Latest news with #GeneralRevenueFund
Arabian Post
06-05-2025
- Business
- Arabian Post
Florida Legislature Shelves Bitcoin Investment Proposals Amid Mounting Concerns
Florida's legislative session concluded on May 2 without advancing two significant cryptocurrency investment bills, HB 487 and SB 550, effectively halting the state's consideration of allocating public funds into Bitcoin. Both measures were indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from further deliberation, marking a notable pause in Florida's exploration of digital asset integration into state financial strategies. The proposed legislation aimed to authorize the state's Chief Financial Officer to invest up to 10% of select public funds, including the General Revenue Fund and the Florida Retirement System, into Bitcoin and other digital assets. Proponents, such as Senator Joe Gruters and Representative Webster Barnaby, argued that such investments could serve as a hedge against inflation and diversify the state's portfolio. They cited the growing institutional acceptance of Bitcoin by firms like BlackRock and Fidelity as indicative of its potential stability and value. However, the bills faced substantial opposition from financial experts and lawmakers concerned about the volatility and regulatory uncertainties surrounding cryptocurrencies. Critics highlighted the risks of exposing public funds to an asset class known for significant price fluctuations and potential security vulnerabilities. They emphasized the responsibility of safeguarding taxpayer money through more traditional and proven investment avenues. The failure of HB 487 and SB 550 reflects a broader hesitancy among U.S. states to embrace cryptocurrency investments for public funds. While some states have explored similar proposals, many have encountered resistance due to the inherent risks and lack of comprehensive regulatory frameworks governing digital assets. Florida's decision underscores the challenges policymakers face in balancing innovation with fiscal responsibility. See also Mastercard Advances Stablecoin Payments with New Global System Arabian Post – Crypto News Network
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ramaswamy and Yost promise tax breaks for the rich and bills for the rest
Raise taxes on working families and middle-class taxpayers and lower taxes on the well-to-do? This is the campaign promise of the two major Republican candidates for governor of Ohio in 2026 − Vivek Ramaswamy and Dave Yost. This has been called the Republican start-up of class warfare, but by any other name, it will shift the burden of taxation off the shoulders of the well-to-do onto the backs of the middle class. That will be the result of the Republican campaign promise to end the state income tax in Ohio. More: Vivek Ramaswamy running for Ohio governor. Wants to end income, property taxes Here is the math. First, the hit on the state budget by the elimination of the state income tax is massive. The income tax was 37% of all state revenue deposited in the General Revenue Fund in 2023, $10.7 billion. Because of the mildly progressive percentage of income tax rates, the biggest beneficiaries of the income tax repeal will be the wealthiest Ohio taxpayers − the top 20% of earners with incomes about $111,900 getting 69.64% of the tax cut's value. The bottom 60% of Ohio earners − those making less than $79,200 will just see 11.21% of the value of the tax cut. Second, the biggest loser in the state income tax cut will be primary and secondary education in Ohio, which receives 40% of general revenue spending. Third, if any of this revenue loss is going to be recouped by raising the 5.75% state sales tax, already one of the highest in the nation, it will require a steep increase. To make up for just 50% of the $11 billion in lost income tax revenue, the state sales tax rate will have to be increased from 5.75% to 8.07%, which would be the highest in the country. More: Yost or Ramaswamy for governor? Where Cincinnati-area Republicans stand No matter how you cut it, middle-income taxpayers will pay more sales taxes at the grocery store to give the well-to-do a tax break. Substantial cuts in the budgets for primary and secondary education are likely as well. Ramaswamy and Yost will have an easy time if they keep their campaign promises. With lopsided Republican majorities in both houses of the state legislature, they will be able to win easily unless a good number of Republican legislators take an independent path. Robert Newman, a Cincinnati attorney, lives in Hyde Park. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Ramaswamy, Yost offer tax plan that punishes middle class | Opinion
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ohio House budget would eliminate independent campaign finance oversight
Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, testifying in the Ohio House. (Photo by Nick Evans, Ohio Capital Journal.) The Ohio House's version of the budget would eliminate the independent group charged with enforcing state campaign finance laws. With the Ohio Election Commission gone, those duties would fall to the Secretary of State and county boards of elections. Lawmakers slipped the provision into the 5,000-plus page bill as part of a wide-ranging amendment the day before the vote. But lawmakers' frustrations with the commission became apparent months ago. At a February hearing, state Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, expressed 'grave concerns' about the commission and said its process is 'substantially broken.' 'I'm getting texts and calls here from other members saying, this is the time to make some reforms,' he said at the time, 'and I hope we do that as part of this process.' Stewart's irritation stems in part from his own case before the commission, which took roughly three years to resolve. The commission determined he made no violation; the challenger is appealing that decision. Even critics of the House plan acknowledge the commission's shortcomings. But they contend such drastic changes belong in a standalone bill with plenty of opportunity for public testimony. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX With a current annual budget of about $642,000, the Ohio Elections Commission is a rounding error in a budget spending more than $44.5 billion General Revenue Fund dollars a year. The governor's spending proposal pushed its annual budget north of $800,000. At that February hearing, OEC Executive Director Phil Richter showed up to explain how the extra funding would cover a new filing system and an additional employee to take over when he retires. Instead, lawmakers lit into the commission. In particular, Stewart and state Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Loveland, complained about cases dragging on. 'There are multiple committees over the last several years,' Schmidt said, 'who have been required to attend hearings, and the decisions go into a year, two years, delay, delay, delay, before a decision is rendered. Sir, that costs people time. It also costs people money.' Schmidt, like Stewart, has been on the receiving end of a multi-year OEC case. In an interview, Stewart argued lawmakers have been raising concerns about the commission for years. He pointed to a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling invalidating an Ohio law against false campaign statements. That decision eliminated an entire class of OEC complaints, he argued, 'but of course, (the) government never sort of adjusted and kind of right-sized the operation.' Stewart also brushed off concerns about lawmakers who have faced OEC complaints leading the effort to eliminate the agency. 'The best people in the position to reform an agency,' he argued, 'are those who have spent years being drug through the mud and seeing how completely inefficient it is.' More important, Stewart stressed, lawmakers aren't changing campaign finance law — they're looking for better enforcement. 'Everything that's legal is still legal,' he said. 'Everything that's illegal is still illegal, and you will still have all the same appeal rights that you do today to take your matter to court.' Chris Hicks hates a liar. Talking with him for 10 minutes and it's obvious his skin crawls seeing powerful people get away with it. He's unabashedly conservative but has no problem going after members of his own party if they're breaking the law. He's filed numerous complaints with OEC, including the ones against Stewart and Schmidt. In Hicks' telling, it started with a different candidate named Allen Freeman. In 2020, he was one of several candidates backed by then-House Speaker Larry Householder. Freeman blanketed Cincinnati airwaves with ads, which struck Hicks as weird — the vast majority of that audience wasn't in his district, and he reported spending only about $15,000. Hicks found Federal Communications Commission reports of more than $100,000 in ad buys on Freeman's behalf, paid for by Householder-aligned groups. The OEC eventually fined Freeman $50,000, but his campaign wound up burning through its cash to pay for his defense. Hicks explained the Freeman case was just a starting point for him. 'Some of these invoices had a bunch of other candidates on them,' he said. Since then, he's driven back and forth more than a dozen times from his home outside Cincinnati to OEC hearings in Columbus, pursuing various campaign finance cases. 'I have no love for the OEC at all, as you can tell,' he said. 'But everything about what's happening right now is demonstrative of how f-ed up things in Ohio are.' He complained about lawmakers 'dumping' the changes into the budget to evade public hearings and can't believe Democrats aren't making a bigger issue of it. Hicks thinks maybe it's got to get worse before it gets better. 'The funny part is, if it stays in there, it's probably better than the OEC,' he said. 'Because it's going to create absolute chaos — absolute chaos.' Putting the process in the hands of county boards, whose members are often local party leaders, or a state hearing officer, hand-selected by the Secretary of State, will remove any semblance of neutrality, he contended. Catherine Turcer, who heads up the government watchdog group Common Cause Ohio, has her own frustrations with the OEC, but she's decidedly against the burn-it-all-down approach. She agrees the process takes too long and the results can be lackluster, but she argued lawmakers abolishing the commission is the wrong answer. 