Business

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in UK Politics

      Tax calculator: See how Rachel Reeves’ Budget will affect you

      by

      Your support helps us to tell the storyThis election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.CloseRead moreCloseRachel Reeves has unveiled huge tax hikes of £40bn in her Budget as Labour bids to fix the nation’s finances.Key policies include a hike in employers’ national insurance contributions, a rise in stamp duty for second homes and a freeze on fuel duty.Capital gains tax will also rise – to 18 per cent for the lower rate and 24 for the higher – while the chancellor also unveiled a reform of inheritance tax.After months spent warning the public of “tough choices” ahead, Ms Reeves promised to “invest, invest, invest” in order to “fix public services” and announced a £22.6bn increase in the day-to-day NHS health budget.But Tory criticisms were echoed by independent expert Paul Johnson of the Institue for Fiscal Studies, who said Ms Reeves had taken a “huge gamble”.Follow our live blog on the budget by clicking here.The Independent’s Budget calculator, created by tax advisory firm Blick Rothenberg, below will help you to determine whether you are better or worse off following Wednesday’s statement.Enter a few details such as how much you earn, whether you are single, if you are in a couple or have a family to see how your finances will be affected. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      To defeat Trump, Harris must talk more about the economy | Robert Reich

      by

      I don’t know about you, but I’m feeling more anxious about the outcome of the upcoming election. I’m still nauseously optimistic, but the nausea is growing.I’m as skeptical of polls as any of you, but when all of them show the same thing – that Kamala Harris’s campaign stalled several weeks ago, yet Donald Trump’s continues to surge – it’s important to take the polls seriously.The US vice-president will give her closing message to the American people on Tuesday at a rally on the Ellipse on the Washington mall.Over the last several weeks she’s focused on a woman’s right over her body and the rights of all Americans to a democracy. Obviously, Trump threatens both.Tuesday night, though, she needs to respond forcefully to the one issue that continues to be highest on the minds of most Americans – the economy.She must tell Americans simply and clearly why they continue to have such a hard time despite all the economic indicators to the contrary. It’s because of the power of large corporations and a handful of wealthy individuals to siphon off most economic gains for themselves.Most Americans are outraged that they continue to struggle economically at the same time as billionaires are pulling in ever more wealth. Most know they’re paying too much for housing, gas, groceries and the medicines they need. They also know that a major cause is the market power of big corporations.They want someone who’ll stand up to big corporations and the politicians in Washington who serve them.They want a president who’ll be on their side. A president who will crack down on price-gouging, who will bust up the monopolies and restore competition, who will fight to cap prescription drug costs, who will get big money out of politics and stop the legalized bribery that rigs the market for the rich and who will make sure corporations pay their fair share and end tax breaks for billionaire crooks.A president who will put working families first – before big corporations and the wealthy.Harris needs to say she will be this president.Her policy proposals suggest this. She’s committed to strong antitrust enforcement – cracking down on mergers and acquisitions that give big food corporations the power to jack up food and grocery prices, prosecuting price-fixing and banning price gouging. She needs to remind voters of this.She also says she’ll raise taxes on the rich, provide $25,000 in down-payment assistance to help Americans buy their first home, restore the expanded child tax credit to $3,600 to help more than 100 million working Americans, and implement a new $6,000 tax cut to help families pay for the high costs of a child’s first year of life.All should be parts of her speech this Tuesday about why she will be the champion of working people.She wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, make stock buybacks more expensive and expand Medicare to cover home healthcare – paid for with savings from the expansion of Medicare price negotiations with drug manufacturers.She needs to frame all of this as a response to the power of big corporations and the wealthy – and say in no uncertain terms that she’s on the side of the people, not the powerful.If she fails to do this in her closing argument, Trump’s demagogic response will be the only one the public hears – that average working people are struggling because of undocumented workers and the “enemy within”, including Democrats, socialists, Marxists and the “deep state”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHarris should fit her message about democracy inside this economic message. If our democracy weren’t dominated by the rich and big corporations, fewer of the economy’s gains would be siphoned off to them. Average working people would have better pay, more secure jobs, and be able to afford homes, food, fuel, medicine, childcare and eldercare.A large portion of the public no longer thinks American democracy is working. According to a new New York Times/Siena College poll, only 45% believe our democracy does a good job representing ordinary people. An astounding 62% say the government is mostly working to benefit itself and elites rather than the common good.In her closing argument, Harris should commit herself to reversing this, so the government works for the common good.Harris started her campaign in July and early August by emphasizing these themes about the economy and democracy. But in more recent weeks, she’s focused on Trump’s threat to democracy. Her campaign seems to have decided that she can draw additional voters from moderate Republican suburban women upset by Trump’s role in fomenting the attack on the US Capitol.That’s why she’s been campaigning with Liz Cheney, and gathering Republican officials as supporters. And why she has chosen to give her closing message on the Ellipse – where Trump summoned his followers to march on the Capitol on 6 January 2021.But when she shifted gears to Trump’s attacks on democracy, Harris’s campaign stalled. I think that’s because Americans continue to focus on the economy and want an answer to why they continue to struggle economically.If Trump gives them an answer – although baseless and demagogic – but Harris does not, he may sail to victory on 5 November.Hence, in her closing message she must talk clearly and frankly about the misallocation of economic power in America – lodged with big corporations and the wealthy instead of average Americans – and her commitment to rectify this.

