Latest news with #HouseWaysandMeansCommittee
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How the latest US tax bill increases uncertainty for foreign businesses
The US' latest tax bill, officially named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, contains a section that could drastically change the business environment for foreign companies and investors in the US. Section 899 says that the US could increase taxes on foreign investments (such as subsidiaries from non-US multinationals) if these come from countries that the US deems to have unfair trade policies. House Ways and Means Committee chair and Missouri Representative Jason Smith told Axios: 'This is a way to help put them in check, so that they understand that if they do that to our businesses, there will be consequences for their actions. Hopefully it will never take effect.' Under this provision, foreign companies operating in the US, US companies with foreign owners, multinationals and individual foreign investors from "discriminatory foreign countries" could face higher US taxes. This would enable the government to retaliate against countries that have imposed digital services taxes (DSTs) on US tech companies by targeting foreign investments from these countries in the US. It comes a few months after US Vice-President JD Vance visited France for the AI Summit, where he warned Europe against increasing tech regulations. US President Donald Trump has also criticised antitrust and privacy cases being pursued by the EU against big tech companies. Already, the US' dizzying tariff regime was hurting foreign investor confidence in the US. Delegates at the SelectUSA Investment Summit told Investment Monitor that many foreign businesses were delaying plans until they could have a more certain outlook. 'The measure risks detonating investor confidence and could set off a damaging pullback of foreign capital just as the US needs it the most,' Nigel Green, deVere Group's CEO, tells Investment Monitor in a note. 'It punishes the very people whose capital keeps American businesses growing, whose investments fund US debt and whose companies are employing millions of US workers.' 'Other countries won't sit idle while their firms and funds are penalised. They will respond. This means potential tax retaliation, trade frictions and further fragmentation of an already fragile global economic order,' Green says. He also emphasised that US workers would suffer the most severe consequences from this law if it came into effect. Ashley Akin, a tax consultant at RKO Tax and former KPMG manager, tells Investment Monitor over email that this provision 'introduces a real pricing risk for foreign investors and multinational firms'. 'If a country enforces digital taxes that the US finds discriminatory, their businesses operating in the US can face extra taxes starting at 5%, climbing up to 20%. These surcharges can override tax treaties,' Akin outlines. 'Companies doing everything by the book could still get hit, purely because of the tax policy in their home country." Already, the Trump administration has suggested that countries regulating US tech companies abroad could provoke more tariffs. These threats were seemingly aimed at Europe, where regulators have begun cracking down on major tech companies for what they view as privacy breaches and anti-competitive behaviour. Trump's senior trade adviser, Peter Navarro, has accused the EU of using "lawfare [...] to target America's largest tech firms". 'Section 899 is designed to protect US tech giants from what Washington views as targeted digital taxes. It gives the US leverage to push back against European digital services taxes, and it can help these companies negotiate better terms abroad,' Akin says. There is, she adds, a risk of backlash. 'If European countries respond with their own countermeasures, we could see a patchwork of retaliatory rules. That would just create more friction for everyone, not just tech. It is not a clean win [for US tech companies], but it does shift the power dynamic back towards the US,' she notes. The One Big Beautiful Bill passed in the House with 215 votes for and 214 against. Two Republicans joined Democrats in opposing it. It will now be debated in the Senate, where officials will have the opportunity to amend provisions. "How the latest US tax bill increases uncertainty for foreign businesses" was originally created and published by Investment Monitor, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNBC
a day ago
- Politics
- CNBC
Rep. Darin Lahood on reconciliation bill: This is going to be rocket fuel for the economy
House Ways and Means Committee member Rep. Darin Lahood (R-Ill.) joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the fate of the House Republican reconciliation bill, carried interest debate, impact on the deficit, and more.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - School choice tax credits can help students with disabilities, like me
School choice reforms have been taking off across the country since 2020. The most recent example is in Texas, where Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law his school choice bill last month. However, we may now be getting school choice at the federal level, as a measure to create $5 billion in annual school choice tax credits, starting next year, just passed the House Ways and Means Committee. The funding is private, coming from charitable contributions to Scholarship Granting Organizations. Although the tax credits have still yet to be distributed, and the actual amount of money each student will receive from this credit has yet to be fleshed out, I can say that school choice like this would have prevented a lot of trauma for me in my academic journey, because I would've been able to attend a special needs school without having to go through an emotionally burdensome litigation process. From kindergarten through sixth grade, I spent most of my time in special education. I was placed there because I was very behind my general education peers in socializing and academics. In fact, while I was in eighth grade I was reported to have the reading level of a fourth grader. When my family and I requested accommodations tailored to my needs, my public school instead opted for traditional, 'cookie-cutter' accommodations that turned out not to be very helpful at all. Unfortunately, by the time that was clear, I was already in middle school and unprepared for its level of general education. I ended up failing most of my classes. Once it became apparent to my family that the accommodations my public school offered did not help me, we sued and ultimately won. The school then had to pay for me to attend a neurodiversity-affirming non-public school made for special needs students like me, since their promise that their accommodations would help me did not come to fruition. However, my life completely changed when I got to attend a school made for students like me. It was there that I got my ambitions, learned to love learning, and saw college as a real possibility for me. Now I am an undergraduate political science student at UC Berkeley and president and founder of Mentoring Autistic Minds, a California-based nonprofit that aims for a neurodiversity-affirming country through mentoring and education. It was at this school that I blossomed. I blossomed because this school was tailored for autistic students like me. My sister, who also has autism and Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder, was also only able to leave the school that wasn't working for her through litigation. It shouldn't have to be this way. My family and I shouldn't have had to put up such a large fight just to get the accommodations we needed. If I had access to school choice, I could have avoided the experience altogether, along with the emotionally burdensome process of litigation, and attended a neurodiversity-affirming school the moment my family and I knew things weren't