US voters: share your views on Trump's one big beautiful bill act
The one big beautiful bill act, which would enact Donald Trump's taxation and spending priorities, is currently being considered in the US Senate. The legislation was passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in May.
Republicans, who also have a narrow Senate majority, are likely to make changes to the more than 1,000-page tax-and-spending bill. Trump wants to sign the legislation by 4 July, but it's unclear whether Republicans in both chambers can agree on its provisions by that deadline.
We would like to hear views from voters about the one big beautiful bill act. What do you think of the bill as it's currently written? And, what would you like included in Trump's major piece of tax-and-spending legislation? We're particularly interested in hearing from Republican voters.
Share your views in the form below or by messaging us.
Please include as much detail as possible.
Please include as much detail as possible.
Please note, the maximum file size is 5.7 MB.
Your contact details are helpful so we can contact you for more information. They will only be seen by the Guardian.
Your contact details are helpful so we can contact you for more information. They will only be seen by the Guardian.
If you include other people's names please ask them first.
Contact us on WhatsApp at +447766780300.
For more information, please see our guidance on contacting us via WhatsApp. For true anonymity please use our SecureDrop service instead.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
Colombia's constitutional court halts electoral court's investigation into President Petro
BOGOTA, June 26 (Reuters) - Colombia's Constitutional Court on Thursday halted an electoral court's investigation into President Gustavo Petro. The court ruled that only the House of Representatives can investigate Petro over alleged irregularities in the financing of his 2022 campaign, effectively ending the electoral court's proceedings. "The House of Representatives is the competent authority to undertake the investigation into Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego, in his capacity as President of the Republic," the court said in a statement.
Daily Mail
29 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump Cabinet secretary to get swanky new setup as major agency moves headquarters out of D.C.
The Trump administration is moving one federal agency out of D.C. and displacing another – with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development set to score choice new digs in the progress. Coming out on top in the situation is HUD Secretary Scott Turner, who is set to get an executive suite up on the 19th floor of his gleaming new headquarters when his current 2,700 employees make the move. But the 1,800 National Science Foundation employees who currently occupy the building are in the dark about their own prospects, according to American Federation of Government Employees Local 3403, which represents federal workers it says were blindsided by the move. 'While Secretary Turner and his staff are busy enjoying private dining and a custom gym, NSF employees are being displaced with no plan, no communication, and no respect,' the union fumed. It said the 'callous disregard for taxpayer dollars and NSF employees comes after the Administration already cut NSF's budget, staff and science grants and forced NSF employees back into the office.' The furious union local, which says it got briefed on the plan when it was suddenly announced, lists perks it said Turner is set to garner in his new space. HUD currently occupies a brutalist 1960s building near the Southeast-Southwest freeway in downtown Washington with a long list of upkeep needs. They include a 'dedicated executive suite' for the secretary, an executive dining room, reserved parking for five cars (presumably his security detail), plus 'exclusive use' of an elevator and a 'potential gym for the HUD Secretary and his family.' Also blasting the move was Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House Science Committee. She slammed the administration for 'kicking dedicated scientists out of their building so HUD Secretary Turner can have a penthouse dining suite' in a blistering statement. 'For an administration so obsessed with claiming that it's cutting spending, how can Trump justify the tax-payer dollars it will take to meet Turner's ridiculous demands, like a gym for his exclusive use or parking spaces for his five cars?' she said. She also asked where the NSF staff would go and what was the plan. 'Once again, science loses, the American taxpayer loses, and our competitors, like China, win.' A HUD press release features an image of the gleaming existing NSF building, which the agency occupied a few years ago. 'The move would unlock several hundred million dollars in taxpayer savings, address serious health and safety threats, enhance the Department's work culture, and present an opportunity for greater collaboration and service to the American people,' it says. Turner talked up the move at a press conference with Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, whose state has competed with Maryland and DC over the years to serve as host to the NSF and other federal agencies. The NSF used to have offices in downtown DC before moving to Virginia after the Secret Service took over its prior office space. 'We will work with our friends at [the General Services Administration] to coordinate a staggered and thoughtful relocation process which takes into account the current team and employees of this building and the work they do on a daily basis,' Turner said. He added: 'We are all on the same team.' He also blasted the claims about a posh setup as 'ridiculous and untrue.' 'This is about the posterity and the future of HUD, not just for now, but for those that are coming behind me. My family and I were already blessed before we came so, this is about the HUD employees. This is not about me,' he said. HUD spokeswoman Kasey Lovett told the Daily Mail that contrary to 'sensationalist reporting' no one would be 'displaced' and that there would be a 'staggered and thoughtful approach.' 'There will be a secretary office – just as there is at HUD currently – and every other place of operation with executive staff. There are no plans to "build out" anything more than what is currently there,' she said. The spokeswoman said the move was done for staff safety and did not have 'anything to do with a new space or bells and whistles for the secretary,' although she did not deny that Turner would get the building features the union described. The agency release makes no mention of what would happen to the NSF employees beyond the 'staggered employee relocation plan.' It claims the move 'will save American taxpayers hundreds of millions in deferred maintenance and modernization needs.' HUD's building showed up on a list of government buildings to be disposed of – although numerous buildings fell off the initial draft. A GSA fact sheet now begins with the question: 'The first list was much longer, why is this list shorter?' It responds: 'Due to the overwhelming response that we received after publishing the first list, we are refining our process.' A federal judge has put a temporary pause on massive cuts to research funding that goes out to universities around the country. Universities have sued over Trump administration changes to 'indirect' costs that get awarded to their scientists. One plaintiff, the University of California system, estimates the change will cost it nearly $100 million a year.
