Latest news with #federalbudget
Forbes
21 hours ago
- Business
- Forbes
3 Tips To Help Government Contractors Finish The Year Strong
Dennis DuFour is President of TDEC, a business process service provider. He leads the company's growth in the commercial and public sectors. As a government contractor, the first half of 2025 was marked with numerous challenges. The recent reduction of the federal government and layoffs left the contractor community on edge, not knowing what might come next. It's also created a communication void between the government and contractors, as normal channels changed with the reductions in force. Now that we are in the midst of summer, this period of uncertainty appears to be coming to an end, positioning experienced contractors nicely for the second half of 2025. The timing of this revival is advantageous. The federal government fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, and the government will want to book allocated funds before the end of the year. Any funds left unspent are forfeited, and the following year's budget is reduced. As a long-time government contractor and the head of a multi-generational, family-owned business, it will take the right mindset to make the most of the remaining year. If I were giving the half-time pep talk, I'd tell my colleagues and compatriots to stop being firefighters and become fire starters! Now is the moment to drive work to existing contract vehicles and be prepared to respond to new, quick-turn opportunities. Here's how: Focus on building and maintaining relationships. Work quickly to touch base with remaining contacts and past contracting officers, particularly if you have best-of-breed contract vehicles. These contracts are pre-negotiated to facilitate a smoother start and should be featured in your talking points and marketing, so government buyers know how to access your services. And consider speaking directly with the program offices that have the greatest need—often through a request for information or a sources-sought notice. Anticipate potential opportunities. In addition, proposal teams should review historic data to prepare for the number of opportunities that will arise over the next few months. Realistically, the government will need at least 30 days to review proposals and make a source selection decision. That means the proposal activity timeline will be hottest during the peak of summer, from July 1st to August 30th. Explore new tools to communicate your value. Summer prep should focus on clearly explaining your services and value, assembling the right resources and organizing your response. If you haven't used templates, proposal management centers or a compliance matrix for proposal writing, consider them now. If you have underutilized staff due to contract cuts, consider having those employees utilize their network and market intelligence to help identify new opportunities. You may even want to consider offering incentives to encourage purchases before the end of the fiscal year. As a business owner, it's been tough not to feel discouraged by the first half of the year. However, there are opportunities on the horizon, and we have a lot of ground to make up. So, take a deep breath, polish your pitch and be prepared for a surge of activity over the next 60 days. Being in business is far better than being out of it. Let's start some fires and win some business. Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How to fix Canadians' unfairly high tax burdens under progressive rates
If you think tax rates are too high, now is your chance to share your views with the government as it prepares its 2025 fall federal budget. This week, Minister of Finance and National Revenue, François-Philippe Champagne, launched the government's annual pre-budget consultations, giving Canadians until Aug. 28 to share their thoughts on a variety of key issues directly with the government online, via email or through written submissions. In a media release, the government noted that part of the consultations will focus on bringing down costs for Canadians, building on its recent 'middle-class tax cut,' which saw the lowest federal tax bracket drop to 14.5 per cent (from 15 per cent) as of July 1, with a further cut to 14 per cent scheduled for Jan. 1, 2026. While Canadians of all income levels will benefit from the rate cut to the lowest bracket, such a cut further magnifies the extreme progressivity inherent in our tax rate structure. Let's take a closer look at tax progressivity and what steps the government might consider to reduce the impact of such progressivity on certain taxpayers. As a refresher, we have five federal tax brackets in 2025: zero to $57,375 of income (14.5 per cent); above $57,375 to $114,750 (20.5 per cent); above $114,750 to $177,882 (26 per cent); above $177,882 to $253,414 (29 per cent), with anything above that taxed at 33 per cent. Each province and territory also has its own set of provincial tax brackets and rates. For example, an Ontario taxpayer currently pays a zero rate of tax on any income up to the basic exemption of $16,129. For income above that, the combined federal and Ontario marginal rate rises through over a dozen successive income brackets (including