going right. This is why I believe in school choice, especially for students with disabilities. Other people should have access to the same opportunity. However, not everyone thinks that school choice is beneficial for special education and special needs students. Some well-meaning activists argue that school choice, on the contrary, actually hurts students with disabilities. One of their main arguments is that school choice ends up reducing funding for schools, because some students leave, and then there are fewer resources made available for the remaining students. However, we have evidence that school choice actually increases competition (and thus quality) among schools, helping even students who continue to attend public schools. Another concern I've heard from fellow disability advocates about school choice is that, because federal protections provided in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 don't apply to private education providers, special education students in particular will be left behind. As NPR pointed out, 'among the measure's strongest critics are advocates for students with disabilities, who argue it would not protect them from being poorly served or even turned away by private schools.' Is that how families of special education students feel, though? A 2003 analysis of Florida's McKay Scholarship Program, an education voucher made for special education students, showed that the overwhelming majority of participants were satisfied with the program. Additionally, a Morning Consult survey from 2022 showed that the overwhelming majority of special education parents spoken with supported school choice. There are multiple arguments for and against school choice. There are also instances where vouchers haven't worked. I simply want to argue in favor of letting special needs students like me be able to have a chance to try out schools specifically tailored for needs like mine. What's the harm of letting me have a choice? David Rivera is president and founder of Mentoring Autistic Minds, a California-based nonprofit that aims for a neurodiversity-affirming country through mentoring and education. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
School choice tax credits can help students with disabilities, like me
School choice reforms have been taking off across the country since 2020. The most recent example is in Texas, where Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law his school choice bill last month. However, we may now be getting school choice at the federal level, as a measure to create $5 billion in annual school choice tax credits, starting next year, just passed the House Ways and Means Committee. The funding is private, coming from charitable contributions to Scholarship Granting Organizations. Although the tax credits have still yet to be distributed, and the actual amount of money each student will receive from this credit has yet to be fleshed out, I can say that school choice like this would have prevented a lot of trauma for me in my academic journey, because I would've been able to attend a special needs school without having to go through an emotionally burdensome litigation process. From kindergarten through sixth grade, I spent most of my time in special education. I was placed there because I was very behind my general education peers in socializing and academics. In fact, while I was in eighth grade I was reported to have the reading level of a fourth grader. When my family and I requested accommodations tailored to my needs, my public school instead opted for traditional, 'cookie-cutter' accommodations that turned out not to be very helpful at all. Unfortunately, by the time that was clear, I was already in middle school and unprepared for its level of general education. I ended up failing most of my classes. Once it became apparent to my family that the accommodations my public school offered did not help me, we sued and ultimately won. The school then had to pay for me to attend a neurodiversity-affirming non-public school made for special needs students like me, since their promise that their accommodations would help me did not come to fruition. However, my life completely changed when I got to attend a school made for students like me. It was there that I got my ambitions, learned to love learning, and saw college as a real possibility for me. Now I am an undergraduate political science student at UC Berkeley and president and founder of Mentoring Autistic Minds, a California-based nonprofit that aims for a neurodiversity-affirming country through mentoring and education. It was at this school that I blossomed. I blossomed because this school was tailored for autistic students like me. My sister, who also has autism and Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder, was also only able to leave the school that wasn't working for her through litigation. It shouldn't have to be this way. My family and I shouldn't have had to put up such a large fight just to get the accommodations we needed. If I had access to school choice, I could have avoided the experience altogether, along with the emotionally burdensome process of litigation, and attended a neurodiversity-affirming school the moment my family and I knew things weren't going right. This is why I believe in school choice, especially for students with disabilities. Other people should have access to the same opportunity. However, not everyone thinks that school choice is beneficial for special education and special needs students. Some well-meaning activists argue that school choice, on the contrary, actually hurts students with disabilities. One of their main arguments is that school choice ends up reducing funding for schools, because some students leave, and then there are fewer resources made available for the remaining students. However, we have evidence that school choice actually increases competition (and thus quality) among schools, helping even students who continue to attend public schools. Another concern I've heard from fellow disability advocates about school choice is that, because federal protections provided in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 don't apply to private education providers, special education students in particular will be left behind. As NPR pointed out, 'among the measure's strongest critics are advocates for students with disabilities, who argue it would not protect them from being poorly served or even turned away by private schools.' Is that how families of special education students feel, though? A 2003 analysis of Florida's McKay Scholarship Program, an education voucher made for special education students, showed that the overwhelming majority of participants were satisfied with the program. Additionally, a Morning Consult survey from 2022 showed that the overwhelming majority of special education parents spoken with supported school choice. There are multiple arguments for and against school choice. There are also instances where vouchers haven't worked. I simply want to argue in favor of letting special needs students like me be able to have a chance to try out schools specifically tailored for needs like mine. What's the harm of letting me have a choice? David Rivera is president and founder of Mentoring Autistic Minds, a California-based nonprofit that aims for a neurodiversity-affirming country through mentoring and education.
Bloomberg
5 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
The David Rubenstein Show: Rep. Jason Smith
Jason Smith, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee - the oldest committee in the US Congress - joins David Rubenstein to discuss the tax bill his team has been working on. He outlines the bill's key provisions and the challenges of moving it through both the House and Senate. He spoke in an episode of The David Rubenstein Show: Peer to Peer Conversations recorded May 15 at the Economic Club of Washington DC. (Source: Bloomberg)