      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His newest book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Zombie-like’: the US trade agreement that still haunts Democrats

      by

      More than 30 years have passed since President Bill Clinton persuaded Congress to ratify the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) and yet the trade agreement still infuriates many voters and hangs over Kamala Harris’s – and the Democrats’ – chances in this year’s elections.Zombie-like, Nafta just keeps coming back, decades after many Democrats believe it should have died. At the Republican convention, Donald Trump attacked Nafta, calling it “the worst trade agreement ever”. In speech after speech, Nafta is a topic Trump turns to as he seeks to woo the voters in the pivotal blue-collar communities of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – many of whom remain angry about the job losses it caused.There were early warning signs. “A lot of people were saying Nafta was going to be a disaster economically,” said David Bonior, a former Democratic congressman from Michigan who led the congressional fight to defeat Clinton’s push for Nafta. “I could see it was going to be a disaster politically, too.”Nafta acted like a slow-motion poison for Democrats. After Congress ratified it in 1993, year by year more factories closed and more jobs disappeared as manufacturers moved operations to Mexico to take advantage of that country’s lower wages. The Economic Policy Institute, a progressive thinktank, estimates that the US lost 682,000 jobs due to Nafta, which largely eliminated tariffs between the US, Mexico and Canada.“It’s a lingering issue in Michigan,” said Ron Bieber, president of the Michigan AFL-CIO, the US’s largest federation of unions. “Everyone knows someone here in Michigan who lost their job due to Nafta. The door was cracked open to outsourcing before Nafta, but Nafta threw the door open after it was passed.”JJ Jewell, who works at a Ford axle plant in Sterling Heights, Michigan, was born two years before Nafta was ratified. The trade pact has been part of the background of his life, he says. Jewell said he often discussed trade problems with other auto workers, even when they didn’t directly discuss Nafta. “It’s an issue,” he said. “Nafta helped expedite the loss of jobs from our country to a country where wages are cheaper. I have friends, family members, neighbors who lost their jobs as a direct result of Nafta. It still affects things decades later.”While Trump talks tough on trade and protecting factory jobs, Jewell said that Trump, while president, fell badly short in his vows to bring back manufacturing jobs. “It’s empty promises,” he said.Liz Shuler, the president of the AFL-CIO, the country’s main labor federation, agreed, saying that Trump’s tough words on trade have done little for workers. “This is an example of Trump’s rhetoric not matching reality,” Shuler said. “He talks a good game, but there’s no action to back it up. When he had the ability to make a difference, when he was president, he went to different places and pretended to be a savior, and you followed up and you saw that those plants closed and jobs were moved to Mexico. He did nothing to fix it.”Seeing all the lingering discontent about Nafta, many Democrats say it’s unfair for Trump and others to blame their party for the agreement. The idea for Nafta arose under Ronald Reagan, they say, and George HW Bush negotiated the deal, both Republicans. More Republicans in Congress voted to ratify Nafta than Democrats. The vast majority of Senate Republicans also voted for it, while most Democratic senators voted against ratification.Still, Bonior said that Clinton and his administration “get the blame because their top guy was for it”, he said. “Clinton was instrumental in making it happen.”Many workers who lost jobs due to Nafta were able to find other jobs, said Bonior, but their pay was 20% less on average. “Lifestyles were enormously downgraded in my district,” said Bonior, who served as House majority whip. “Clinton bought into Nafta, but a lot of working-class people saw that as a betrayal.”On Nafta, Clinton won strong backing from economists and corporate America. Brushing aside labor’s warnings that Nafta would speed the loss of jobs to Mexico, nearly 300 economists on the right and the left, including several Nobel Prize winners, signed a pro-Nafta letter, saying: “The assertions that Nafta will spur an exodus of US jobs to Mexico are without basis.”Many economists argued that Nafta would increase the number of manufacturing jobs in the US because the nation had a higher-skilled, more productive workforce than Mexico and would thus, in theory, gain factory jobs in an expanded free-trade zone. Pro-Nafta forces also argued that the closer economic integration of the US, Mexico and Canada would create a North American powerhouse to counter China’s fast-growing economic power.Jeff Faux, a former president of the Economic Policy Institute, said many economists failed to realize something important that was happening when Nafta was negotiated: “The US was losing its manufacturing base. It was deindustrializing.”Faux, one of the most outspoken economists against Nafta, said Clinton embraced Nafta because he was eager to present himself as a different type of Democrat and “was trying to ingratiate himself with the business community”. “Clinton saw Nafta as an opportunity to present himself as not just another liberal Democrat,” Faux said. “It was the beginning of the notion that came to dominate the Democratic party that its future is not in working people, that it’s in professionals, in women, in minorities and various ethnic groups. They wanted to put together a new coalition, and labor would be a thing of the past.”Michael Podhorzer, a former AFL-CIO political director, said many blue-collar workers remain angry about Nafta because it was such a departure from President Franklin Roosevelt’s emphatically pro-worker Democratic party. Podhorzer said: “Nafta is the catchall for a series of things that Democrats did that showed they had a greater concern for business interests and a kind of insensitivity to the consequences that accelerating deindustrialization would have on people’s lives.”Trump was shrewd to seize on Nafta, he said: “It’s a way for him to sort of wave a flag, but it doesn’t actually mean he’s