, batteries and some natural gas - can be built at that scale in that time frame." As of last year, 17% of electricity in the United States was created by wind or solar power. Of the new power generation projected to come online this year, 93% was expected to come from solar, wind or battery storage, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Solar power appears to be less impacted by the policy shifts than wind, Solomon said. "Certainly the administration is seemingly trying to do everything they can to slow progress for wind and solar - but they don't have unilateral control over everything," she said. "I think there's a decent chance that there's a lot of projects on private land, at least solar projects, that will not have federal permitting requirements." China has overtaken the United States on clean energy The shift comes as the rest of the world - especially China - make significant strides in moving to cheaper power from wind and solar. "I don't think the administration fully appreciates that if they were to tie their own hands, we could be retreating in that competition with China," Grumet said. China is installing wind and solar projects faster than any other nation and today has almost half the world's wind farms. In 2023 it built out more wind and solar than the rest of the world combined. In May, its solar power reached 1,000 gigawatts. The United States' current solar capacity is 134 gigawatts. A 1 gigawatt solar facility generates enough power to support about 200,000 households, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In the first quarter of this year, China was able to produce more energy through wind and solar than through coal and gas. As of July, the country made up 74% of all wind and solar projects under construction globally. China's enormous buildout of wind and solar power caused its carbon emissions to fall by 2.7% in the first six months of this year. Some experts believe its greenhouse gas emissions may have peaked. The country's combination of clean energy production along with the success of its electric vehicles has earned it the title of the world's first "electrostate." Fossil fuel-based nations are called "petrostates." None of this bodes well for the future of the United States on the world stage, said Julio Friedmann, an expert on carbon, hydrogen and biofuels at Carbon Direct, a company that provides climate solutions. "In all likelihood, the actions will strengthen China's position as global leader," said Friedmann, who also taught at Columbia University. "At worst, the U.S. may surrender its many advantages."
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Ailing radio star declares bankruptcy after daughter lied that fling with Bachelor star had gotten her pregnant
A longtime Bay Area radio legend and his wife have declared bankruptcy as their daughter faces charges for allegedly lying that a former Bachelor star had gotten her pregnant with twins. Ronn Owens, 79, a longtime anchor at KGO, and his wife, Jan Black, submitted a chapter 13 filing to a federal court in Arizona last week, stipulating that they have $2.3 million in liabilities and owe over $511,000 to more than 40 banks, credit card companies and other creditors, The Mercury News reports. It comes eight months after Owens promoted an online fundraiser to raise money for his family, saying they were dealing with 'overwhelming' financial difficulties' amid his 'profound' health challenges. Black, a former reporter for KCBS, said the filing 'stands as objective evidence of the reality of our financial challenges and the necessity of the GoFundMe fundraiser,' which she said remains 'active and crucial as we work to restructure our finances and move forward.' As of Tuesday evening, it had raised more than $131,600 for the Owens family - with some even making monthly contributions. But the bankruptcy filing shows that a significant portion of Owens and Black's debt, more than $400,000, was incurred in the first half of this year - after the GoFundMe was launched. It describes how they owe $300,000 in credit card debt to creditors like American Express and seven separate Bank of America accounts, and notes that Ronn is being sued by JP Morgan Chase for failing to pay $51,000. The couple, who were once considered Bay Area media royalty, have also claimed they have $6,640 in monthly payments - not including their $14,188 monthly mortgage, which they apparently stopped paying. Yet their pensions and Social Security income, which totals $21,000 a month, more than covers their $150-a-month medical and dental care as well as their $225 supplemental health insurance. Owens and Black are also only paying $1,500 for life insurance and $425 for insurance on their daughter's horses. The couple should have also had some money from selling their longtime San Francisco home for $3.5 million in 2020, as the home they had purchased in Scottsdale, Arizona is now valued at $1.5 million. But the anonymous friends and family members who created the GoFundMe last year insinuated that the funds could help pay for health-related expenses. Owens has Parkinson's disease and survived four bouts of cancer. He also suffers from 'some serious heart issues,' according to The Mercury News. The fundraiser noted that Owens' medical struggles have since 'taken a toll, both physically and financially,' and the couple previously said that their supplemental health insurance does not cover all the 'residual' health care expenses following Owens' multiple health crisis, which also include COVID and pneumonia. They told The Mercury News earlier this year that Owens has spent up to six months in hospitals over the past few years, and when he returned home he needed an in-home caregiver. It now remains unclear how the couple may have used the money they received from the GoFundMe, as Black said that the pending bankruptcy litigation limits what they can share publicly. Still, she said the money 'has been a lifeline during a period that often felt hopeless. 