Latest news with #legislators
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Business
- Reuters
Illinois sportsbook operators hit with per-bet tax of 25-50 cents
June 2 - Illinois sportsbooks are determining their next move after legislators passed a $55.2 billion budget on Saturday that included a bet fee of 25 to 50 cents per wager. The bill calls for sportsbooks to pay the tax on every bet, which could be passed on to public bettors. The stock market reacted by declining on Monday. Starting July 1, the first 20 million individual bets placed in the state each fiscal year carry a tax of 25 cents apiece and every bet placed after that brings a fee of 50 cents. Sports Betting Alliance, which represents interests of online and brick-and-mortar sportsbooks, vowed, "This is not the end of this conversation. We will continue to fight this discriminatory tax alongside our customers -- both right now in Illinois and in any state that considers these harmful tax changes in the future." The bill is projected to yield more than $40 million for the state. According to documents presented in support of the tax hike before Saturday's vote, Illinois bettors wagered a state-record $14.017 billion in 2024. The astonishing figure represents an increase of more than 20 percent from 2023. Illinois sportsbooks generated a combined $1.233 billion total revenue in 2024. Only New York generated more revenue last year. Yet, Illinois is doubling down on taxing sports wagers following the adoption of a separate tax in the 2024 fiscal year budget. "With this change, lawmakers are essentially urging customers -- and especially these small-dollar bettors -- to switch to unsafe and unregulated sportsbooks who defy state consumer protections and generate zero taxes for state priorities," SBA said in a statement. "These illegal operators are the big winners from Saturday's vote." The newly approved legislation promises "$800 million in new taxes on tobacco products and sports betting" and also included approval of a 5 percent pay raise for lawmakers tied to inflation. --Field Level Media
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
EU Employment Committee Draft Opinion Opposes Reductions In Sustainability Reporting
JUNE 26: People walk by an European flag (Photo by) The future of sustainability reporting in the European Union is in peril as legislators debate the Omnibus Simplification Package. The current proposal includes significant changes to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directives. As the legislative process unfolds in the Parliament, members are submitting proposed amendments through various committees. In the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, a draft opinion expresses clear opposition to any reductions to the CSRD or the CSDDD. From 2020 - 2024, a trilogy of directives were passed by the EU to force businesses to address climate change and report greenhouse gas missions. The Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities created a classification system for business and investors to know what activities are considered green or climate friendly. The CSRD created requirements for businesses to report GHG emissions and other environmental, social, and governance actions. The CSDDD, also known as the CS3D, created legal liability for companies in relation to their supply chain. While the gains excited activists, the cost of these proposals on businesses and the broader impact on the EU economy became a theme during the 2024 European Parliament elections. The shift to the right in EU politics embolden opponents to the European Green Deal directives. As a result, the Commission proposed a package of new directives to 'reduce the burden' on businesses. The Omnibus Simplification Package was officially adopted by the Commission in February. The proposal is being debated in the Council and the Parliament. In the Parliament, the debate is public and working through multiple committees, giving interest parties and MEPs the opportunity to voice their opinions. The Committee on Legal Affairs, known as JURI, is the primary committee that will produce the legislation that will be sent to the full Parliament for a vote. However, related committees will draft opinions to be considered during the process. Each committee designates a rapporteur to lead the drafting. The Parliament states that a 'rapporteur is appointed in the responsible parliamentary committee to draft a report on proposals of a legislative or budgetary nature, or other issues. In drafting their report, rapporteurs may consult with relevant experts and stakeholders. They are also responsible for the drafting of compromise amendments and negotiations with shadow rapporteurs.' The amendments change the Commission's language in the Omnibus Simplification Package, not the original CSRD and CSDDD. Rather than offering sweeping amendments that encompass every change a MEP or Party wants to see, every change to every subparagraph is offered in a separate amendment. This results in a high volume of amendments. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, known as ECON, and the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, known as ENVI, posted 987 amendments proposed by their respective members. In the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, known as EMPL, the committee chose to post a draft opinion by the rapporteur before posting amendments by members. Committee members have until June 3 to offer amendments before the June 4 vote. European Parliament The draft opinion was submitted by MEP Li Andersson of The Left, rapporteur for the opinion. The draft included language that directly criticizes the Commission and objects to changes. While the opinion is may not be adopted as the final committee draft, and will likely have minimal impact on the final vote, the language will certainly excite activists and like minded MEPs. In the 'short justification' included in opinions to provide context for canges, Andersson made her opposition to the changes clear. "The current Commission proposal risks watering down the core elements of this newly established sustainability reporting and due diligence framework. Although the aim of simplification in terms of reporting duties for companies is laudable… simplification