on the workers’ side. It channels pretty effectively the frustration that many Americans feel in seeing their jobs go offshore or to Mexico or seeing their communities hollowed out or seeing fewer economics prospects for their kids.”In the view of many labor leaders and workers, the Democrats doubled down on misguided trade policy when Clinton successfully pushed Congress in 2000 to approve normal trade relations with China. That move encouraged many US corporations to outsource operations to lower-wage China, with one study finding that the country lost 2m jobs, including 985,000 factory jobs, because of the normalized trade relations with China. The number of factories in the US also declined by 45,000 from 1997 to 2008, with many workers blaming Nafta and the China trade deal.What’s more, many unions faulted Barack Obama for pushing for another free trade agreement: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a pact with 12 Pacific Rim countries. TPP’s supporters said the deal would increase US exports and build a powerful economic bloc to counter China. TPP was signed in 2016 under Obama’s presidency, but soon after Trump became president, he withdrew the US from TPP, preventing it from taking force.“Obama wasn’t great shakes on trade either,” Bonior said. “A lot of working people said they had enough. They decided we’re not going to be with the Democrats any more, and Trump came along and filled the void. That was very smart for Trump to do.”In a 2016 campaign appearance in Pittsburgh, Trump made a major speech on trade that denounced Nafta and cited several Economic Policy Institute studies that criticized the trade pact. Lawrence Mishel, who was the institute’s president at the time, said: “Trump never really explained what he would do about Nafta or trade. He ended his speech with a call for deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, which was far more pro-Chamber of Commerce than pro-worker.”While Joe Biden voted to ratify Nafta when he was a senator, labor leaders say the president’s current pro-worker stance on trade shows that he recognizes his Nafta vote was a mistake. For Bonior, it might be too little too late.“Biden has been very good on working-class issues. Biden is trying to make up for his vote on Nafta,” Bonior said. “But a lot of working-class people are turned off so much to the Democrats that they’re not hearing of the things Biden and Harris have done for them. They’re not listening. They’re gone. I don’t know if we’ll ever get them back.“They’re to some degree mesmerized by Trump even though Trump has never been for working people,” Bonior continued. “Those plants he said he would restore – he never did any of that.”Many union leaders slam Trump for a speech he gave in Youngstown in which he told thousands of workers that he would bring back all the factory jobs that Ohio had lost. “They’re all coming back,” he said. They didn’t. And when General Motors closed its huge assembly plant in nearby Lordstown, Ohio, in 2019, Trump did little to stop the plant closing or bring back the lost jobs.“He said all those jobs would be coming back, and then he did nothing,” said Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers (UAW). “The auto industry abandoned Lordstown, and Trump did nothing.”When Trump was running for president in 2016, he vowed to renegotiate Nafta, and he followed through, reaching a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in 2018. Labor leaders had attacked Nafta not only for encouraging companies to move factory jobs to Mexico and but also for failing to effectively protect Mexican workers whose employers had violated their right to unionize or other rights.Union leaders agree that USMCA created a stronger mechanism to crack down on labor violations by Mexican companies, although the Trump administration negotiated that improved enforcement mechanism only after the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and House Democrats demanded that Trump go further in the negotiations. But under USMCA, often called “Nafta 2.0”, US companies have continued moving manufacturing operations to Mexico.Even though USMCA made only minor changes to Nafta, Trump called it, “the best trade deal ever made”. For her part, Harris was one of 10 senators to vote against USMCA, saying it didn’t improve Nafta sufficiently.Faux said many workers applaud Trump on trade because “he did something” about it by renegotiating Nafta, while “the Democrats did nothing”.Labor leaders have differing views of USMCA. David McCall, president of the Pittsburgh-based United Steelworkers, said: “I think Nafta 2.0 was helpful. It’s gotten some better labor protections.”But the UAW’s Fain was merciless in attacking USMCA. “I like to call it Trump’s Nafta,” Fain said. “Trump’s Nafta only made problems worse. Trump’s Nafta only gave the billionaires more profits. Trump’s Nafta only killed more American jobs. Trump’s Nafta only shipped more work to Mexico.”Both Harris and Trump say they will renegotiate USMCA if elected. Trump also says he will protect factory jobs by imposing a 20% tariff on all imports, but the Steelworkers’ McCall says that’s a terrible idea. “I don’t think the solution to the problem is to have tariffs for the sake of having tariffs,” McCall said. “That’s protection. I think trade is a good thing. It’s an economic stimulator.” He said the US should use tariffs not in a blunderbuss way, but to “punish cheaters or countries that dump their various products”.McCall said the Biden-Harris administration had had a far better strategy for protecting factory jobs. “It’s the first time in generations that we’ve had an industrial policy in this country,” he said, praising three important laws passed under Biden: the infrastructure law, the green energy law and the Chips Act to encourage semiconductor production. McCall said those laws, along with Biden’s targeted tariffs “against countries that cheat”, give the US “an opportunity to be the most productive producers of many products”.While many blue-collar workers like Trump’s views on trade, McCall said: “He’s not a friend of unions or labor. For Trump it’s all about him, not about the person that’s working on the job: the steelworker, the electrical worker, the teamster or the UAW member.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Scrutiny of Republican Tim Sheehy’s business grows amid US Senate race

