Latest news with #fundingshortfall
Zawya
31-07-2025
- Business
- Zawya
Road projects suspended amidst funding crisis
At least 27 major road and bridge projects across Uganda have been suspended or drastically slowed down due to a crippling government funding shortfall, the Minister of Works and Transport, Gen. Edward Katumba Wamala, has told Parliament. The Minister, who presented to Parliament a statement on the state of roads in the country, on Wednesday, 30 July 2025, attributed this to delayed payments and land acquisition issues, affecting projects like the Masindi-Biiso and Kabale-Kiziranfumbi oil roads, Kampala-Mpigi Expressway, and Kampala-Jinja Highway. 'As of July 2025, 27 projects have been affected by either full suspension or significant reduction in progress. These include 18 fully funded by the Government of Uganda, where contractors have suspended or slowed down works due to delayed payments, and nine externally financed projects, where delays are primarily attributed to the Government's inability to provide timely counterpart funding,' he said. The funding shortfall is attributed to a massive gap of Shs2.472 trillion in the financial year 2025/2026 where only Shs682 billion of the required Shs3.153 trillion was provided. The government is also carrying over Shs1.071 trillion in arrears from previous years, accumulating commercial interest and monthly cost claims from contractors. The situation is further complicated by land acquisition issues, with Shs443 billion needed for compensation and enabling access to sites, which has grounded externally funded projects. 'The cumulative effect of these suspensions and delays has led to slow absorption of project resources, exposure to financial claims, risk of asset deterioration, and reputational concerns,' he stated. The minister said that Uganda's road infrastructure is deteriorating rapidly, with 1,993 kilometers requiring urgent periodic maintenance and 260 kilometers needing rehabilitation. 'If not implemented, these roads degrade and instead require rehabilitation which costs about Shs2.59 billion per kilometer three times the periodic maintenance cost,' he warned adding that 'This could result in a preventable fiscal loss of up to Shs180 billion.' Gen. Katumba warned that if not urgently addressed, these disruptions will compromise Uganda's ability to deliver critical national infrastructure and maintain the existing network. The minister called for urgent financial intervention, emphasizing the importance of the road network to economic growth, regional integration, and service delivery. Despite the urgency of the situation, Parliament was unable to hold a substantive debate on the matter after it emerged that none of the ministers from the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development were present to respond to the funding concerns raised in the report. Government Chief Whip, Hon. Hamson Obua informed the House that the responsible ministers were all away on official engagements. Speaker Anita Among insisted that the Chief Whip must take responsibility. 'That is your role as Government Chief Whip; you are the one supposed to ensure members are in the House. This is not for debate. Whip, we shall hold you accountable,' she said. The Speaker deferred the debate on the statement to Tuesday, 05 August 2025. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Parliament of the Republic of Uganda.
Reuters
22-07-2025
- Business
- Reuters
UK currency risk firm Argentex's interim CEO steps down
July 22 (Reuters) - British currency risk management company Argentex (AGFX.L), opens new tab said on Tuesday that Tim Rudman has resigned as the company's interim CEO, days after it appointed administrators amid a funding shortfall.