'As opposed to thinking about how they could create greater transparency,' she said, 'and how they could make an elections commission that would be functional and strong and robust, they're thinking about eliminating it.' Turcer criticized lawmakers for scrapping the commission as part of the budget, rather than in a standalone bill. And she rejected Stewart's suggestion that nothing's lost in handing off the commission's responsibilities. 'That doesn't take care of making sure that these, you know, traffic cops, essentially, that they're as independent as possible,' she argued. 'I think the problem is, by eliminating it, you're essentially setting up a system of cronyism.' Phil Richter understands the complaints about his agency and said he's open to working on improvements. But he insists the foundational idea — an independent body overseeing campaign finance — was a good one. 'For the state of Ohio to take this step, and step away from an independent, bipartisan organization reviewing these kinds of matters, I think that, to me, would be a black mark on the state,' he said. With oversight in the purview of partisan actors, he warned, any decision will be open to claims of partisanship. Beyond the optics, Richter argued devolving decisions to county boards could be a mess. He described explaining the House proposal to a former member recently who interrupted, 'wait a minute, that means there could be 88 different versions and 88 different interpretations of the statutes.' Richter added there's a conflict of interest in asking the same body to audit campaign filings and judge cases, too. 'Again,' he said, 'that's why this commission was created — was to separate those instances.' None of those concerns make an impact on Stewart. 'You have seven folks who don't even have to be lawyers, playing judge and trying to hear cases over a period of years,' he said. 'That's a silly system.' Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Chicago Tribune
03-04-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
What to know about President Donald Trump's vast new tariffs
WASHINGTON — After weeks of anticipation and speculation, President Donald Trump followed through on his tariff threats by declaring on Wednesday a 10% baseline tax on imports from all countries and higher tariff rates on dozens of nations that run trade surpluses with the United States. In announcing what he has called reciprocal tariffs, Trump was fulfilling a key campaign promise by raising U.S. taxes on foreign goods to narrow the gap with the tariffs the White House says other countries unfairly impose on U.S. products. Trump's higher rates would hit foreign entities that sell more goods to the United States than they buy. But economists don't share Trump's enthusiasm for tariffs since they're a tax on importers that usually get passed on to consumers. It's possible, however, that the reciprocal tariffs could bring other countries to the table and get them to lower their own import taxes. The Associated Press asked for your questions about reciprocal tariffs. Here are a few of them, along with our answers: Do US-collected tariffs go into the General Revenue Fund? Can Trump withdraw money from that fund without oversight? Tariffs are taxes on imports, collected when foreign goods cross the U.S. border by the Customs and Border Protection agency. The money — about $80 billion last year — goes to the U.S. Treasury to help pay the federal government's expenses. Congress has authority to say how the money will be spent. Trump — largely supported by Republican lawmakers who control the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives — wants to use increased tariff revenue to finance tax cuts that analysts say would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Specifically, they want to extend tax cuts passed in Trump's first term and largely set to expire at the end of 2025. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, has found that extending Trump's tax cuts would reduce federal revenue by $4.5 trillion from 2025 to 2034. Trump wants higher tariffs to help offset the lower tax collections. Another think tank, the Tax Policy Center, has said that extending the 2017 tax cuts would deliver continued tax relief to Americans at all income levels, 'but higher-income households would receive a larger benefit.'' How soon will prices rise as a result of the tariff policy? It depends on how businesses both in the United States and overseas respond, but consumers could see overall prices rising within a month or two of tariffs being imposed. For some products, such as produce from Mexico, prices could rise much more quickly after the tariffs take effect. Some U.S. retailers and other importers may eat part of the cost of the tariff, and overseas exporters may reduce their prices to offset