      by

      Scrutiny is growing about the Montana aerial firefighting company once led by Tim Sheehy, the former Navy Seal and Republican Senate candidate who could oust the Democrat incumbent Jon Tester in next month’s election.According to NBC News, Sheehy’s Bridger Aerospace, a company he founded in 2013, negotiated a deal with Gallatin county in eastern Montana to use its pristine credit rating to raise $160m in bonds. The county was meant to benefit from Bridger’s plans to hire more workers and build two new aircraft hangers.But the company used most of the money, or $134m, from the 2022 bond issue to pay back previous investment from Blackstone, a New York-based investment giant.Bridger’s finances have been complicated by the fact that there were fewer wildfires to fight this year and thus less revenue for Bridger. As of Tuesday, the National Interagency Fire Center reported 42,603 wildfires nationwide this year compared to the 10-year average of 48,689 for the same period.In financial filings for the quarterly period that ended 30 June 2024, Bridger said it had “a substantial amount of debt” and that failure to service that debt “could prolong the substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern”.A victory for Sheehy in November could hand Republicans control of the Senate, making his connections to Bridger a vital topic as voters head to the polls.Sheehy, 38, stepped down as the company’s CEO in July. He has run his campaign partly based on his business acumen.The questions around Gallatin county’s approval of Bridger’s bond deal revolve around whether the board was correctly informed of the company’s financial position – it has lost $150m since it was founded – and whether Gallatin’s credit rating could be affected.Marc Cohodes, a Wall Street investor who issued an early warning regarding FTX and its CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried, as well as calling the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, is among the signatories on a letter to Gallatin county and the US Small Business Administration asking for an investigation into Bridger’s use of capital.The letter questioned why Bridger presented itself to the federal government as a “socially and economically disadvantaged business”.“Gallatin County had their name on the bonds and when they default, and they will, lawyers and lawsuits will come after Gallatin County,” Cohodes told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. “‘Read the fine print’ will not be a good defense on this.”But Sheehy’s campaign pushed back, saying the deal’s critics were Democratic supporters of Tester.“It is clear Tester’s supporters wrote this letter with one goal: to hurt Tim’s campaign, tear down a Montana company, and help Jon Tester,” a campaign spokesperson told the Chronicle.“Bridger Aerospace is a good company that protects public lands by fighting wildfires, and it is our hope that the authors of this letter cease their efforts to destroy a Montana business, put Montanans out of a job, and wipe out their retirement savings.”Zach Brown, a Gallatin county commissioner, told NBC he was not worried that the bond money had gone to pay Blackstone.“It isn’t our role to monitor the construction and operational decisions of a private company or communicate to the community the status report of how they’re doing,” Brown told NBC.“Our role is not to monitor whether they added jobs – it is to endorse the public interest of their project.”While Gallatin county is not on the hook for the bond repayments, the county could see its credit rating affected if Bridger went out of business. Since January last year, when Bridger went public, its stock is down 64%.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBridger reported losses of $77m in 2023 and was at risk of failing to meet its financial obligations.“The Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, operating cash flow deficits, debt covenant violations, and insufficient liquidity to fund its operations that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern,” Bridger’s auditor said, according to the Montana Free Press.The company said in the report that it began cutting costs and had reduced its workforce to 148, down from 166 in 2022.A spokesperson for Bridger told NBC that the company has continued to pay interest on the bonds, which are backed by “robust collateral which has appreciated significantly in value since the bond was issued” and is working to repair its cash flow problems.Separately, Sam Davis, Bridger’s CEO, told the outlet that the company had battled more than 160 Montana wildfires since the bond issue.The county’s support for the company, Davis added, had been “tremendous” and allowed the firefighting company to “contract with multiple local businesses as we expand and operate our business, and provide a strong customer base to local hotels, restaurants, and transportation providers”.Questions around Bridger come as Sheehy’s service record also has come under scrutiny. The Trump-backed candidate has claimed he was shot in the arm during a firefight in Afghanistan.But a Montana park ranger has claimed that the gunshot wound was self-inflicted in Glacier national park in 2015. Nor do Sheehy’s fellow soldiers recall him mentioning a gunshot wound or seeing a wound at the time during his service in central Asia.Sheehy has insisted that he was shot in Afghanistan and that claims to the contrary are “tantamount to falsely accusing him of stolen valor”.Sheehy has also come under attack for allegedly characterizing Crow Native Americans as “drunk Indians”. He told Fox News last month they were old recordings, and suggested they were edited, reports the Daily Montanan. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in UK Politics