Times
10-07-2025
- Health
- Times
Families should be told their rights on care funding
A storm has been brewing in adult social care for years — but now it is breaking. Recent analysis forecasts that the UK faces a £1.1 billion shortfall in adult social care funding by 2028-29 — this growing gap presents a significant issue for individuals who rely on care services, local authorities and the wider healthcare system. Current data indicates that self-funding individuals often pay significantly more for care services than those funded by local authorities. They can be charged twice as much for the same services, highlighting disparities in how care is funded and delivered across different groups. The average weekly cost of a residential care home in the UK now stands at around £1,100 — a rise of more than 20 per cent in five years. For nursing care, the figure is even higher. Despite the government's recent announcement of an extra £4 billion for social care — which sounds generous — independent analysis has laid bare that it is nowhere near enough. And worse, the burden is quietly being shifted onto those least able to carry it. This creeping injustice is particularly evident in NHS 'continuing healthcare' decisions. These are supposed to provide fully funded care for individuals with significant health needs. Yet, over the past decade, there's been a 20 per cent drop in the number of people deemed eligible. The criteria have not changed — but the interpretation clearly has. As budgets tighten, it appears eligibility thresholds are quietly rising. And the cost? Families being wrongly denied funding, pushed into selling homes, draining savings, and often spending six-figure sums on care they should never have paid for. The government's inability — or unwillingness — to cope with the realities of social care is directly fuelling this crisis. We are watching the slow-motion creation of a two-tier care system. One tier for those who can navigate the bureaucracy and appeal unjust funding decisions. And another for those who, exhausted and overwhelmed, simply pay up because they have no choice. But families can challenge these decisions — and in many cases, successfully. The problem is, they are rarely told how, or even that they can. This quiet scandal must be dragged into the light. If you're one of the many families affected, know this: you are not alone, and you may have been wrongly paying for care that should have been funded from the start. It's time the government stopped balancing the books on the backs of vulnerable families. And it's time more people knew their rights — because reclaiming wrongly paid care fees isn't just about money. It's about Morgan is a partner at the law firm Hugh James
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
President Donald Trump Wants to Give Half of All Social Security Retirees a Raise -- but It Can Backfire
America's leading retirement program is facing a $23.2 trillion long-term funding shortfall, as well as the possibility of sweeping benefit cuts by 2033. Trump has a popular plan to put more money into the pockets of half of all Social Security retirees. Though the president's plan would yield near-term rewards for select retired-worker beneficiaries, it would come at a steep cost. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › For an overwhelming majority of retirees, Social Security represents more than just a monthly check. It's a financial lifeline that they'd struggle to make do without. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Social Security pulled 22 million people above the federal poverty line in 2023, more than 16.3 million of which were aged 65 and over. Meanwhile, 23 years of annual surveys by Gallup have found that 80% to 90% of retirees rely on their Social Security income, in some capacity, to cover their expenses. Nothing is more important to America's aging workforce than preserving the financial health of Social Security -- and strengthening the program begins at the top, with President Donald Trump. Though Trump has primarily maintained a hands-off approach with Social Security and focused on efficiency-based cost-cutting initiatives, he has one mammoth change in mind that would, ultimately, give half of all retired-worker beneficiaries a raise. Unfortunately, it's also a proposal that's ripe to backfire. In January 1940, the very first Social Security retired-worker benefit check was mailed. Every year since then, the Social Security Board of Trustees has published a report that intricately details the inner workings of the program. These annual reports allow the public to peruse how every dollar in income is collected, as well as trace where those dollars end up. But what tends to be even more insightful with these annual reports are the forward-looking projections. These forecasts take into account ongoing demographic shifts, along with changes to fiscal and monetary policy, to determine how financially sound Social Security will be 75 years following the release of a report (i.e., the Trustees' definition of the "long term"). In each of the last 40 years, the Trustees have pointed to a long-term funding obligation shortfall. Put plainly, projected income collected in the 75 years following a report isn't expected to be sufficient to cover outlays, which primarily includes benefits but also accounts for the administrative expenses to oversee the program. As of the 2024 Trustees Report, this 75-year funding shortfall stood at $23.2 trillion -- and this figure has been growing with consistency over time. The more pressing concern is the asset reserves of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI), which are estimated to be depleted by 2033. The OASI's asset reserves represent the excess cash built up since inception that hasn't