the extra duties. But for many businesses, the tariffs Trump announced Wednesday — such as 20% on imports from Europe — will be too large to swallow on their own. Companies may also use the tariffs as an excuse to raise prices. When Trump slapped duties on washing machines in 2018, studies later showed that retailers raised prices on both washers and dryers, even though there were no new duties on dryers. A key question in the coming months is whether something similar will happen again. Economists worry that consumers, having just lived through the biggest inflationary spike in four decades, are more accustomed to rising prices than they were before the pandemic. Yet there are also signs that Americans, put off by the rise in the cost of living, are less willing to accept price increases and will simply cut back on their purchases. That could discourage businesses from raising prices by much. What is the limit of the executive branch's power to implement tariffs? Does Congress not play any role? The U.S. Constitution grants the power to set tariffs to Congress. But over the years, Congress has delegated those powers to the president through several different laws. Those laws specify the circumstances under which the White House can impose tariffs, which are typically limited to cases where imports threaten national security or are severely harming a specific industry. In the past, presidents generally imposed tariffs only after carrying out public hearings to determine if certain imports met those criteria. Trump followed those steps when imposing tariffs in his first term. In his second term, however, Trump has sought to use emergency powers set out in a 1977 law to impose tariffs in a more ad hoc fashion. Trump has said, for example, that fentanyl flowing in from Canada and Mexico constitute a national emergency and has used that pretext to impose 25% duties on goods from both countries. Congress can seek to cancel an emergency that a president declares, and Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, has proposed to do just that regarding Canada. That legislation could pass the Senate but would likely die in the House. Other bills in Congress that would also limit the president's authority to set tariffs face tough odds for passage as well. What tariffs are other countries charging on US goods? U.S. tariffs are generally lower than those charged by other countries. The average U.S. tariff, weighted to reflect goods that are actually traded, is just 2.2% for the United States, versus the European Union's 2.7%, China's 3% and India's 12%, according to the World Trade Organization. Other countries also tend to do more than the United States to protect their farmers with high tariffs. The U.S. trade-weighted tariff on farm goods, for example, is 4%, compared to the EU's 8.4%, Japan's 12.6%, China's 13.1% and India's 65%. (The WTO numbers don't count Trump's recent flurry of import taxes or tariffs between countries that have entered into their own free trade agreements, such as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that allows many goods to cross North American borders duty-free.) Yet the Trump administration has used its own calculations to come up with far greater tariffs that they say other economies impose on the U.S. For example, the White House said Wednesday that the European Union's effective tariffs on the U.S. equal 39%, far higher than the WTO's numbers. It says China's equal 67%. Previous U.S. administrations agreed to the tariffs that Trump now calls unjust. They were the result of a long negotiation between 1986 to 1994 — the so-called Uruguay Round — that ended in a trade pact signed by 123 countries and has formed the basis of the global trading system for nearly four decades.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Answering your questions about President Trump's reciprocal tariffs
WASHINGTON (AP) — After weeks of anticipation and speculation, President Donald Trump followed through on his reciprocal tariff threats by declaring on Wednesday a 10% baseline tax on imports from all countries and higher tariff rates on dozens of nations that run trade surpluses with the United States. In announcing the reciprocal tariffs, Trump was fulfilling a key campaign promise by raising U.S. taxes on foreign goods to narrow the gap with the tariffs the White House says other countries unfairly impose on U.S. products. 'Reciprocal means 'they do it to us and we do it to them,'' the president said from the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday. Trump's higher rates would hit foreign entities that sell more goods to the United States than they buy. But economists don't share Trump's enthusiasm for tariffs since they're a tax on importers that usually get passed on to consumers. It's possible, however, that the reciprocal tariffs could bring other countries to the table and get them to lower their own import taxes. The Associated Press asked for your questions about reciprocal tariffs. Here are a few of them, along with our answers: Do U.S.