      Public sector pay rises hand Reeves a £6.7bn headache ahead of Budget

      by

      Your support helps us to tell the storyThis election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.CloseRead moreCloseHigh borrowing costs and public sector pay rises have given chancellor Rachel Reeves a £6.7bn headache ahead of next week’s Budget.Borrowing in the first six months of the year stood at £79.6bn, £1.2bn higher than a year earlier and almost £7bn higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility watchdog – which monitors the state’s finances – had estimated.The surprise rise in borrowing came despite the cut to Britain’s expenditure on winter fuel allowances, which will now be means-tested and will be paid next month.Jessica Barnaby, deputy director for public sector finances at the Office for National Statistics, which released the data, said: “While tax revenue increased, this was outweighed by increased spending, partly due to higher debt interest and public sector pay rises.”Ms Reeves has said she needs to fix a £22bn “black hole” in Britain’s finances. She is looking at ways to cut spending and raise money to fix it.Today’s news may tempt her to look at the UK’s liabilities rather than debt when it comes to measuring the government’s financial health.Rob Wood, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said: “Changing the fiscal rules in that way would give the government about £50bn additional headroom to borrow.“We think markets will be unruffled by that change because boosting investment should raise GDP, making government borrowing more affordable.”Treasury chief secretary Darren Jones said the state of the public finances meant there would be “difficult decisions” in next Wednesday’s Budget.He said: “We have inherited a £22 billion black hole in the country’s public finances, including no plan to fund pay deals for millions of public sector workers.“Strikes cost at least £3 billion last year, so it was the right thing to do to end those damaging disputes.“Resolving this black hole at the Budget next week will require difficult decisions to fix the foundations of our economy and begin delivering on the promise of change.”While borrowing costs for the government stand at about 4 per cent, rates are likely to fall.UK interest rates will almost halve from their present rate of 5 per cent, top US investment bank Goldman Sachs said yesterday.Borrowing rates, set by the Bank of England, will sink to 2.75 per cent by the end of next year, Goldman predicts, suggesting a faster fall than borrowers and lenders have forecast. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden’s economic legacy could decide the presidential race in Scranton