two levels of Ontario provincial surtax) until it reaches a top marginal rate of 53.53 per cent with income over $253,414. If we go back 15 years, Ontario's top marginal tax rate was a mere 46.41 per cent, meaning both the degree of progressivity as well as the top marginal rates have since increased sharply. And, this is not just an Ontario problem, as eight out of 10 provinces now have top marginal tax rates over 50 per cent. The other problem with our top rate is that it kicks in way too soon at $253,414. Contrast that with the top federal rate in the United States of 37 per cent, which was just made permanent (rather than reverting back to the 39.6 per cent rate for 2026) by the recent passage of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), and only starts to apply with income over US$626,350 — equivalent to about $860,000 in Canadian dollars. While there are many arguments for progressivity in the tax system, such as the more you make, the greater your ability to pay, having a tax rate so high can be a disincentive to earn more money since in most of Canada, you can't even keep half of it for yourself. And, while there's a common misperception in Canada that top income earners do not pay their share of taxes, a new report out this week by the Fraser Institute entitled Measuring progressivity in Canada's tax system, 2025, finds that high-income families already pay a disproportionately large share of all Canadian taxes, with the top 20 per cent of income earning families paying nearly two-thirds (64.5 per cent) of the country's personal income taxes. While it seems unlikely our current government will proactively lower the top bracket any time soon, perhaps the government could instead focus on a couple of targeted measures in the area of tax policy that would help reduce the sting of this sharp progressivity. A recent article by Geoffrey Turner, a law professor and tax lawyer with Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP in Toronto, entitled Mitigating the inequities of high progressivity: Income averaging and spousal unit taxation, puts forth those two ideas for consideration. Turner maintains that tax reform should focus on alleviating the unfairly high tax burdens that our current progressive rate structure imposes on two specific categories of taxpayers: individuals whose income is irregular over time and families in which spouses or partners earn dissimilar incomes and therefore fall into different tax brackets. Of course, these ideas are not new as they were originally contained in the 1966 Carter Royal Commission Report on Taxation which recognized these inequities and proposed solutions, which were never permanently adopted. But, given the progressivity inherent in today's rates, Turner argues that the time has come to introduce these measures into our tax system. Let's start with income averaging. Under our personal income tax system we measure income annually and report it based on the calendar year. As a result of this 'convenient but arbitrary time frame,' taxable income is measured discretely each year, without reference to taxable income in prior or subsequent years. This means taxpayers with 'lumpy' income, who experience high income in one year but low income the following year, end up paying unfair amounts of tax in those high-income years relative to their actual ability, over time, to pay. The Carter commission recommended addressing this problem by allowing income averaging, which we did have in some form or other in Canada until 1988. The other recommendation proposed by Turner was to change the taxing unit from the individual to the couple. The Carter commission concluded that a better measure of ability to pay is the consolidated income of families because they constitute the basic economic grouping in Canadian society. Although the family unit was never adopted as part of the 1972 tax reform, family income is used today to income-test various social programs and credits, including the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit, and the GST/HST credit. But notwithstanding this, the individual, rather than the family, remains the basic taxing unit in Canada, despite the fact that family income may better gauge one's ability to pay. Our current system is particularly unfair for families in which one spouse earns most of the income, as that family's tax burden is significantly higher under our progressive rate structure than if that income were evenly divided between each individual in a couple. Rather than force couples to be taxed together, however, Turner is in favour of allowing couples to elect to be taxed as a spousal unit. This would be similar to the elective 'married filing jointly' option available to couples in the U.S. As an added bonus, it would also 'help simplify the complex income-splitting rules, which might be rendered redundant by such a measure,' writes Turner. Jamie Golombek, FCPA, FCA, CFP, CLU, TEP, is the managing director, Tax & Estate Planning with CIBC Private Wealth in Toronto. If you liked this story, in the FP Investor newsletter. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Celebrates Congress Pulling $1.1 Billion in Funding From ‘Atrocious' NPR and PBS: ‘This Is Big!'