Daily Mail
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Celebrity enclave at war after 'Taylor Swift tax' threatens to wipe out holiday homes of the wealthy
Swifties, sun-seekers, and second-home millionaires — brace yourselves. Rhode Island just approved a controversial new real estate tax that's got wealthy seasonal residents fuming and threatening to pack up their beach chairs for good. Locals are calling it the ' Taylor Swift tax,' and yes — it could even hit the pop star's Watch Hill mansion. The proposed tax — which would impose fees that could soar into the six-figures for many — would apply to second homes worth $1million or more that aren't used for at least six months a year. Even Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy — a self-proclaimed Swiftie — joined the chorus of opposition, warning it could set off a dangerous trend among other Northeastern states. 'We don't like that tax,' Portnoy said. 'Now, I don't have any houses in Rhode Island, but I got some pretty close. I don't like those states getting the ideas.' Lawmakers say it's aimed at generating new revenue from properties often vacant for most of the year. Other famous celebrities who have real estate in Rhode Island and would get hit by the tax include Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien and Judge Judy Sheindlin. But critics argue it unfairly targets families and individuals who have spent decades summering in Rhode Island — and contribute to the economy without draining local resources. Local realtor and lifelong Watch Hill resident Geb Masterson said Rhode Island residents are so angry they're threatening to go elsewhere if the bill becomes law. 'These are people who put very little drain on Westerly and Watch Hill,' Masterson told DailyMail of two communities that will be hit hardest. 'It's just another way to go after the wealthy when the state's funds run dry... It's another nail in the coffin.' The Rhode Island House of Representatives recently greenlit the proposed $13.9 billion state budget that includes the sweeping new real estate tax, which Masterson says residents are furious over. On Wednesday, Rhode Island Gov. Daniel J. McKee put the bill in limbo temporarily, saying he will not sign nor veto the $14.3 billion state budget as it stands because 'it taxes people and raises fees unnecessarily.' 'At this moment in time there wasn't a need to raise taxes on anyone,' he said, not fully ruling out future taxes on part-time residents. Gov. McKee's move isn't the same as a veto and the bill can move forward if revised to his liking. If the budget had been vetoed, the General Assembly would have to go back into session to override the veto, or make amendments to the budget. 'This won't affect just the wealthy, everyone will be affected by this,' Masterson, the Watch Hill resident, said of the potential new tax. 'It's a lot of old families here and for years it was a sort of a quiet sleepy town, most people have been coming here for generations with their parents. 'It' sort of changed a little a little bit, new blood has been coming into the area, the Swifties, which is actually fantastic for our summer tourism industry, because they come to see Taylor's house then they stay the weekend.' Masterson says tourism industry workers will feel the burn if homeowners start to flee the area because of the big tax. 'There's not a lot of winter industry around here so when the summer crowd comes in it's supporting a lot of a lot of people,' he says. 'This will hurt them too if no one is here.' If a law does pass in the future, Swift will face her own six-figure tax on her $17 million Watch Hill estate. Swift has famously owned the mansion in the upmarket beach town since 2013 and spends July 4th there nearly every year. Under the guise of helping Rhode Island's affordability crisis, those who have 'non-primary residences valued over $1 million' will be taxed under the proposal. Overall, homeowners would face an annual surcharge of $2.50 per $500 of assessed value above the first $1 million — meaning a $3 million second home would see a $10,000 yearly fee. Swift and her beachfront estate neighbors would likely get taxed $100,000 and up based on the size of their mansions. The budget also proposes a 63 percent hike in the real estate conveyance tax, which sellers pay upon transferring property. The state says revenue from both tax hikes would go toward affordable housing projects, including the construction of low-income units and expansion of housing tax credits. Kerry Park, a senior vice president Rhode Island Association of Realtors, tells DailyMail that many people who have median priced second homes are going to get hit hard. 'We do have a lot of smaller homes that are near the ocean. Since the pandemic those little tiny places are a lot of money now and if they've been in the family for generations now they're going to have to come up with this annual tax which isn't easy for a lot of those people,' she said. Watch Hill realtor Larry Burns warns the economic backlash of the tax will be brutal. Burns specializes in coastal and luxury properties, and says the impact of the tax will trickle down to longtime residents who are not wealthy, and to local economies. 'Rhode Island economy for the most part is driven by tourism, especially in all in New England especially coastal state like Rhode Island,' he told the Daily Mail. The beaches in Watch Hill are popular among residents who summer in the town 'And it's really going to discourage people from buying second homes here because of the added expense.' He continued: 'There's people like Taylor Swift — people will look at her and think, 'Well, she has so much money she'll never even notice an increase like this.' 'But it's not like the residents here have inexhaustible resources. '$100,000 here might be college education for the year for a kid, or two kids.' Burns added the tax could force many to part with cherished family homes. 'There's a lot of older folks or multigenerational properties where the siblings have inherited the property, and if you keep adding expenses people end up selling because they can't keep up with the cost,' he said. Local business owner James Nicholas, who is the fourth generation of his family to run St. Clair Annex, an ice cream shop down the hill from Swift's estate (yes, she's been in the shop and is lovely), put it best. 'As one of the people who run small businesses that benefit from from summer residents, I'm thinking of others like landscapers, lumber yards, contractors, pool companies who are are relying on these summer visitors,' he said. 'It's not the golden bullet that the people think it is that we're just gonna text rich people and nothing's gonna happen. There's downstream consequences. 'There's a stratum of society that can absorb that cost, but regular people, maybe they don't put an addition on the house, don't you know go to the local restaurants or they don't shop at the local shops as much, taxing them is short sighted thinking.' Whether the tax becomes law down the line remains uncertain, but Burns, the local realtor, says it could go either way.