      by

      From the north, motorists pull into Scranton via the Joseph R Biden Jr Expressway. Cutting through the scenic Pocono Mountains, now at the start of autumn color season, they are greeted with a towering, electric billboard, blaring an encapsulating – if divisive – message to this working-class town: “Democrats for Trump,” it reads. “Economy,” it continues, with a green checked box next to the word.The sign in Biden’s hometown is the perfect fall 2024 welcome mat in this crucial swing state filled with voters whose economic anxiety or satisfaction will decide next month’s election.The US has staged a remarkable recovery since the pandemic and Biden has successfully pursued an economic agenda, Bidenomics, that should benefit Scranton and the state – $13bn has been earmarked from his infrastructure bill for repairing highways and bridges alone. But poll after poll shows deep-seated worries about the economy – worries that could sink Democrats’ chances of keeping the White House come November.Like many mid-sized upper midwest cities that have faced post-industrial decline, Scranton, a longtime Democratic stronghold, has grown more conservative in recent elections. With the city’s native son leaving office, and pocketbook issues top of mind, some believe Trump could finally take Scranton – a more-than-symbolic win.But with Kamala Harris, Biden’s successor, and Donald Trump tied in the polls, guessing who will take Scranton, Pennsylvania, and the White House is a fool’s errand. And this politically split town shows why the race is so close. On the street, one person’s economic reality may be entirely different to the next.The complicated political mix of fears about the local economy, faith and mistrust in both Harris and Trump and shifting political allegiance was evident at the Marketplace at Steamtown, a downtown mall filled with local mom-and-pop shops.Pete, 78, a swing voter who declined to provide his last name, said inflation had been a problem over the last four years, but added prices were coming down, the stock market was high, and said he didn’t blame Biden for the economic challenges.“Every president is stuck with what happened before, and the pandemic happened, so Biden was in a hole to begin with,” Pete said. But the veteran added the main issue driving him to Harris was Trump disrespecting veterans: “He called us suckers and losers.”The argument for Trump’s economics is ironclad, said Lori Higgins with a scoff: “Look at the last four years – everyone is paying more for everything. What more do you need to know to make a decision?” Now 52, she voted for Democrats until Trump convinced her to switch sides in 2016.Even on the most basic details, there is disagreement: Pete said he had just paid $2.99 for gas, citing it as evidence that inflation was coming under control. Two Trump supporters said they paid as much as $3.50 for gas, evidence, they said, that inflation is still squeezing Scranton.Trump and Harris have made close to 50 visits to Pennsylvania so far this election cycle and poured nearly $1bn into ads – a record spend that reflects how crucial its 19 electoral votes, the biggest prize of any battleground, make the keystone state. Trump made his second visit to Scranton in as many months last week. “Go get everyone you know and vote immediately,” he urged rallygoers.But persuading any part of the deeply divided electorate to swap their vote looks difficult.View image in fullscreenHarris may yet hold Scranton, said Berwood Yost, a Pennsylvania pollster, but that is “surprising” given the level of economic discontent in the city and the county. “The dissatisfaction with Biden is really high and views on personal finances are very negative, so Trump should be clearly ahead,” Yost said. And yet polling averages show Harris ahead by a point in Pennsylvania, (firmly within the margin of error) which “speaks in part to some voters’ concerns about Trump and his personal character”.Since 2000, Democrats have won the county with as much as 63% support, but Hillary Clinton narrowly won with less than 50% of the 2016 vote. Biden’s home-field advantage may have buoyed Dems in 2020 – he was born and raised in Scranton until the age of 10, when his family moved to Delaware, and he has name-checked the city throughout his long career and is still nicknamed “Pennsylvania’s third senator”. Biden beat Trump in the county by 53.7% to 45.3%.Still, Scranton has become “ground zero for demonstrating the appeal of Trump and the Maga movement, and places that traditionally voted Democrat and ended up changing their stripes in a significant way”, Yost said.