'THE NEIL ARMSTRONG OF PODCASTING': Josh Holmes of the Ruthless Podcast Breaks Down Answering the First 'Nontraditional' WH Question
Listen to the full interview:
Listen to the full podcast:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Korea, US prepare for summit with details of trade deal unresolved
By Hyunjoo Jin and Jihoon Lee SEOUL (Reuters) -As South Korea and the United States prepare for a summit of their leaders, topics left unresolved by a recent trade deal provide scope for more disputes between the key allies and trade partners, six former negotiators and experts said. President Donald Trump may use the summit with counterpart Lee Jae Myung to seek more concessions on defence costs and corporate investments, left out of the deal, while non-tariff barriers and currency could prove thorny issues, experts said. No official summit date has been disclosed, though Trump last week gave a timeframe of two weeks. The absence of a written agreement underpinning last week's talks could open the way for disputes, with some differences already emerging in the two sides' accounts of the deal. Key among these was Sunday's denial by a South Korean presidential adviser of U.S. claims that it would take 90% of the profit from project investments of $350 billion by South Korea, which also agreed to open up its domestic rice market. "Even a binding deal like the FTA has been efficiently scrapped," warned Choi Seok-young, a former chief negotiator for the Korea-U.S. free trade deal, signed in 2007. "And this is just promise." Last week's pact was scaled down from South Korea's previous plans for a package deal on trade, security and investment envisioned in the run-up to the summit between Trump and the newly-elected Lee. But Japan struck a deal with the United States sooner than expected, spurring South Korea into a scramble for a trade-focused pact, leaving issues of security and investment for the coming summit, presidential adviser Kim Yong-beom said. Uncertainty clouds plans for $350 billion in funds Trump has said South Korea would invest in the United States in projects "owned and controlled by the United States" and selected by him, though he gave few details of the plan's structure or timing. The allies face challenges in ironing out details of the fund at upcoming working-level talks, South Korean Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol told reporters on Friday. "People say the devil is in the details," he added. In a social media post, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick gave an assurance of "90% of the profits going to the American people", while White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said part would go to the U.S. government to help repay debt. But Kim, the presidential adviser, said the two sides did not discuss profit distribution during talks, and South Korea expected the profit to be "reinvested" in the United States. 'POLITICAL RHETORIC' The idea of the United States potentially taking most of the profit is "hard to understand in a civilised country", he added, while dismissing as "political rhetoric" Washington's claim that it would make all decisions about the fund. South Korea had added a safety mechanism to reduce financing risk, including U.S. commitments to buy products from the projects, under an "offtake" clause and invest in commercially feasible projects, he said. Seoul officials have said $150 billion would go to the shipbuilding industry, with the rest earmarked for areas such as chips, batteries, critical minerals, biotechnology, nuclear power and other strategic industries. The specifics of the structure have not been determined, said Kim, adding that loans and guarantees make up a majority of the funds, with equity investments accounting for a small part. Leavitt said South Korea would provide "historic market access to American goods like autos and rice," echoing earlier comments by Trump. But South Korea said repeatedly there had been no agreement on the agriculture market, including beef and rice, despite strong pressure from Washington. Trump expressed keen interest in Korea's quarantine process for fruits and vegetables, Seoul said, improvements to which will figure in planned technical talks on non-tariff barriers that will also cover vehicle safety rules, but gave no details. Other non-tariff barriers such as regulation of Big Tech could be hurdles. "We cannot be relieved because we do not know when we will face pressure from tariffs or non-tariff measures again," Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo said last week on returning from Washington. Defence costs are expected to emerge as a key issue during the upcoming summit, with Trump having long said South Korea needed to pay more for the U.S. troop presence there. In addition to the $350 billion, Trump said South Korea agreed to invest a large sum of money in the United States, to be announced during the summit, which he said on July 30 would be held within two weeks. The allies are holding working level-talks on currency policy, put on the agenda at April's opening round of trade talks.