-collected tariffs go into the General Revenue Fund? Can Trump withdraw money from that fund without oversight? Tariffs are taxes on imports, collected when foreign goods cross the U.S. border by the Customs and Border Protection agency. The money — about $80 billion last year — goes to the U.S. Treasury to help pay the federal government's expenses. Congress has authority to say how the money will be spent. Trump — largely supported by Republican lawmakers who control the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives — wants to use increased tariff revenue to finance tax cuts that analysts say would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Specifically, they want to extend tax cuts passed in Trump's first term and largely set to expire at the end of 2025. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, has found that extending Trump's tax cuts would reduce federal revenue by $4.5 trillion from 2025 to 2034. Trump wants higher tariffs to help offset the lower tax collections. Another think tank, the Tax Policy Center, has said that extending the 2017 tax cuts would deliver continued tax relief to Americans at all income levels, 'but higher-income households would receive a larger benefit.'' How soon will prices rise as a result of the tariff policy? It depends on how businesses both in the United States and overseas respond, but consumers could see overall prices rising within a month or two of tariffs being imposed. For some products, such as produce from Mexico, prices could rise much more quickly after the tariffs take effect. Some U.S. retailers and other importers may eat part of the cost of the tariff, and overseas exporters may reduce their prices to offset the extra duties. But for many businesses, the tariffs Trump announced Wednesday — such as 20% on imports from Europe — will be too large to swallow on their own. Companies may also use the tariffs as an excuse to raise prices. When Trump slapped duties on washing machines in 2018, studies later showed that retailers raised prices on both washers and dryers, even though there were no new duties on dryers. A key question in the coming months is whether something similar will happen again. Economists worry that consumers, having just lived through the biggest inflationary spike in four decades, are more accustomed to rising prices than they were before the pandemic. Yet there are also signs that Americans, put off by the rise in the cost of living, are less willing to accept price increases and will simply cut back on their purchases. That could discourage businesses from raising prices by much. What is the limit of the executive branch's power to implement tariffs? Does Congress not play any role? The U.S. Constitution grants the power to set tariffs to Congress. But over the years, Congress has delegated those powers to the president through several different laws. Those laws specify the circumstances under which the White House can impose tariffs, which are typically limited to cases where imports threaten national security or are severely harming a specific industry. In the past, presidents generally imposed tariffs only after carrying out public hearings to determine if certain imports met those criteria. Trump followed those steps when imposing tariffs in his first term. In his second term, however, Trump has sought to use emergency powers set out in a 1977 law to impose tariffs in a more ad hoc fashion. Trump has said, for example, that fentanyl flowing in from Canada and Mexico constitute a national emergency and has used that pretext to impose 25% duties on goods from both countries. Congress can seek to cancel an emergency that a president declares, and Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, has proposed to do just that regarding Canada. That legislation could pass the Senate but would likely die in the House. Other bills in Congress that would also limit the president's authority to set tariffs face tough odds for passage as well. What tariffs are other countries charging on US goods? U.S. tariffs are generally lower than those charged by other countries. The average U.S. tariff, weighted to reflect goods that are actually traded, is just 2.2% for the United States, versus the European Union's 2.7%, China's 3% and India's 12%, according to the World Trade Organization. Other countries also tend to do more than the United States to protect their farmers with high tariffs. The U.S. trade-weighted tariff on farm goods, for example, is 4%, compared to the EU's 8.4%, Japan's 12.6%, China's 13.1% and India's 65%. (The WTO numbers don't count Trump's recent flurry of import taxes or tariffs between countries that have entered into their own free trade agreements, such as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that allows many goods to cross North American borders duty free.) Previous U.S. administrations agreed to the tariffs that Trump now calls unjust. They were the result of a long negotiation between 1986 to 1994 — the so-called Uruguay Round — that ended in a trade pact signed by 123 countries and has formed the basis of the global trading system for nearly four decades.