‘Way more optimistic’Once a powerhouse city in the nation’s coal capital, Scranton’s economy is now driven by small business, retail, healthcare, education and the service sector, said Satyajit Ghosh, a University of Scranton economist. Though there is no shortage of empty storefronts downtown, it is noticeably livelier than many similar Rust belt urban cores.University of Scranton’s surveys of downtown businesses found owners in April had concerns about the current economic climate but were decidedly more optimistic about the next six months: “Way more optimistic than they were a year ago,” Ghosh said.View image in fullscreenYost’s most recent polling put Harris up three points statewide and found the economy to be the top issue for 34% of residents. Other recent polling found 60% of Pennsylvanians said their economic situation was worse compared with 40% who say it was better or no different.James Simrell is part of the latter group. As he closed up his boxing gym in Steamtown, the lifelong Democrat was upbeat about Scranton’s economy. His gym is just one of his three businesses, and all stay busy – he also designs jewelry and runs a small farm that produces butternut squash and pumpkins. He sells pumpkins to Blackwatch Cafe, and squash to Abe’s Delicatessen, which uses it in their soup. “Everyone is doing well,” Simrell said.In contrast, the Trump economy was “falling apart” as the former president left office amid a poorly managed pandemic, Simrell said. He has other reasons for not voting for Trump. His two adopted children are Black and Trump is “a little bit prejudiced – it drives my wife crazy”.Echoing longtime Democratic voters’ sentiment, he added: “My mom and dad were Democrats and I follow what they believe, and Kamala’s the best person to be president – she’s not crazy.”But lingering inflation is still a drag for Eric Flesher, who runs a collectibles and vintage store, Rock-N-Models. He likened the economy to a “tightening sphincter”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe declined to talk about politics, but said everything remained expensive: “I’m in a business that sells stuff that nobody needs unless they have disposable income, so it gets much more difficult” when there is inflation, Flesher said.Flesher added that he disagreed with the “mindset here that I should vote for someone because that’s how my mom and dad voted – then you’re just voting for a party and not a person”, he added.‘She’s not the kind you can trust’The economic indicators in Scranton track those of the wider US. Inflation, which peaked at an annual rate of 9.1% in mid-2022, has eased to 2.4%. Prices are similarly down in Scranton, the economist Ghosh said. Unemployment in the region was 4.8% in August, above the 4.1% national average but down from 9.2% when Biden took office in January 2021.“In this area, which I’ve covered for many years, I really haven’t ever seen this strong of a performance in terms of employment,” said Ghosh. Still, there’s an after-effect of inflation that consumers feel, Ghosh added, and some high prices, like those for rent or food, are still hurting.Outside a Walmart in Dickson City, a retail hub just north of Scranton, husband and wife John and Carol Gardner still feel the pinch. The Mount Cobb residents used to pay $150-$200 a month on groceries, and now they pay twice that. Carol is out of a job on disability, while John assembles buffet trays for $12 an hour to make ends meet, even though he said he should be retired.View image in fullscreen“Trump at least made sure we could go shopping, and Biden is making sure we can’t,” Carol said. “I hope the lady doesn’t get in because we’re going to go straight downhill – she’s not the kind you can trust.”The view is different at Bethel AME, a 153-year old Black church on downtown’s west side. Pastor Mark Alexander sees an improving economy, and blames inflation on Trump.“Inflation was more so because of Covid, and how the former president handled that situation, because when you have supply chain interruptions and poor leadership guiding the nation, it exacerbates things,” he said.The Federal Reserve, not the president, decides rates, Alexander noted, and he pointed to low unemployment, the Chips Act – which is pouring billions into domestic research and manufacturing of semiconductors – and Biden’s infrastructure bill as evidence of the president’s economic success.Moreover, at Bethel AME, there is “excitement for someone who looks like us and has experienced some of things we have gone through and comes from a middle-class upbringing”, Alexander added. “As opposed to a billionaire who has no clue what it is like day to day for middle-class people,” he said. That’s especially true with younger people because Harris “speaks their language”, Alexander added.For others, neither candidate is appealing. Mike Gilson owns a flooring business, a maintenance company, and manages artists and chefs. He said the economy was strong locally because its economic backbone was made up of longtime small businesses, and it fared better during the last session than most other areas because of that composition.View image in fullscreenBut the city’s relatively strong economic standing is not persuading Gilson to vote for Harris. He said the president was a “ceremonial position” and big corporations run the nation. “If the president actually wielded the power that people think they do then voting would make a lot more sense to me,” Gilson said.History will decide which of Scranton’s many voices will decide this election. Right now it is unclear whether the legacy of the city’s most famous son will be enough to carry Harris over the line or finally hand Scranton and the state to Trump.With the race essentially a toss-up at this point, the key for either party is going to be turnout, Yost said. But in that battle, Trump may have an advantage – people who are less likely to vote have in recent elections voted for Trump.“Democrats have to counter that by getting their voters to the polls,” Yost said. “Think about the election as a mosaic – there are many pieces and some are bigger than others, but they’re all going to matter.” More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in UK Politics

