World news
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
Biden targets America’s wealthiest with proposed minimum tax on billionaires
Biden targets America’s wealthiest with proposed minimum tax on billionairesTax on households over $100m aims to ensure wealthiest Americans no longer pay lower rate than teachers and firefighters Joe Biden proposed a new tax on America’s richest households when he unveiled his latest budget on Monday.The Biden administration wants to impose a 20% minimum tax on households worth more than $100m. The proposal would raise more than $360bn over the next decade and “would make sure that the wealthiest Americans no longer pay a tax rate lower than teachers and firefighters”, according to a factsheet released by the White House.‘I make no apologies’: Biden stands by ‘Putin cannot remain in power’ remarkRead moreThe plan – called the “billionaire minimum income tax” – is the administration’s most aggressive move to date to tax the very wealthiest Americans.The tax is part of Biden’s $5.8tn budget proposal for 2023, which also sets aside billions for the police and military as well as investments in affordable housing, plans to tackle the US’s supply chain issues and gun violence.“Budgets are statements of values, and the budget I am releasing today sends a clear message that we value fiscal responsibility, safety and security at home and around the world, and the investments needed to continue our equitable growth and build a better America,” Biden said in a statement.Billionaire wealth grew significantly during the coronavirus pandemic, helped by soaring share prices and a tax regime that charges investors less on their gains than those taxed on their income.“In 2021 alone, America’s more than 700 billionaires saw their wealth increase by $1tn, yet in a typical year, billionaires like these would pay just 8% of their total realized and unrealized income in taxes. A firefighter or teacher can pay double that tax rate,” the White House factsheet notes.Under the plan households worth more than $100m would have to give detailed accounts to the Internal Revenue Service of how their assets had fared over the year. Those who pay less than 20% on those gains would then be subject to an additional tax that would take their rate up to 20%.The Biden administration calculates that the tax would affect only the top 0.01% of American households, those worth over $100m, and that more than half the revenue would come from households worth more than $1bn.The budget also looks set to tackle another issue that some economists have argued contributes to widening income inequality: share buybacks.In recent years cash-rich companies including Apple, Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft, have used their funds to buy back huge quantities of their own shares, boosting their share price. Last year companies in the S&P 500 bought back a record $882bn of their own shares and Goldman Sachs estimates that figure will rise to $1tn this year.Critics say that the purchases divert money from hiring new staff, raising wages and research and development.Research by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shows that there is “clear evidence that a substantial number of corporate executives today use buybacks as a chance to cash out”.The Biden proposal would stop executives from selling their shares for three years after a buyback is announced.Biden attempted to impose a 1% tax on share buybacks last year but the proposal failed in Congress. Both Biden’s billionaire tax and the share buyback proposal will also face tough opposition in Congress.TopicsUS taxationBiden administrationUS politicsUS economyJoe BidenUS domestic policynewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
Judge says Trump ‘likely’ committed crimes in bid to block Biden victory
Judge says Trump ‘likely’ committed crimes in bid to block Biden victoryScheme to retain presidency ‘a coup in search of a legal theory’Trump lawyer John Eastman ordered to hand over emails Donald Trump appears to have committed multiple felonies as he sought to return himself to power on 6 January, a judge said in a Monday ruling that ordered the Trump lawyer John Eastman to turn over hundreds of emails to the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack.The extraordinary ruling marks a breakthrough and paves the way for the select committee to obtain some of Eastman’s most sensitive emails concerning his illegal scheme to overturn the 2020 election, which he had attempted to shield from the inquiry.Questions abound as Trump raises – and hoards – huge sums of 2024 cash Read more“Based on the evidence the court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6 2021,” ruled Judge David Carter.Trump and Eastman launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election in a strategy that was unprecedented in American history, Carter said, describing their scheme as a “coup in search of a legal theory” and directly spurred the Capitol attack.The judge’s order is perhaps the first time ever that a federal court has found a president may have committed a crime while in office – and raises the stakes for the justice department, which has vowed to pursue January 6 criminal cases at any level.The decision will also serve to undercut Trump’s claim that the investigation is a partisan effort to hurt him politically, now that the select committee’s inquiry has been reaffirmed through the imprimatur of a federal court. It also comes amid reports that Trump’s son-in-law and close aide during his presidency, Jared Kushner, is scheduled to appear before the January 6 panel this week.The select committee has been pursuing Eastman’s emails around the time of the Capitol attack since he was the architect of the brazen and unlawful scheme to have Mike Pence, then the vice-president, stop the certification of Biden’s election win on January 6.The scheme – one of several devised by Eastman and political operatives working from a