'We truly do not know how we would have navigated these months without their support.' She also denied rumors that some of the money is being used to help fund their daughter Laura's legal expenses, which experts have said could run into six figures. Prosecutors have said the 34-year-old doctored a sonogram and pregnancy video, and even lied under oath, as she tried to get former Bachelor star Clayton Echard to take a paternity test. According to court documents, Laura testified in November 2023 that she was 24 weeks pregnant with twins and Echard was the father. But she dropped her paternity suit at the end of that year, saying she had miscarried at some point without knowing it. An online fundraiser had raised more than $131,600 for the Owens family - with some even making monthly contributions Court records in both Arizona and San Francisco show that Laura has previously made similar allegations against three other men since 2014, claiming each time she either had abortions or miscarriages. Echard's attorney, Gregg Woodnick, has since called Laura a 'serial fraud' in a court declaration. Still, the Owens family has stood by Laura's claim that she was pregnant with Echard's children - and insisted that she was pregnant each of the times she claimed she was. In a statement after she was indicted on seven felony counts of perjury, fraud, forgery and evidence tampering, Laura argued that the charges 'appear to be the product of intense public pressure, not impartial judgment. 'They reflect a system that responded to online outrage, ignored procedural protections, and moved forward based on narrative rather than fact,' she claimed. 'It is difficult not to see them as part of a broader effort to discredit me, discourage me, and make an example out of me,' it continued. 'I intend to meet these accusations head-on - and I will defend myself, fully and relentlessly, through every step of this process.' Reflecting on the allegations against her daughter amid the bankruptcy, Black blasted the Justice for Clayton community, saying its campaign against her and her husband 'has been relentless and deeply damaging.' She went on to say she and her husband have been forced to supplement their pensions and Social Security income with side ventures, but they have been 'significantly impacted by ongoing harassment and reputational attacks.' Having to file for bankruptcy has also been 'deeply intrusive and emotionally exhausting.' When Owens first promoted the online fundraiser in 2024, he also said it was difficult to 'admit that the financial strain has become overwhelming on top of everything else. 'For 48 years, I poured my heart into KGO, sharing stories, sparking conversations and connecting with you all,' he wrote. He added that he never imagined he would be in a position in which he would need to ask for help, 'but here I am asking for a little help from the community that has meant so much to me.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The tax traps Reeves must fix to grow the economy
It is no secret that Rachel Reeves is strapped for cash. Against a backdrop of rising inflation and weak growth, the Chancellor is staring down a black hole that some predict could be as high as £50bn. Worse still, some efforts to save money have already been killed off by Labour backbenchers, while bond market vigilantes have driven up Britain's borrowing costs to their highest level since the 1990s. That is without even taking into account the impact of Reeves's Budget tax raid last year, which has crushed business confidence and dampened investment. All of which means that the Chancellor is now scrambling for reforms that will boost the economy at minimal cost. Here are some of her options. Clean up the income tax trap The top rate of income tax is supposed to be 45pc, but for those earning between £100,000 and just over £125,000, it is in effect 60pc. That is because workers in this bracket lose the tax-free allowance, which applies to the first £12,570 of pay for workers on lower incomes. As a result, it can appear rather unattractive to earn more if most of this extra income will be taken by the taxman. 'Where we have these kinks in the income tax schedule, those will tend to act as a disincentive to people to work more – I might not want to take that promotion, or I might want to go four days a week,' says Isaac Delestre, at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). Scrapping this baffling tax quirk would help ease the pain. Smooth out benefits Losing child benefit can see families' effective tax rate rise to almost 60pc. This applies when one parent in a three-child household earns between £60,000 and £80,000. Believe it or not, that is an improvement on the old situation. Before Conservative reforms, a family with three children faced a tax rate of more than 70pc. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor at the time, called the system 'confusing and unfair'. Following changes introduced by the Tories, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) calculated reforms would encourage parents to work more hours, amounting to the equivalent of an extra 10,000 full-time jobs. However, perhaps the most egregious tax trap applies to adults with young children. The Government has ramped up subsidies for childcare in recent years to try to get more parents back to work. Yet for a cohort of highly productive workers, the way the system operates can be an enormous disincentive to seek out a promotion or put in extra hours. That is because the support schemes are withdrawn entirely once one parent's taxable income rises above £100,000. It means an extra penny of earnings can cost a family with two young children £14,500 in disposable income, according to the IFS. The think tank estimates that their disposable income – after tax and childcare – will not recover to its previous level until the parent earns £134,500. These parents have an enormous incentive to cut their taxable income, whether by pouring money into their pension to reduce their taxable income or by cutting the number of days they work each week. Turning the cliff edge into a smooth slope might cost the Treasury money, but would no doubt ease families' worries. Ramp up VAT Companies face similar cliff edges. Small businesses have to register for VAT when their turnover hits £90,000. That creates a huge incentive to stay below that threshold. Businesses and sole traders often stop earning once they edge closer to the limit as they seek to avoid the threat of introducing a 20pc tax on sales. Whether that means working only four days a week or closing for a month to keep takings down, it undermines growth in their business and the wider economy. The Conservatives cited this 'bunching' as a reason to raise the threshold from £85,000, but that just shifted the problem instead of abolishing it. Slashing the threshold would be a blow to small businesses and their customers, but might encourage more growth in the long term by removing it as a barrier altogether. That was the argument of the Resolution Foundation when it was run by Torsten Bell, now a Treasury minister. The think tank previously called the high threshold 'a tax on growth', claiming that: 'The best outcome would be lowering it to the point where almost no business owner would consider the option of deliberately staying below that level of turnover.' Cutting it to £30,000 could raise £1.5bn for Reeves. Cut stamp duty To say that reform of property tax is overdue is an understatement. The IFS has described council tax, which is still based on valuations from 1991, as 'out of date, regressive and distortionary'. The think tank has also branded stamp duty one of Britain's most hated taxes because it penalises people for moving. Back in 1988, a typical homeowner moved house every nine years, according to property website Zoopla. In the first six months of 2022, the gap was 21 years. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has previously urged the UK to move away from 'transaction taxes which constrain housing and labour mobility'. Instead of a property sales tax, the Fund suggested adopting a new annual levy based on land or property values – a system some argue this would be fairer. After all, the average London house price is now more than seven times what it was in 1991, compared with a four-fold increase in the North East, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the same time, the distribution of central government funding to local authorities is still based on property values in 1991. This effectively means councils in Newcastle must now levy more tax on a property worth £250,000 than in Kensington and Chelsea to deliver essentially the same on valuations. However, as the think tank points out, any major revaluation would produce winners and losers. Back in 2020, the IFS suggested that a simple revaluation that reflected relative increases in property values would hit homeowners primarily in London and the South East. Back then, it said residents in Hackney and Wandsworth could see increases in their bills of up to 45pc, while people living in Fylde near Blackpool could see a 15pc reduction. A more radical reform that linked bills proportionally to a property's value could see bills in Stoke-on-Trent slashed in half. But it would also see bills quadruple in Kensington and almost double in parts of Surrey. There was a reason that Margaret Thatcher backed away from a poll tax. ... and planning red tape It is not just moving house that matters. Building them would boost the economy too. That is why bats and newts are high up on Reeves's hit list. The Chancellor has repeatedly grumbled about the many obstacles to getting things built in Britain, telling the House of Lords economic affairs committee last month that she cares 'more about getting a young family on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails'. She has a point. In a now infamous example, the chairman of the HS2 rail line admitted it was spending £100m on a shield to protect bats in ancient woodland in Buckinghamshire. Sir John Thompson said this was just one example of 8,276 'consents' required from public bodies, and expressed frustration at red tape across the UK. Reeves also knows there is a big prize on offer if she manages to reduce bureaucracy. The OBR said Labour's planning reforms were already expected to drive an increase in housebuilding of 170,000 homes until the end of the decade, which would in turn increase Britain's medium-term growth prospects by 0.2pc. Reeves has since ordered officials in the Treasury to go further. Prepare for more red tape to be slashed.