CNBC
12 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's penalty threat puts India in a bind over Russian oil
India is navigating a tricky balancing act after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened a "penalty" over its continued imports of Russian oil — a trade that New Delhi appears reluctant to end anytime soon. Despite Trump telling reporters Friday that he "heard" India would halt purchases, officials in New Delhi have remained noncommittal. Foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said that the country decides its energy import sources "based on the price at which oil is available in the international market and depending on the global situation at that time." "The Indians must be having some confusion" following Trump's threat — a reversal from the more tolerant approach taken under the Biden administration, Bob McNally, president of consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group, told CNBC's "Squawk Box Asia." "Now we're flipping around and saying, 'What are you doing taking all this Russian oil?'" McNally said. In March 2022 — a month after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine — Daleep Singh, a former U.S. deputy national security adviser for international economics in the Biden administration, reportedly said that "friends don't set red lines" and "there is no prohibition at present on energy imports from Russia." "What we would not like to see is a rapid acceleration of India's imports from Russia as it relates to energy or any other exports that are currently being prohibited by us or by other aspects of the international sanctions regime," Singh said. On July 30, Trump announced that India would face a 25% tariff beginning Aug. 1, along with an unspecified "penalty" for buying Russian oil and military equipment. But analysts suggest that India, which is the third-largest energy consumer in the world, isn't blinking. Reuters reported that there are no immediate changes planned to India's long-term contracts with Russian suppliers, citing two anonymous Indian government sources that did not wish to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. Russia has become the leading oil supplier to India since the war in Ukraine began, increasing from just under 100,000 barrels per day before the invasion, or a 2.5% share of total imports, to more than 1.8 million barrels per day in 2023, or 39%. According to the International Energy Agency, 70% of Russian crude was exported to India in 2024. India's energy minister Hardeep Singh Puri defended New Delhi's actions in a July 10 interview with CNBC, saying that it helped stabilize global prices and was even encouraged by the U.S. "If people or countries had stopped buying at that stage, the price of oil would have gone up to 130 dollars a barrel. That was a situation in which we were advised, including by our friends in the United States, to please buy Russian oil, but within the price cap." Russian oil exports had been capped at $60 per barrel in December 2022 by the Group of Seven nations, representing the world's top economies, while the European Union had lowered the price cap to just above $47 per barrel in July. Still, pressure is mounting. Vishnu Varathan, Managing Director at Mizuho Securities, said that the U.S. threats present a "clear and present danger" to India. He said that New Delhi is likely to remain non-committal on oil purchases as it assesses the trade-offs of this "Russia option" as a bargaining chip. India will need to scour the global market for comparable oil bargains with Russian oil, Varathan, who is also the head of macro research for Asia ex-Japan, added. New Delhi could explore alternatives, including Iran — if an exemption from the U.S. can be negotiated — as well as a few other producers "either within or outside of the OPEC+ that have been pressured by the U.S," Varathan said. The OPEC+ bloc had agreed on Sunday to raise output by 547,000 barrels per day in September, as concerns mount over potential supply disruptions linked to Russia. India is going to face a tough choice, Rapidan's McNally said. "Trump is serious. He's frustrated with Putin... India is going to have a tough choice to make, but it's hard to see them continuing to import that a million and a half barrels [of] Russian crude if Donald Trump decides to really put the whole relationship on the line over it."
Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Eliminating Capital Gains on Home Sales Could Impact Housing Market
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump said he's "thinking about" eliminating the federal capital gains tax on home sales, in a move that experts are welcoming while warning that it would favor wealthier homeowners more than anyone else. "We are thinking tax on capital gains on houses," Trump told the press on July 22, showing support for a proposal that was first floated by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. While it is not yet clear whether any real change would come out of either Greene's bill—the "No Tax on Home Sales Act"—or Trump's suggestion, experts already estimate that the change would benefit wealthy American homeowners over low-to-mid-earning buyers, exacerbating existing inequality in the U.S. housing market. Even so, most agree that a revision of the current capital gains tax system is urgently needed to address the current housing affordability issues. What Is the Capital Gains Tax on Home Sales? Homeowners who sell a home on which they have realized a significant capital gain, meaning that they are now selling it for more than they originally purchased it for themselves, are likely to pay a federal capital gains tax on part of that gain. This is true for long-term homeowners, while those offloading a property within a year of buying it won't have to pay capital gains on the sale. Homeowners who have lived in a home as their primary residence for at least 24 months in the five years before the sale receive an exemption on the first $250,000 of gains for individuals and $500,000 for married couples filing jointly. President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on July 30, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on July 30, 2025. JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images "Put simply, the number of homeowners who pay capital gains taxes on a sale is limited due to these exclusions, but there's a big catch," Chief Economist Danielle Hale said in a statement shared with Newsweek. "This exclusion was put into place in 1997 and was not indexed for inflation. If it had merely been indexed for inflation when originally enacted, those exclusions would be more than twice as large as they are today ($506k and $1.13M)," she said. "And home price increases have outpaced inflation in many of those years, further eroding the value of the exclusions." As it is, Hale said, "the cap is most likely to be a problem for homeowners in high-cost states where home prices have appreciated sharply, like California and Massachusetts. "It may also be an issue for those with above-median priced homes in lower cost states, especially in areas where home prices have increased rapidly and if the homeowners have lived in their homes for an extended period of time, which is more common for older homeowners," she added. But as property values have skyrocketed since the pandemic homebuying frenzy, more and more homeowners across the country are finding themselves realizing high capital gains, whether they are in expensive areas of the U.S. or not. How Would Its Elimination Impact the U.S. Housing Market? Shannon McGahn, executive vice president and chief advocacy officer at the National Association of Realtors (NAR), told Newsweek that her group welcomes any proposal addressing "the outdated capital gains thresholds hurting American homeowners." According to McGahn, "this is no longer just a concern for high-end properties," but one that is likely to affect more and more American homeowners in the near future. NAR's research has found that nearly 29 million homeowners, roughly one-third of the market, already face potential capital gains taxes if they sell, "and that number is expected to climb sharply over the next decade," McGahn said. By 2035, nearly 70 percent of homeowners could exceed the $250,000 cap, according to NAR, "including many middle-class families who've simply owned their homes for a long time in fast-growing markets," McGahn said. "These tax burdens create a 'lock-in effect,' especially for seniors, discouraging people from selling and keeping much-needed homes off the market," she said. Increasing the exclusion or eliminating the capital gains tax for home sellers "could enable those who would otherwise face a steep tax bill to sell and downsize or relocate, potentially opening up housing inventory in some of the highest-cost housing markets," Hale said. "Otherwise, the current tax structure actually incentivizes homeowners who may be facing a large capital gains tax bill to stay in their homes until they die—even if the home is no longer a good fit for their needs," she added. "This is because when a homeowner passes away, the home receives what's called a stepped-up basis—the amount used to calculate capital gains is reset to the current market value, essentially eliminating any outstanding capital gains liability for individuals with a similar but more nuanced result for surviving spouses." According to McGahn, eliminating capital gains on home sales is about fairness. "A homeowner shouldn't be taxed like an investor," she said. "This is about protecting equity and helping the entire market function more efficiently. President Trump's comments reflect growing momentum for reform, and we're encouraged to see this issue gaining attention at the highest levels." But other experts are skeptical of the impact that eliminating capital gains on home sales could have on American homeowners right now. "Long-term homeowners in markets that rapidly appreciated over the last 5+ years may feel an additional burden, which could discourage them from selling. However, these taxes generally apply to a relatively small subset of sellers, and are not likely influencing the broader market too severely," Hannah Jones, senior economic research analyst at previously told Newsweek. "For sellers in low-to-mid priced markets, the current exclusion is sufficient. The national median listing price was $441,000 in June, which is less than the $500,000 joint exclusion, meaning the typical U.S. home seller is not subject to capital gains tax if filing jointly," she said. There are also some potential downsides to consider that may follow a potential abolition of the federal capital gains tax on home sales. "Ongoing affordability issues could be exacerbated by abolishing this tax as it could fuel demand and lead to a more competitive housing market, especially where supply is constrained," Jones said. "Removing this tax would favor wealthy owners which could worsen equity inequality and make the market even more challenging for low-to-mid earning buyers."