Trump “war room” in the Willard hotel in Washington – called for Pence to refuse to count the electoral college votes for Biden and ultimately return Trump to the presidency.But Eastman refused to turn over several hundred emails related to the effort despite a subpoena from the select committee, claiming that those communications were protected by attorney-client privilege since he acted as counsel to the former president.Carter ruled that the possible criminal activity between Trump and Eastman in the days leading up to 6 January meant one document was subject to the so-called crime-fraud exception to claims of attorney-client privilege and must therefore be released to the panel.The document is an email chain forwarded to Eastman by Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani that recommended the then vice-president, Mike Pence, reject electors for Biden at the certification of his election victory in the 2020 election, the ruling said.In the draft memo that advanced the plan to obstruct the congressional certification, the Trump lawyers transformed their interpretation of the Electoral Count Act that governed the process into a day-by-day plan that they knew violated the statute, the ruling said.“Because the memo likely furthered the crimes of obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the United States, it is subject to the crime-fraud exception and the court orders it to be disclosed,” Carter wrote.The crime-fraud exception does not require a completed crime or fraud, the ruling said, only that the client consulted the attorney in an effort to complete one. The exception applies even if the attorney does not participate in the criminal activity.But the select committee indicated they believed Eastman had engaged in criminal activity after he conceded in a separate email that his scheme to have Pence stop or adjourn Biden’s certification on 6 January was unlawful – yet urged Pence to do it anyway.The judge appeared to agree with the panel and said in the ruling that even if Eastman might be correct that the Electoral Count Act was at odds with the constitution, it did not give Trump license to defy, or allow him to circumvent, the statute.“Disagreeing with the law entitled President Trump to seek a remedy in court, not to disrupt a constitutionally mandated process,” Judge Carter said. “This plan was a last-ditch attempt to secure the presidency by any means.”TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
Republican senator says tax rises in own plan are ‘Democratic talking points’
Republican senator says tax rises in own plan are ‘Democratic talking points’Rick Scott of Florida grilled on Fox News Sunday about suggested income tax rise and letting social security and Medicare fall A Republican senator and reputed presidential hopeful found himself in a tough spot when he claimed tax rises contained in his own “11 point plan to rescue America” were “Democratic talking points” instead.‘Rick Scott had us on lockdown’: how Florida said no to $70m for HIV crisisRead more“No, no, it’s in the plan!” his interviewer exclaimed, on Fox News Sunday. “It’s in the plan!”Rick Scott, from Florida, is a former healthcare chief executive whose company admitted 14 felonies related to fraudulent practices. As the South Florida Sun-Sentinel put it, “most happened under Scott’s leadership”.As the Guardian reported, when Scott was governor of Florida “his administration presided over the effective blocking of $70m in federal funds available for fighting the state’s HIV crisis”.Scott beat an incumbent Democrat for a Senate seat in 2018 and is now chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) as the party eyes a Senate takeover in the midterm elections.Last month, Scott released an “11 Point Plan to Rescue America”. It proposes that more Americans pay federal income tax and says Congress could “sunset” social security and Medicare within five years, meaning allow them to lapse.The plan immediately came under fire.The non-partisan Institution on Taxation and Economic Policy (Itep) said Scott’s plan “would increase taxes by more than $1,000 on average for the poorest 40% of Americans”.Itep also noted the effect Scott’s plan would have on Republican heartlands, saying the states most affected, “where more than 40% of residents would face tax increases, are … Mississippi, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Georgia, New Mexico, South Carolina and … Florida”.Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, disowned the plan, saying: “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people and sunsets social security and Medicare within five years.”Dana Milbank, a Washington Post columnist, said Scott had given Democrats a much-needed election-year gift.“All Democrats need do,” he wrote, regarding a plan which would also cut trade with China and slash tax-gathering resources, “is repeat Scott’s own words.”The Fox News Sunday host John Roberts asked Scott: “Why would you propose something like that in an election year?”Scott said Roberts was repeating “Democrat talking points”.“No, no, it’s in the plan!” Roberts said. “It’s in the plan!”Scott said: “But here’s the thing about reality for a second.”Roberts said: “But, Senator, hang on. It’s not a Democratic talking point! It’s in the plan!”Scott defended his plan, saying, “We ought to every year talk about exactly how we are going to fix Medicare and social security” but “no one that I know of wants to sunset” either.“Here’s what’s unfair,” he added, of his tax plan. “We have people that … could go to work and have figured out how to have government pay their way. That’s not right. They ought to have some skin in the game. I don’t care if it’s a dollar. We ought to all be in this together.”Scott is reportedly Donald Trump’s choice to replace McConnell as Senate leader – an effort that shows no sign of succeeding.Scott was asked if, with a Wall Street Journal column entitled “Why I’m Defying Beltway Cowardice”, he was calling McConnell a coward. He dodged the question, saying he wanted “to get something done”.Complaining about “the woke left” and Democratic policy on immigration and energy, he said: “We’ve got to change this. You don’t change it without having a plan.”TopicsUS midterm elections 2022RepublicansUS taxationUS domestic policyUS SenateUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
