Taxation

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares28 Views

    Bessent Pitches Skittish Investors to Bet on Trump’s Economic Plan

    by

    The Treasury secretary urged executives and entrepreneurs to look beyond the Trump administration’s trade agenda.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged skittish global business leaders on Monday to ignore President Trump’s economic naysayers and ramp up investment in the United States, defending an economic agenda that economists warn will slow economic growth and exacerbate inflation.Speaking to executives, entrepreneurs and policymakers, Mr. Bessent argued that the Trump administration’s economic plans go beyond trade policy and will pay off in the long run. He urged them to also focus on Mr. Trump’s plans to cut taxes and regulation, which he said would spur job creation and output.“Tariffs are engineered to encourage companies like yours to invest directly in the United States,” Mr. Bessent said in remarks at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles. “You’ll be glad you did — not only because we have the most productive work force in the world. But because we will soon have the most favorable tax and regulatory environment as well.”His comments came just hours after Mr. Trump ordered up new tariffs on foreign film producers, a decision that left many in Hollywood puzzled about how such a tax would work.The Treasury Secretary has been working to ease concerns among investors that Mr. Trump’s trade plans will destabilize the global economy. Mr. Trump last month levied tariffs on countries around the world and escalated a trade fight with China, which sent financial markets plunging.Since then, Mr. Bessent has been racing to negotiate trade deals with dozens of countries. He has also signaled that the China tariffs are not sustainable, offering hope that Mr. Trump would soon begin negotiations to lower them.”Our goal with trade policy is to level the playing field for our great American workers and companies,” Mr. Bessent said.The Trump administration is working closely with congressional Republicans ]on tax legislation that would extend the 2017 tax cuts and offer new tax breaks for overtime pay, tips and Social Security benefits. Mr. Bessent made the case on Monday that investors need to consider the broader agenda when thinking about where to park their money.Describing Mr. Trump’s policies as “mutually reinforcing,” Mr. Bessent said, “acting in concert, they push toward the same goal — to solidify our position as the home of global capital.”Investors have grown increasingly wary of Mr. Trump’s policies in recent months, with stocks, bonds and the dollar all showing signs of weakness as fund managers fret over the uncertainty surrounding Mr. Trump’s policymaking approach.The International Monetary Fund projected last month that global output will slow to 2.8 percent this year from 3.3 percent in 2024 and sharply downgraded its outlook for the U.S. economy.On Monday, Mr. Bessent said that Mr. Trump would prove “critics in establishment circles” wrong.“We have the world’s reserve currency, the deepest and most liquid markets, and the strongest property rights,” Mr. Bessent said. “For these reasons, the United States is the premier destination for international capital.” More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares23 Views

      in Elections

      Someone Should Tell Trump He’s About to Make the Trade Deficit Worse

      by

      There are many reasons President Trump should not be pushing Congress to pass huge tax cuts, but here’s one you may not have heard: Budget deficits and trade deficits are twins. When the former go up, so, generally, do the latter. So at the same moment Mr. Trump is upending the global economy in a feckless attempt to eliminate America’s trade deficit, he’s essentially pressuring Congress to increase it.Here’s how it happens. The United States buys a lot of goods from other countries, and we pay for the goods with dollars. But those dollars are no good abroad, so the countries we buy from invest them here. Some of the money goes, directly or indirectly, into businesses that are raising cash to build new data centers or expand natural gas facilities or construct new apartment complexes. Other dollars go into Treasury bonds or bills, which the federal government uses to fund our large budget deficit. (The same thing happens in reverse when other countries buy from the United States — but to a lesser degree, since our imports are larger than our exports.)If the budget deficit rises, American investors could theoretically cover the shortfall, but that would mean putting their money in Treasury securities rather than businesses and their capital needs. The other option is that foreign countries amass more dollars and plow them back into the U.S. economy. How would they get those additional dollars? From all the German cars and Chinese electronics and imported beer that Americans will buy with the money from their tax cuts.More generally, a larger budget deficit will require the government to borrow more money, which drives up interest rates. Higher interest rates mean a stronger dollar, which makes it more expensive for people in other countries to buy our products, cheaper for us to buy theirs, and thus the trade deficit widens.So cutting taxes, as Mr. Trump has told Congress to do, will drive up the budget deficit — and the trade deficit. All of this may seem counterintuitive, but it’s one of the few things that economists agree about.The budget deficit is already worryingly high and the tax cuts Mr. Trump is seeking would make it even larger. Last year the United States ran a $1.8 trillion budget deficit, or 6 percent of the gross domestic product — higher than at any other time except during World War II, the late-2000s financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic — despite strong economic growth and no unusual emergencies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares31 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Wrestle With Trump’s Demands for Tax Cuts