cannot mean broad sweeping deregulation that changes the entire purposes of the previous directives. Dismantling core parts of the legislation risks not only creating regulatory uncertainty for companies, barring proper access to justice for those harmed, but also hampers the availability of quality, comparable and granular sustainability data that is much called for by investors and business partners alike…" Of the MEP's 49 proposed amendments, 40 simply delete language proposed the Omnibus Simplification Package, leaving the existing language in original directives intact. This includes the employee thresholds for companies to fall under reporting requirements. Three proposed amendments include language that is worth highlighting. The first proposed amendment addresses the first paragraph of the Omnibus in which the Commission states their reason for the changes. The Commission references 'A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification' sent on February 11 in which they outline their vision. Andersson, and many like minded individuals, took issue with the process used and the need for action. Original language as proposed by the Commission: '… the European Commission set out a vision for an implementation and simplification agenda that delivers fast and visible improvements for people and business on the ground. This requires more than an incremental approach and the Union must take bold action to achieve this goal…' Andersson's Proposed Amendment: "…the European Commission set out a vision for an implementation and simplification agenda, which is leading to unpredictability and legal uncertainty by rolling back on legal obligations recently adopted at Union level under the guise of reducing administrative burden. The consequences of such an agenda will have rippling effects, with increasing political risks particularly for first movers. In order to safeguard the ambition of the current legal acquis, it is important to oppose such measures." The second proposed amendment addresses the second paragraph in which the Commission states their goals. Andersson not only takes issue with, what some perceive as, an overbearing approach by the Commission, but also addresses concerns relating to the process used. Those concerns have resulted in an investigation by the European Ombudsman, although they are unlikely to impact the final result. Original language as proposed by the Commission: "In the context of the Commission's commitment to reduce reporting burdens and enhance competitiveness, it is necessary to amend Directives 2006/43/EC3 , 2013/34/EU4 , (EU) 2022/24645 and (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council, whilst maintaining the policy objectives of the European Green Deal, and the Sustainable Finance Action Plan." Andersson's Proposed Amendment: 'In the context of the Commission's commitment to reduce reporting burdens and enhance competitiveness, the Comission (sic) has declared that it is necessary to amend Directives 2006/43/EC3 , 2013/34/EU4 , (EU) 2022/24645 and (EU) 2024/1760 of the, without conducting any impact assessment and limiting public consultation to a closed-door stakeholder event.' A major theme in the push for simplification is the impact sustainability reporting could have on small and medium-sized enterprises. In addition to the high cost on businesses that are required to comply with sustainability reporting requirements, businesses interests also expressed concerns that the costs will adversely impact SMEs that are not required to report, but are indirectly forced to gather information in the course of doing business with large companies. The Commission has made it clear they want to prevent SMEs from being forced to pay to gather data beyond minimum requirements. Original language as proposed by the Commission: "Member States shall ensure that, for the mapping provided for in paragraph 2, point (a), companies do not seek to obtain information from direct business partners with fewer than 500 employees that exceeds the information specified in the standards for voluntary use referred to in Article 29a of Directive 2013/34/EU…" Andersson's Proposed Amendment: 'Where necessary in the light of resource and knowledge constraints of an SME that is a business partner of a company, Member States shall ensure that companies provide targeted and proportionate support. Support may include financial support, providing or enabling access to capacity building or training, or support in upgrading management systems or facilitating the upgrading of such systems in order to support the identification of adverse impacts.' The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has placed the draft opinion on the June 4 meeting agenda. Committee members have until June 3 to offer their own amendments. Given the amendments proposed in other committees, expect conflicting opinions to be stated. The draft opinion will be sent to the Committee on Legal Affairs for consideration. The final vote in the Parliament is expected to take place on October 13. The Commission, Council, and Parliament will then meet to negotiate the final changes to the sustainability reporting requirements. They are expected to be approved in December.
Bloomberg
7 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
The US Is About to Discover if Deficits Don't Matter
It's hard to think intelligently about public debt and deficits. The economics of fiscal policy is complicated and defies straightforward prescriptions. What's most striking about budget-making in Washington today, though, is not that legislators are confused about what good debt-management requires. It's that they've just stopped thinking about it. If passed by the Senate, last week's vast House budget bill would add between $3 trillion and $5 trillion to deficits over the next 10 years. Yet the plan hasn't divided the country's politicians according to whether it's fiscally reckless. Nowadays, that issue rarely comes up. All that matters is who gains and who loses from the proposed changes to taxes and spending. Whether the economy is heading for fiscal breakdown isn't Washington's concern.
CBS News
21-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
How much does it cost when the Minnesota Legislature needs to hold a special session?