been paid out as benefits or used to cover administrative expenses. This excess income is currently invested in special-issue, interest-bearing government bonds, as required by law. If lawmakers fail to act and the OASI's asset reserves run out, retired workers and survivors of deceased workers would be facing an up to 21% reduction in their monthly benefit eight years from now. Donald Trump oversaw a number of Social Security changes during the first 100 days in office of his second nonconsecutive term. However, these efficiency-driven measures aren't going to put a dent in either the $23.2 trillion long-term funding shortfall, or meaningfully address the expected exhaustion of the OASI's asset reserves in 2033. But the president does have a proposal to get more money into the pockets of seniors. In a July 31 social media post on Truth Social, then-candidate Trump proclaimed in all capital letters, "Seniors should not pay tax on Social Security." In recent weeks, he's doubled down on his sentiment that retirees shouldn't be taxed on the Social Security benefits they receive. While speaking at a town hall event, the president said, In the coming weeks and months, we will pass the largest tax cuts in American history -- and that will include no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, and no tax on overtime. It's called "The One, Big, Beautiful Bill." In 1983, with Social Security's asset reserves virtually exhausted, a bipartisan Congress passed, and then-President Ronald Reagan signed, the Social Security Amendments of 1983 into law. This amendment gradually increased the full retirement age and payroll taxation on working Americans, as well as introduced the utterly despised tax on benefits. When the taxation of benefits went into effect in 1984, up to 50% of benefits could be subjected to the federal tax rate when provisional income (adjusted gross income + tax-free interest + one-half of benefits) surpassed $25,000 for single filers and $32,000 for jointly filing couples. A decade later, a second tier was added allowing up to 85% of benefits to be subject to federal taxation if provisional income for single filers and couples filing jointly topped $34,000 and $44,000, respectively. When this tax went into effect in 1984, it was expected to affect approximately 10% of all senior households. But because these income thresholds haven't been adjusted for inflation since their respective inceptions decades ago, around half of all senior households now pay some level of tax on the benefits they receive. If President Trump is successful in eliminating this hated tax, he would be giving roughly half of all retirees a raise (in the sense that they would no longer have to pay tax on some portion of their benefits). On the surface, there would be plenty of support from current and future retirees to end the taxation of benefits. An overwhelming majority of retirees in an informal poll conducted by The Senior Citizens League believe Social Security benefits shouldn't be taxed. Unfortunately, this well-intentioned plan to put more money into the pockets of around half of all current Social Security retirees would be a short-term relief that leads to an even bigger long-term issue. To combat the OASI's declining asset reserves, America's leading retirement program needs every cent in income it can collect. At the moment, Social Security generates its income three ways: More than 91% of the $1.35 trillion collected in 2023 came from the 12.4% payroll tax on earned income, which includes wages and salary but not investment income. In 2025, all earned income up to $176,100 is subject to the payroll tax. Approximately 5% derives from the interest income earned on the OASI's and Disability Insurance Trust Fund's (DI's) asset reserves, which as previously noted are invested in interest-bearing government bonds. The remainder of Social Security's income comes from taxing Social Security benefits. The good news is that the lion's share of Social Security's income will continue to be sourced from the payroll tax. As long as Americans keep working and paying their taxes, there will always be funds for the Social Security Administration to distribute to eligible beneficiaries. On the other hand, the program's interest income will dwindle as the OASI's asset reserves are steadily exhausted. The interest income generated from the DI's asset reserves represents a very small piece of the pie. Removing the tax on benefits, with Social Security's interest income expected to diminish over time, would financially cripple the program. Based on estimates from the 2024 Trustees Report, the income generated from taxing benefits is expected to jump from $50.7 billion in 2023 to $132.8 billion in 2033. While half of all retirees -- the half with the highest provisional income -- would enjoy a brief raise, the OASI's asset reserves would be drained even faster without income from the taxation of benefits. In plain English, Trump's plan would speed up the benefit-cut timeline and potentially increase the percentage benefits would need to be reduced by (i.e., more than the current estimate of a 21% cut) to sustain the program for 75 years. It goes to show that what's popular isn't always the best solution. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. President Donald Trump Wants to Give Half of All Social Security Retirees a Raise -- but It Can Backfire was originally published by The Motley Fool
CBC
21-05-2025
- Business
- CBC
Toronto in funding dispute with Ontario over 2026 FIFA World Cup
Toronto is set to host 2026 FIFA World Cup matches in just over a year but Mayor Olivia Chow says the city is facing a nearly $40 million shortfall in funding. CBC's Lane Harrison breaks down the funding issues between the city of Toronto and the province.