      by

      House Republicans are planning to include several of President Trump’s campaign promises in the first draft of the bill, which they hope to release soon.It was easy to miss, but last weekend President Trump floated a fundamental rewrite of the American tax code. In a social media post, and again in remarks to reporters, Mr. Trump suggested the United States could stop taxing income under $200,000 and instead rely on revenue from his extensive tariffs.“It’ll take a little while before we do that, but we’re going to be cutting taxes, and it’s possible we’ll do a complete tax cut,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Sunday. “Because I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.”The idea was news to Republicans on Capitol Hill already in the throes of translating Mr. Trump’s impulses for cutting taxes into law.Senator Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho who leads the Finance Committee, said he had not heard from Mr. Trump or his staff about the proposal. “So I just don’t know what that’s referencing,” he said.Likewise in the House, where Republicans are preparing to release their first stab at the tax bill in the coming days. “We aren’t having that discussion at all — it’s never come up,” Representative Lloyd Smucker, a Republican from Pennsylvania and a member of the Ways and Means committee, said of not collecting income taxes on earnings under $200,000.Even if they take a pass on Mr. Trump’s most recent notion, congressional Republicans are straining to incorporate several of his previous tax proposals into the legislation. Those include not taxing tips, overtime pay or Social Security benefits, three of Mr. Trump’s campaign pledges that the White House has continued to push in his second term.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares96 Views

      in Elections

      Rough Night for Republican at Town Hall in N.Y. Swing District

      by

      Representative Mike Lawler faced shouts, groans and mockery at a high school auditorium in Rockland County.No one was expecting a love fest when Representative Mike Lawler, Republican of New York, faced constituents in his suburban swing district on Sunday night. Still, even he seemed surprised by the night’s first clash — over the Pledge of Allegiance.“Please tell me you’re not objecting to the Pledge of Allegiance,” Mr. Lawler asked incredulously after some members of the audience inside a high school auditorium audibly groaned when he suggested reciting it.They acquiesced, and several hundred attendees labored to their feet to say the pledge, but not without indicating why they believed its words had come to ring hollow.“Authoritarian!” one man yelled, an apparent reference to President Trump.“Support the Constitution!” bellowed another.So it went for nearly two hours as Mr. Lawler, one of the House’s most vulnerable Republicans and a potential candidate for governor of New York, faced a torrent of criticism from liberal constituents over almost everything, from Republicans’ multitrillion-dollar tax cut plan to how brightly the room was lit.It was a scene that has repeated itself across the country over the past two weeks for the small group of Republicans who have defied party leaders’ advice and convened feedback sessions with the people they represent, many of them anxious, angry and primed to vent over a president who they believe is acting with unchecked power.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Plan to Skirt Senate Rules to Push Through More Tax Cuts