When Minnesota lawmakers can't reach an agreement on the budget during the course of the regular session, that's when the term "special session" percolates. But how much does it cost the state's taxpayers when lawmakers go into overtime at the Minnesota Capitol Building? While on paper it would seem that the Minnesota Senate and House will remain empty until next year — as both the Senate President and House Speaker adjourned their duties until Tuesday, February 17, 2026 — the struggle this spring to secure the all-important budget bills all but ensures that lawmakers in both chambers will return well before then. It's a familiar situation for lawmakers in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Since 2005, there have been 18 special sessions. (The impending session in 2025 would make it 19.) Seven of those times, the special session was to finalize a budget. Another seven were held in 2020 alone, as lawmakers kept meeting to extend Gov. Tim Walz's peacetime emergency during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rest were to provide disaster assistance to flooded communities. When it comes to matters of cost, just because the lawmakers are working overtime doesn't mean they'll make extra pay. Their salaries are set for the year at $51,170. However, each additional day spent in St. Paul means they can claim another per diem of $86 each. Multiply that by the 201 lawmakers and that's $17,286, if they all claim. Legislators also can earn up to $2,200 in lodging reimbursements per month. Given the often-brief length of special sessions, it's unclear how much they'll be compensated for potentially spending a few more nights near the Capitol. If you add in the cost of paying Capitol security, estimates show a special session could cost roughly $51,000 per day. That could be the full price tag this year, if Walz's own prediction holds true. "When the work's done and they're ready, I'll bring them back for a one-day special session and we'll button things up," he told reporters as the legislative session wrapped up Monday. Special sessions in budget years usually last no more than three days. In 2005, lawmakers were at the Capitol for an extra 51 days. The most recent special session, in 2021, lasted 24 days. Jeff Wagner Jeff Wagner joined the WCCO-TV team in November 2016 as a general assignment reporter, and now anchors WCCO's Saturday evening newscasts. Although he's new to Minnesota, he's called the Midwest home his entire life. contributed to this report.
The Independent
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
How controversy over Maori haka sparked chaos in New Zealand parliament
The haka, a traditional Maori dance of challenge, has transcended its sacred origins to become a cherished cultural symbol for all New Zealanders. From sporting events to funerals and graduations, its powerful performances often resonate globally, a source of national pride. However, a haka performed within the country's Parliament in November has ignited a fiery debate, dividing politicians on whether it constituted peaceful protest or an act of intimidation. Three Maori Party legislators performed the haka during a protest against a bill to redefine the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand 's founding document, leading to proposed sanctions of unprecedented length. A parliamentary vote on the bans was unexpectedly postponed on Tuesday, pushing the contentious issue to June. The delay threatens to stall the legislative agenda until a cross-party consensus can be reached on the appropriate response. Outside Parliament, hundreds of protesters gathered on Tuesday, waiting to greet the Maori Party lawmakers with a haka of their own, demonstrating the depth of feeling surrounding the issue. What is the haka? The haka was once viewed as a war dance, but that understanding has changed in New Zealand as it has been embraced in a range of celebratory, sombre and ceremonial settings. It is an expression of Maori identity and while sacred, it can be performed by people of any race who are educated by Maori in the words, movements and cultural protocols. Emotional haka have generated news headlines in the past year when performed by soldiers farewelling a New Zealander who died fighting in Ukraine, and in Paris by athletes from New Zealand's Olympic team. While the best-known haka is 'Ka Mate', the chant often performed by the All Blacks rugby team before games, there are many variants. Why was this haka controversial? November's protest wasn't the first time a haka has rung out in Parliament. Performances regularly follow the passage of laws important to Maori. But some lawmakers decried this one for two reasons: because the legislators from Te Pati Maori, the Maori Party, left their seats and strode across the floor toward government politicians while performing it, and because it disrupted the vote on a proposed law. When asked how the Maori party would vote on a bill that they said would dismantle Indigenous rights, Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke – New Zealand's youngest parliamentarian, at 22 – tore up a copy of the law and began the haka, joined by two of her colleagues. The law, an attempt to rewrite New Zealand's founding treaty between Maori tribal leaders and the British crown, was widely unpopular and has since been defeated. But for six months, a committee of the MPs' peers have fought furiously about how, or whether, their protest of it should be punished. Why is debate about this haka still going? Usually, there is agreement among parliamentarians about penalties for errant behaviour. But this episode polarised the committee considering the lawmakers' actions. Its report recommended Ms Maipi-Clarke, who the committee said showed contrition in a letter, be suspended for seven days and her colleagues for 21 days. That is the harshest penalty ever assigned to New Zealand politicians; the previous record was three days. This month, Parliament Speaker Gerry Brownlee scheduled a rare, unlimited debate in Parliament until all parties could find consensus on the penalty, citing the severity of the proposed bans. But minutes after the debate began Tuesday, it was adjourned at the government's behest after they allowed the Maori party lawmakers to stay until after Thursday's budget was delivered. It permitted the government their budget week agenda and meant the Maori MPs, who are opponents of the government, would not miss one of Parliament's most significant dates. But the debate about the bans will then resume. Opposition leader Chris Hipkins, the only opponent of the sanctions to speak before debate was suspended, cited episodes where MPs have brawled in Parliament and driven a tractor up the building's steps, but were not suspended, as evidence that the bans were not fair. But Judith Collins, the chair of the committee that produced the sanctions, said the penalties were 'not about the haka'. Ms Collins said the MPs' behaviour was the most egregious she had ever witnessed. What happens next? The debate will resume on 5 June, when it threatens to stall usual government business once more. The government said on Tuesday that it would not back down from the punishments suggested and opposition parties said they could not be swayed from disputing them. Outside Parliament, activist Eru Kapa-Kingi told the assembled crowd that the haka was 'a source of fear' in Parliament. 'Even though when the All Blacks do it it's a good thing,' he added.
