Looking forward to your tax kicker next year? Forecast shows slight drop in 2026
PORTLAND, Ore. () — The projected kicker for state taxpayers in 2026 has slightly declined since officials last released the Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast.
The Department of Administrative Services unveiled the on Wednesday. According to the Office of Economic Analysis, more than $1.726 billion in refunds are estimated to go to personal income taxpayers in 2026.
New exhibition gives closer look at how Oregon topography has changed since early 1900s
The projected a return of more than $1.792 billion.
A 1979 law established that officials must refund taxpayers if Oregon's actual revenue throughout a two-year period exceeds the estimated amount. In 2024, this led to a .
While the latest projections show a massive decline from last year, the new numbers represent less than a 4% drop from the December forecast. The Office of Economic Analysis reported that Oregon's General Fund resources will grow to $38.2 billion — an increase of $350.1 million during the 2025-2027 biennium.
Leaders have consequently noted the state's healthy economy.
'Oregon's economy continues to be stable, and now is not the time to get distracted,' Gov. Tina Kotek said, in part, in a statement. 'We must lean in on what we see working when it comes to housing and homelessness, mental health and addiction and education.'
However, the new forecast noted federal changes could affect funding.
What does it take to be middle class in the Pacific Northwest in 2025? New study explains
President Donald Trump's proposal to impose 25% tariffs on imports and exports from Canada and Mexico could hinder some businesses contributing to Oregon's economy, like those in the . The administration has also begun job cuts at the federal level, which has .
'We need to be prepared for economic headwinds created by the federal administration's actions and for potential cuts to federal programs that Oregonians rely on, like Medicaid,' Oregon House Speaker Julie Fahey said in a statement.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Prediction: in 12 months the dirt-cheap Shell share price could turn £10,000 into…
The Shell (LSE SHEL) share price looks cheap right now, with a price-to-earnings ratio of just 8.95. That's well below the average FTSE 100 P/E of 15 times. There's a reason for that, of course. Shell shares have fallen with the oil price, slumping almost 10% in 12 months. They're still up 67% over five years though. That's less than half the drop suffered by FTSE 100 rival BP. Shell seems to have a better idea how to navigate the push to net zero, but with the oil price hovering around $65 a barrel, it's still struggling. It's far from a done deal that Shell can bounce back from today's lows and make investors rich all over again. There is little sign the oil price is about to recover. With OPEC+ increasing production, it could fall further, especially as China struggles and Donald Trump brings volatility. Then there's the push towards net zero, which could go either way. Theoretically, building a new line of renewable energy will threaten fossil fuel behemoths, but we need them to help us push through the transition. This is particularly true given exponentially rising energy demand, thanks to AI and the rest. Shell's first-quarter results, published on 2 May, showed adjusted earnings of $5.6bn. That's a big drop from $7.73bn a year earlier but ahead of analyst expectations of $4.96bn. The company also announced another $3.5bn quarterly share buyback programme, marking the 14th consecutive quarter of at least $3bn in buybacks. Cash flow from operations came in at $9.3bn, slightly below consensus expectations of $9.6bn. So what about that dividend? A trailing yield of 4.4% is okay, but not exactly to die for. It's expected to creep up in 2026, but only to 4.49%. Shell isn't the dividend superstar it once was. Over the last 15 years, I would have expected shareholder payouts to compound at a decent clip. Instead, it's fallen by an average of 2.88% a year. The board didn't just slash its full-year dividend from 188 US cents in 2019 to 65.3 cents during the 2020 pandemic. It rebased it. While payouts have climbed at a decent clip since, they started from that lower level. In 2024, the total dividend was 139 US cents. That's at levels last seen in 2007. The 19 analysts serving up one-year share price forecasts have produced a median target of around 3,027p. If correct, that's a handsome increase of around 21.5% from today. Combined with that yield, this would give investors a total return of 26%. Based on that, if somebody invested £10,000 in the stock today, it would grow to £12,600 in a year. Obviously, nobody can predict the future like that. I use it only as a guide to market thinking. Here's another. Of the 32 analysts giving one-year stock ratings, an impressive 23 name Shell a Strong Buy. Four say Hold and five say Sell. Shell continues to face risks, as the oil price slows, net zero spreads confusion, and the global economy struggles. It may look cheap, but there's no guarantee its shares will suddenly close the valuation gap. But for those wanting exposure to energy, today's low valuation does make Shell worth considering. More so than BP, in my book. The post Prediction: in 12 months the dirt-cheap Shell share price could turn £10,000 into… appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Harvey Jones has positions in Bp P.l.c. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Boasts of ‘Big Win' Over ‘Fake News' AP After Court Rules White House Can Ban News Outlet's Access Over Its Refusal to Cite ‘Gulf of America'