      Budget 2024: Inheritance tax set to rise – here’s what it means for you

      by

      Your support helps us to tell the storyThis election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.CloseRead moreCloseChancellor Rachel Reeves is reportedly planning changes to inheritance tax at the Budget as she looks to raise up to £40bn from tax hikes and spending cuts.While specifics remain unclear, any changes could significantly affect how much families pay on inherited properties and their financial futures.Here’s everything you need to know about the potential changes and what they could mean for your family. What is inheritance tax?Inheritance tax is a levy applied to the estate of someone who has passed away, but only around four per cent of families end up paying it, as most estates fall below the tax threshold. Key to this exemption is that anything left to a spouse or civil partner is not subject to inheritance tax, regardless of the estate’s value. For instance, if a deceased individual leaves their entire estate to their partner, even if valued at a million pound, no inheritance tax will be charged. However, this exemption does not extend to partners who live together but are not married or in a civil partnership. Each individual has a £325,000 inheritance tax-free allowance. Estates valued below this threshold incur no tax, while those above it are taxed at 40 per cent on the excess.What changes could be coming?The government has been exploring multiple avenues to increase revenue, particularly in light of a reported £40 billion budget shortfall, the BBC reported. Although specific measures to exemptions and reliefs have yet to be confirmed, discussions include revisiting existing rules surrounding gifts given during a person’s lifetime. Under current regulations, if an individual gives away more than £325,000 and dies within seven years, those gifts could still incur inheritance tax liabilities for the recipients. The new Budget could address specific reliefs for businesses and agricultural land, which currently have tax exemptions. However, the extent of the new changes remains unclear. What has the government said?Several ministers and the prime minister have promised taxes will not rise for “working people”, suggesting the wealthiest are likely to be hit hardest by new measures.Ahead of her first Budget, the chancellor refused to rule out hiking capital gains and inheritance tax. Setting the scene for a brutal financial statement, she said: “I think that we will have to increase taxes in the Budget.”Ms Reeves did not specify which taxes would rise, but said Labour would stick to its manifesto pledge not to hike national insurance, VAT or income tax.The chancellor said: “We had in our manifesto a commitment to fiscal rules to balance day-to-day spending through tax receipts, and by the end of the forecast period, to get debt down as a share of GDP.“Those are sensible fiscal rules to keep a grip of the public finances. We also made other commitments in our manifesto, not to increase national insurance, VAT or income tax for the duration and we’ll stick with those.”Shadow chancellor Jeremy Hunt criticised Labour’s fiscal plans, saying: “During the election we repeatedly warned that Labour’s sums didn’t add up and that they were planning to raise taxes. The real scandal is that despite planning these tax rises all along, they didn’t have the courage to admit it to the public during the election campaign.“Unfortunately, it looks like it will be people who have saved all their life to provide an inheritance to their family who will pay the price for Labour’s tax rises.”What does this mean to you?For families planning their estates, these potential changes would mean individuals need to further plan their finances. If inheritance tax rates increase or exemptions are altered, those intending to leave an inheritance may need to reassess their options to minimise tax liabilities. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Musk steers X disputes to conservative Texas courts in service terms update

      by

      Elon Musk’s X has updated its terms of service to steer any disputes from users of the social media platform formerly known as Twitter to a federal court in Texas whose judges frequently deliver victories to conservative litigants in political cases.New terms of service that will take effect on 15 November specify that any lawsuits against X by users must be exclusively filed in the US district court for the northern district of Texas or state courts in Tarrant county, Texas.It is common for companies to include venue clauses in their terms of service specifying which forum would hear any disputes filed against them. But the choice of the northern district of Texas stands out because X is not located in the district.Following a move from San Francisco, X is headquartered in Bastrop, Texas, near Austin, whose federal court is in Texas’s western district. That district has far fewer Republican-appointed judges than the northern district, which has become a favored destination for conservative activists and business groups to pursue lawsuits seeking to block parts of Joe Biden’s agenda, a tactic Democratic lawmakers say smacks of “judge-shopping”.“It’s hard to imagine that’s unrelated to this new language,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University.X did not respond to a request for comment. Musk, the world’s richest man, has increasingly embraced conservative causes and become a major financial supporter of Donald Trump in his campaign to win the 5 November presidential election.Texas’s northern district already is the host of two lawsuits X has filed after several brands pulled ads from Musk’s platform, including one against liberal watchdog group Media Matters after it published a report that said ads had appeared next to posts supporting Nazism.X, which the billionaire Musk bought in 2022, sued Media Matters last year, alleging the group defamed the platform. The lawsuit will go to trial in Fort Worth, Texas, next year. Media Matters has called the lawsuit meritless.X has also filed an antitrust lawsuit accusing several advertisers of conspiring to stage a boycott, causing it to lose revenue. Both of X’s lawsuits were initially assigned to the US district judge Reed O’Connor, a Fort Worth judge who once declared the Obamacare health insurance law unconstitutional in a ruling that was later overturned. He has since blocked Biden administration policies on gun control and LGBTQ+ rights.The judge, an appointee of George W Bush, the Republican former president, stepped aside from X’s antitrust case in August after National Public Radio reported that financial disclosure reports showed O’Connor had owned shares of another Musk company, Tesla. But the judge has declined to recuse himself from the Media Matters case.O’Connor is one of two active judges in Fort Worth’s federal courthouse. The other is Mark Pittman, a Trump appointee. More