      by

      G.O.P. leaders are planning to use the “nuclear option” to steer around the Senate’s in-house referee and allow the use of a gimmick that makes trillions of dollars in tax cuts appear to be free.For decades, senators looking to push major budget and tax legislation through Congress on a simple majority vote have had to win the blessing of a single unelected figure on Capitol Hill.The Senate parliamentarian, a civil servant who acts as the arbiter and enforcer of the chamber’s byzantine rules, has traditionally been in a position to make or break entire presidential agendas. That includes determining whether budget and tax legislation can be fast-tracked through Congress and shielded from a filibuster, allowing it to pass along party lines through a process known as reconciliation.Now, in their zeal to deliver President Trump’s domestic policy agenda in “one big beautiful bill” of spending and tax cuts, Senate Republicans are trying to steer around the parliamentarian, busting a substantial congressional norm in the process.The strategy would allow them to avoid getting a formal thumbs up or thumbs down on their claim that extending the tax cuts that Mr. Trump signed into law in 2017 would cost nothing — a gimmick that would make it easier for them cram as many tax reductions as possible into their bill without appearing to balloon the deficit.In recent days, all eyes have been on Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, to see whether she would bless the trick, smoothing the path for the G.O.P. bill. But on Wednesday, Republicans signaled that they planned to take extraordinary action to go around her altogether.Rather than have Ms. MacDonough weigh in, they asserted that Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as chairman of the Budget Committee, could unilaterally decide the cost of the legislation, citing a 1974 budget law. Senate Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a new budget resolution they planned to put to a vote as early as this week. And Mr. Graham declared in a statement that he considered an extension of the 2017 tax cuts to be cost-free.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How to Use an HSA to Save a Lot

      by

      A new analysis finds that a diligent saver who leaves the money untouched for decades can accumulate $1 million. But not everyone with an H.S.A. can afford to leave the money untapped.It’s possible to amass $1 million in special health savings accounts to use in retirement, a new analysis finds, with several big caveats.You have to start young, contribute the maximum each year and leave the money untouched for decades instead of spending it on medical needs.Health savings accounts, known as H.S.A.s, let people set aside pretax money for health and medical care.To open an H.S.A., you must have a specific type of health plan with a high deductible — an amount you must cover out of pocket before insurance pays. The money can be saved or invested to grow tax-free, and is tax-free when withdrawn and spent on eligible care or products. (The federal government does not tax the accounts, but some states assess state taxes.)Because of their robust tax advantages, H.S.A.s are seen as a valuable tool to save for health needs later in life, including costs that aren’t covered by Medicare, the federal health plan for older Americans. H.S.A. funds can also be spent on nonmedical costs after age 65 without penalty. The money is taxed as ordinary income.The new analysis by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit group, assumes that at age 25, a saver begins contributing the maximum allowable amount each year ($4,300 for an individual in 2025 — the amount is tweaked annually for inflation — and an additional $1,000 for people 55 and older) and continues those contributions through age 64 with no withdrawals, “regardless of whether the individual uses any health care services.” It also assumes the funds are invested and earn a 7.5 percent rate of return.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Held Involuntarily in a Psychiatric Hospital

      by

      More from our inbox:The Debate Over Taxing TipsNonpartisan ElectionsSitting Still in SchoolAcadia Healthcare’s Park Royal hospital in Fort Myers, Fla., and Florida is among those that wrongly held some patients against their will.Michael Adno for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Patients Held Against Will by Hospitals” (front page, Sept. 2):Thank you for your hard-hitting exposé of Acadia Healthcare, a chain of psychiatric hospitals, which revealed Acadia’s corrupt financial practices. The authors report on the toxic effects — including but not limited to driving people away from treatment — of these unscrupulous procedures.But even when hospitals have pure motives, inpatient psychiatric care — especially when it is involuntary — can be traumatizing, and may lead to an increased risk of suicide: In one meta-analysis, “the postdischarge suicide rate was approximately 100 times the global suicide rate during the first 3 months after discharge.”The key to helping people is funding community-based, evidence-based programs. For example, “Peer-run respites provide a voluntary alternative to an emergency department visit or inpatient hospitalization for people experiencing a psychiatric crisis,” as was noted in a recent article in Psychiatry Online.With so much evidence to support the benefits of community-based mental health care, I believe that a paradigm shift in the mental health system — away from hospitalization and toward community-based treatment, including peer support — is long overdue.Susan RogersCherry Hill, N.J.The writer is the director of the National Mental Health Consumers’ Self-Help Clearinghouse.To the Editor:The motivation for this atrocious behavior is cited in the first paragraph of the article, where it is noted that Acadia Healthcare’s stock price has more than doubled. This is an example of the perverse results of the use of private equity to finance health care. There are other such examples.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Harris y Trump presentan un claro contraste sobre la economía