President Donald Trump took a victory lap after Congress formally passed his measure to claw back $9 billion in previously approved funding, including $1.1 billion for PBS and NPR — which public media execs have said could force dozens of local stations to shut down. Early Friday, the House gave final approval to Trump's rescission package by a 216-to-213 vote, after the Senate a day earlier had OK'd the measure in a 51-to-48 vote. The bill cancels about $8 billion in foreign aid and $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which provides funding to NPR and PBS) over the next two years. It now awaits Trump's signature to go into effect. More from Variety Trump Threatened Legal Action to Block Publication of Embarrassing WSJ Jeffrey Epstein Story Nick Offerman Goes Full 'Parks and Recreation' and Scolds Trump for Cutting $267 Million From National Parks Budget: 'That's Called S--ting the Bed' Senate Votes to Strip $1.1 Billion From Public Broadcasting in Blow to PBS and NPR Trump proudly noted that his effort to eliminate federal funding from PBS and NPR comes after decades of attempts by conservative lawmakers to do the same. The White House has alleged that public media outlets have 'spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news'' and that 'NPR and PBS have zero tolerance for non-leftist viewpoints.' 'HOUSE APPROVES NINE BILLION DOLLAR CUTS PACKAGE, INCLUDING ATROCIOUS NPR AND PUBLIC BROADCASTING, WHERE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR WERE WASTED,' Trump posted on his Truth Social platform late Thursday night. 'REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED DOING THIS FOR 40 YEARS, AND FAILED….BUT NO MORE. THIS IS BIG!!!' The rescission package slashes $535 million annually for the CPB for a two-year period starting in October. PBS CEO Paula Kerger said in a statement Thursday that the cuts 'will significantly impact all of our stations, but will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas.' She added, 'Many of our stations which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead.' NPR CEO Katherine Maher, in a statement after the final House vote, called the defunding 'an unwarranted dismantling of beloved local civic institutions, and an act of Congress that disregards the public will.' Maher said, 'Parents and children, senior citizens and students, tribal and rural communities — all will bear the harm of this vote.' PBS and its member stations receive about 15% of their revenue from CPB's federal funds. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, PBS reported $721 million in total revenue, investment gains and other support. According to NPR, about 2% of its annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments. For its fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2024, NPR reported $336.6 million in revenue, gains and other support. However, smaller local NPR and PBS stations rely far more on federal funding for their operating budgets. An internal NPR report from 2011 estimated that up to 18% of its approximately 1,000 member stations would be forced to shut down if they lost federal funding and that up to 30% Americans would lose access to NPR programming, according to the New York Times. Republicans criticized PBS and NPR for a perceived left-wing and 'woke' bias. 'American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize programming that glorifies radical gender ideology in schools or pushes to defund the police,' Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Republican from Missouri, said Wednesday. Prior to the Senate vote approving the package, Sen. Ruben Gallego, a Democrat from Arizona, said the funding cuts would devastate rural stations in his state and threaten children's programming like 'Sesame Street' and 'Daniel Tiger' that would not be viable on commercial television. 'For many families, public television is one of their only early childhood education tools,' the senator said. CPB was established by Congress via the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. The private, not-for-profit corporation's mission is 'to ensure universal access to non-commercial, high-quality content and telecommunications services,' according to its website. Best of Variety New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week 'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts? Final Emmy Predictions: Talk Series and Scripted Variety - New Blood Looks to Tackle Late Night Staples Solve the daily Crossword
News.com.au
5 days ago
- Business
- News.com.au
US Congress approves $9 bn in Trump cuts to foreign aid, public media