A federal appeals court ruled that the White House has the latitude to exclude any journalists it chooses from the Oval Office and other 'restricted areas' — including on the basis of a news outlet's 'viewpoint.' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 decision Friday, ruled against the AP, which had sued three Trump administration officials in February over a ban on the news organization's access to presidential events as part of the White House press pool. The White House blocked the AP after the outlet continued referring to the body of water on the southeastern periphery of the North America as the Gulf of Mexico, after Trump decreed on Jan. 20 that henceforth it should be known as the 'Gulf of America.' More from Variety Seth Meyers Roasts Elon Musk for Waiting Until Now to Allege 'That Trump Might Be a Pedophile': 'You Already Knew That and It Wasn't a Dealbreaker' Elon Musk Claims Donald Trump 'Is in the Epstein Files': 'That Is the Real Reason They Haven't Been Made Public' Donald Trump Says Elon Musk Has 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' as Rift Grows: 'I Don't Know If We Will' Have a 'Great Relationship' Anymore The development was welcomed by President Trump. 'Big WIN over AP today. They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' Trump posted on his Truth Social account Friday. The Gulf of Mexico has been known by that name since at least the late 16th century, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica. The appeals court issued a stay, pending appeal, on a lower court's preliminary injunction holding that the Trump administration cannot discriminate against the AP over the Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America issue. Under the First Amendment, Judge Trevor McFadden wrote in the April decision, 'if the Government opens its doors to some journalists — be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere — it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints.' In the ruling Friday, the appeals court disagreed. 'Restricted presidential spaces' such as the Oval Office and Air Force One 'are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the ruling, joined by Judge Gregory Katsas. 'The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' Both of the judges are Trump appointees. 'If the president sits down for an interview with [Fox News host] Laura Ingraham, he is not required to do the same with [MSNBC's] Rachel Maddow,' Rao wrote in the opinion. 'The First Amendment does not control the president's discretion in choosing with whom to speak or to whom to provide special access.' The two judges added that without a stay, 'the government will suffer irreparable harm because the injunction impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces.' In a dissenting opinion, Judge Cornelia Pillard of the D.C. Court of Appeals, an Obama appointee, wrote that 'my colleagues assert a novel and unsupported exception to the First Amendment's prohibition of viewpoint-based restrictions of private speech — one that not even the government itself advanced.' She said that 'if the White House were privileged to exclude journalists based on viewpoint, each and every member of the White House press corps would hesitate to publish anything an incumbent administration might dislike.' The Associated Press indicated that it will continue its legal fight in the matter. 'We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options,' AP spokesman Patrick Maks said in a statement Friday. According to the AP's report on the ruling, one possibility is that the news organization will seek an expedited review of the full case on its merits. The AP's lawsuit names White House chief of staff Susan Wiles, deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich and press secretary Karoline Leavitt as defendants. On Friday, Leavitt trumpeted the appeals court decision. 'VICTORY!' she wrote in a post on X. 'As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations. Thousands of other journalists have never been afforded the opportunity to cover the President in these privileged spaces.' Leavitt continued, 'Moving forward, we will continue to expand access to new media so that more people can cover the most transparent President in American history rather than just the failing legacy media. And by the way @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' She ended the post with a smiley-face emoji and the U.S. flag. Best of Variety 25 Hollywood Legends Who Deserve an Honorary Oscar New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week Emmy Predictions: Animated Program — Can Netflix Score Big With 'Arcane,' 'Devil May Cry' and the Final Season of 'Big Mouth?'
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Americans are questioning the value of a college degree. Trump is joining the debate.