      by

      Ambos candidatos abogan por ampliar el poder del gobierno para dirigir los resultados económicos, pero en ámbitos muy diferentes.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]La vicepresidenta Kamala Harris y el expresidente Donald Trump volaron a Carolina del Norte esta semana para pronunciar lo que se anunciaron como importantes discursos sobre la economía. Ninguno de los dos expuso un plan detallado de políticas: ni Harris, que se centró durante media hora en la vivienda, los comestibles y los medicamentos con receta, ni Trump, que durante 80 minutos desperdigó varias propuestas entre reflexiones en voz alta sobre inmigrantes peligrosos.Pero ambos candidatos, cada uno a su manera, enviaron a los votantes mensajes claros e importantes sobre sus visiones económicas. Cada uno de ellos defendió la visión de un gobierno federal poderoso, uno que utilice su poder para intervenir en los mercados en busca de una economía más fuerte y próspera.Solo discreparon, casi por completo, sobre cuándo y cómo debe utilizarse ese poder.El viernes en Raleigh, Harris empezó a imprimir su propio sello a la economía progresista que ha dominado la política demócrata en la última década. Este pensamiento económico abraza la idea de que el gobierno federal debe actuar con agresividad para fomentar la competencia y corregir las distorsiones en los mercados privados.El planteamiento busca grandes subidas de impuestos a las empresas y a quienes obtienen ingresos altos, para financiar la ayuda a los trabajadores de ingresos bajos y de clase media que luchan por crear riqueza para sí mismos y para sus hijos. Al mismo tiempo, ofrece grandes exenciones fiscales a las empresas que se dedican a lo que Harris y otros progresistas consideran un gran beneficio económico, como la fabricación de tecnologías necesarias para luchar contra el calentamiento global o la construcción de viviendas asequibles.Esta filosofía anima la agenda política que Harris presentó el viernes. Se comprometió a entregar hasta 25.000 dólares en ayudas al pago inicial a cada comprador de primera vivienda durante cuatro años, al tiempo que destinaría 40.000 millones de dólares a empresas constructoras de primeras viviendas. Harris afirmó que reinstauraría de forma permanente el crédito tributario por hijos ampliado que el presidente Biden estableció temporalmente con su ley de estímulo de 2021, al tiempo que ofrecería aún más ayuda a los padres de recién nacidos.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Harris and Trump Offer a Clear Contrast on the Economy

      by

      Both candidates embrace expansions of government power to steer economic outcomes — but in vastly different areas.Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump flew to North Carolina this week to deliver what were billed as major speeches on the economy. Neither laid out a comprehensive policy plan — not Ms. Harris in her half-hour focus on housing, groceries and prescription drugs, nor Mr. Trump in 80 minutes of sprinkling various proposals among musings about dangerous immigrants.But in their own ways, both candidates sent voters clear and important messages about their economic visions. Each embraced a vision of a powerful federal government, using its muscle to intervene in markets in pursuit of a stronger and more prosperous economy.They just disagreed, almost entirely, on when and how that power should be used.In Raleigh on Friday, Ms. Harris began to put her own stamp on the brand of progressive economics that has come to dominate Democratic politics over the last decade. That economic thinking embraces the idea that the federal government must act aggressively to foster competition and correct distortions in private markets.The approach seeks large tax increases on corporations and high earners, to fund assistance for low-income and middle-class workers who are struggling to build wealth for themselves and their children. At the same time, it provides big tax breaks to companies engaged in what Ms. Harris and other progressives see as delivering great economic benefit — like manufacturing technologies needed to fight global warming, or building affordable housing.That philosophy animated the policy agenda that Ms. Harris unveiled on Friday. She pledged to send up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance to every first-time home buyer over four years, while directing $40 billion to construction companies that build starter homes. She said she would permanently reinstate an expanded child tax credit that President Biden temporarily established with his 2021 stimulus law, while offering even more assistance to parents of newborns.She called for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries and for new federal enforcement tools to punish companies that unfairly push up food prices. “My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules,” she said, adding: “We will help the food industry become more competitive, because I believe competition is the lifeblood of our economy.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More