US Republicans early Friday approved President Donald Trump's plan to cancel $9 billion in funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, vowing it was just the start of broader efforts by Congress to slash the federal budget. The cuts achieve only a tiny fraction of the $1 trillion in annual savings that tech billionaire and estranged Trump donor Elon Musk vowed to find before his acrimonious exit in May from a role spearheading federal cost-cutting. But Republicans -- who recently passed a domestic policy bill expected to add more than $3 trillion to US debt -- said the vote honored Trump's election campaign pledge to rein in runaway spending. "President Trump and House Republicans promised fiscal responsibility and government efficiency," House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement just after the vote. "Today, we're once again delivering on that promise." Both chambers of Congress are Republican-controlled, meaning a mostly party-line House of Representatives vote of 216 to 213, moments after midnight, was sufficient to approve the Senate-passed measure. The bill now heads to the White House to be signed by Trump, who praised his backers in the House. "REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED DOING THIS FOR 40 YEARS, AND FAILED... BUT NO MORE. THIS IS BIG!!!" he wrote on Truth Social. Most of the cuts target programs for countries hit by disease, war and natural disasters. But the move also scraps $1.1 billion that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was due to receive over the next two years. Conservatives say the funding -- which goes mostly to more than 1,500 local public radio and TV stations, as well as to public broadcasters NPR and PBS -- is unnecessary and has funded biased coverage. The bill originally included $400 million in cuts to a global AIDS program that is credited with saving 26 million lives, but that funding was saved by a rebellion by moderate Republicans. - 'Dark day' - The vote was a win for Trump and fiscal hawks seeking to support the mission of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), launched by Musk as Trump was swept to power, for radical savings. Congress had already approved the cash that was clawed back, and Democrats framed the bill as a betrayal of the bipartisan government funding process. They fear Trump's victory clears the way for more "rescissions packages" canceling agreed spending. "Instead of protecting the health, safety and well-being of the American people, House Republicans have once again rubber stamped Donald Trump's extreme, reckless rescissions legislation," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a joint statement with fellow top Democrats. Republicans need some Democratic votes to keep the government funded past September, and the minority party had threatened to abandon any plans for cooperation if the DOGE cuts went ahead. Jeffries and fellow Democrats seemed to suggest as much on Friday. "Tonight's vote... makes it clear that House Republicans are determined to march this country toward a painful government shutdown later this year," they said in the statement. Although they are in the minority, Democrats have leverage in funding fights because a budget deal would need at least 60 votes in the 100-member Senate and Republicans only have 53 seats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it "a dark day for any American who relies on public broadcasting during floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other disasters." White House budget chief Russell Vought told an event hosted Thursday by the Christian Science Monitor that the administration was likely to send another rescissions package to Congress. ft-mlm/rsc
Free Malaysia Today
5 days ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
US Congress approves US$9bil in Trump's cuts to foreign aid, public media
Republicans said the vote honoured US President Donald Trump's election campaign pledge to rein in runaway spending. (AP pic) WASHINGTON : US Republicans early today approved President Donald Trump's plan to cancel US$9 billion in funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, vowing it was just the start of broader efforts by Congress to slash the federal budget. The cuts achieve only a tiny fraction of the US$1 trillion in annual savings that tech billionaire and estranged Trump donor Elon Musk vowed to find before his acrimonious exit in May from a role spearheading federal cost-cutting. However, Republicans, who recently passed a domestic policy bill expected to add more than US$3 trillion to US debt, said the vote honoured Trump's election campaign pledge to rein in runaway spending. 'President Trump and House Republicans promised fiscal responsibility and government efficiency,' house speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement just after the vote. 'Today, we're once again delivering on that promise,' Johnson said. Both chambers of Congress are Republican-controlled, meaning a party-line House of Representatives vote of 216 to 213, moments after midnight, was sufficient to rubber-stamp the Senate-passed measure. Most of the cuts target programmes for countries hit by disease, war and natural disasters but the move also scraps US$1.1 billion that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was due to receive over the next two years. Conservatives say the funding – which goes mostly to more than 1,500 local public radio and TV stations, as well as to public broadcasters NPR and PBS – is unnecessary and has funded biased coverage.