President Donald Trump wants to tweak a traditionalfeature of the American dream: a college degree. Trump has continued to escalate his battle with Harvard University, threatening to cut off the Ivy League school from federal funding if it does not meet the administration's demands, which include eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and cracking down on campus activism. The latest threat against Harvard, however, floated shifting funding to trade schools, an alternative path to a four-year college degree. "I am considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land," Trump wrote in a May 26 post on Truth Social. "What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!" The White House's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, added onto the president's comments in an interview with Fox News: "Apprenticeships, electricians, plumbers, we need more of those in our country, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard University. And that's what this administration's position is." Over the past few years, a growing number of Americans have started to question the value of a college degree due to high costs and a tough labor market, making trade schools and apprenticeships a favorable alternative. It marks a shift in the standard American dream, in which a four-year college degree had been viewed as a step to middle-class success. However, Jon Fansmith, assistant vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, told Business Insider that taking funding away from Harvard and other research institutions isn't the answer to boosting investment in trade schools. "The money that he is talking about withholding from Harvard is money that Congress provided to research agencies to perform advanced scientific and biomedical research," Fansmith said, adding that Harvard earned grant money because "they had the best researchers, the best laboratory facilities, the best understanding of how to advance that science," he continued. "You can't simply take that money and use it for another purpose." Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Department of Education, told BI that "American universities that are committed to their academic mission, protect students on campus, and follow all federal laws will have no problem accessing generous taxpayer support for their programs." 'Two very separate stories' Higher education doesn't have the same draw that it once did. Some Gen Zers previously told BI that despite being taught that college was the primary path to success, they felt they could make a living by directly entering the workforce or going to trade school. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. What is your job title? (1 of 2) Entry level position Project manager Management Senior management Executive management Student Self-employed Retired Other Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . That's why Trump's push to invest more in trade schools is important, Fansmith said — they help Americans get a stable career to support themselves and their families, and the federal government can help support those schools by asking Congress to approve more funding, not redirecting the funding unilaterally. "There are two stories here. One is this administration's attack on Harvard, and the other is, what is the role of trade schools, and is there a need for more support for trade schools? And as much as the president's trying to conflate the two, those are two very separate stories," Fansmith said. While Trump's big spending bill proposes some provisions to expand Pell grant eligibility to short-term programs, it does not detail a significant funding increase for trade schools. The Trump administration's rhetorical focus on trade schools isn't new. Before he won the 2024 election, Linda McMahon, now Trump's education secretary, wrote an opinion piece in The Hill advocating for the expansion of Pell Grant eligibility to workforce training programs. "Our educational system must offer clear and viable pathways to the American Dream aside from four-year degrees," she wrote. Trump also signed an executive order on April 23 to strengthen and expand workforce development and apprenticeships programs, which McMahon called a "significant step in ensuring every American can live their American Dream." Congress' role in rethinking education For years, Democratic lawmakers have been pushing for greater access to postsecondary education options, like free community college, and there has been bipartisan agreement on the need to boost apprenticeships and workforce programs without redirecting funding from higher education institutions. Amid the heightened focus on alternatives to a four-year college degree, the New York Federal Reserve said in a recent report that college still pays off; the median worker with a college degree earns about $80,000 a year, compared to $47,000 for a worker with just a high school diploma. Trump hasn't yet implemented his idea to redirect Harvard's federal funding to trade schools, and it's unclear how, or if, he will attempt to follow through. While he has already withheld billions of dollars from Harvard and other schools across the country for failing to meet his administration's political demands, the moves have been met with lawsuits, and Fansmith said it's likely more legal action would ensue should Trump attempt to move around funding without congressional approval. "We're talking about spending money that Congress said would go to support really critically needed research into things like cancer and Alzheimer's and diabetes, and other things that impact everyday Americans' lives, and give it to trade schools," Fansmith said. "Trade schools are great schools. They have lots of benefits. They deserve a lot of federal support, but not just to make a political point at the expense of Harvard." Jason Altmire, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities — a group that represents for-profit colleges — said in a statement that Trump's focus on trade schools "is an investment in America's workforce." "The best way to support trade schools is to reduce the regulatory burden facing private career schools while increasing funding that allows students interested in the trades to choose the highest quality school," Altmire said.