Taliban reversal on girls’ education derails US plan for diplomatic recognition
Taliban reversal on girls’ education derails US plan for diplomatic recognitionJoint event had been planned ahead of Doha Forum that would have set process in motion to grant group diplomatic recognition The US was poised to set the Taliban on the path to diplomatic recognition before the plan was derailed by the Afghan rulers’ sudden U-turn on a promise to allow girls’ education, the Guardian understands.The group prompted international outrage and confusion on Wednesday when it reneged on a deal to allow teenage girls to go to secondary school, just a week after the education ministry announced that schools would open for all students.Taliban decide against opening schools to girls in Afghanistan beyond age of 11Read moreUS diplomats had been so optimistic that the Taliban would make good on the promise that a joint event had been planned ahead of this weekend’s Doha Forum in Qatar that would have set the process in motion to grant diplomatic recognition to the group.A seat had been reserved for the Taliban at a panel at the forum dedicated to girls’ education in which a Taliban representative would have addressed the role of women with Afghan female activists.The sudden reversal undermined the argument that a more “moderate” leadership now dominates the Taliban, and such optimism was further clouded this weekend when the group ordered Afghanistan television stations to remove BBC news bulletins in Pashto, Persian and Uzbek.In a statement on Sunday the BBC said “This is a worrying development at a time of uncertainty and turbulence for the people of Afghanistan. More than 6 million Afghans consume the BBC’s independent and impartial journalism on TV every weekWestern officials made it clear that diplomatic recognition will be impossible unless the decision on girls’ education is reversed. The move will also make it harder the international community to raise money for an international pledging conference next week, and require tighter handling of any cash raised so that it does notThomas West, the US special envoy for Afghanistan, said: “I was surprised by the turnaround this last Wednesday and the world has reacted to it by condemning this move. It is a breach first and foremost of the Afghan people’s trust.“I believe hope is not all lost. I am hopeful we will see a reversal of that decision in the coming days.”But West defended the US engagement with the Taliban saying that a complete diplomatic rupture would mean abandoning 40 million Afghans amid growing concerns over a possible famine in the country.“We are talking about the modalities of an urgent humanitarian response, the need for more than a humanitarian response, a policy not just an admire the problem of a broken banking sector but find ways to fix it, a professionalisation of the Central Bank so that the international financial community can begin to have confidence in it, we are talking about terrorism and we are talking about women’s rights.“One of the first times we sat down in October in a formal setting they had a request of us ‘please put our civil servants – 500,000 – back to work’. We thought a logical place to start given the sector resonated so much in the international community was education. We had requests of them, as well. Number one, women and girls could attend at all levels across large swathes of Afghanistan. Number two we wanted to see a monitoring mechanism and third there be a serious and rigorous curriculum. Over the following the months the international community receive the necessary assurances, and more importantly the Afghan people were told on March 23 we would see girls attend secondary education and that did not occur.”Hosna Jalil, a former interior minister was one of many Afghan women at Doha to claim the Taliban will not be able to keep a lid on the demand for education. She said the last 20 years had not been a waste but left a positive legacy. “We facilitated a generation, two thirds of the population, that knows what a better life looks like. That is why we will not give up. They are loud, they believe in freedom and democracy.”Malala Yousafzai, who won the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize for her fight for all children’s right to education, told the Forum that times had changed since the Taliban first banned girls’ education in 1996. Taliban U-turn over Afghan girls’ education reveals deep leadership divisionsRead more“It is much harder this time – that is because women have seen what it means to be educated, what it means to be empowered. This time is going to be much harder for the Taliban to maintain the ban on girls’ education. They are learning in the hide-outs. They are protesting on the streets. This ban will not last forever. They were waiting outside the school gates in their uniforms and they were crying. Seeking education is a duty of every Muslim,” she said.Dalia Fahmhy, an Afghan professor of political science said in 1999 no girls were in secondary schools. “Within 15 years later there were 3.7 million girls. Over that period a thousand women became business owners. This cannot be curtailed. We live in a digital age and 68 % have cellphones and 22 % are connected to each other and to the world. This cannot be curtailed. 27 % of the parliament were women.”TopicsTalibanAfghanistanUS foreign policyUS politicsSouth and Central AsianewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
Questions abound as Trump raises – and hoards – huge sums of 2024 cash
Questions abound as Trump raises – and hoards – huge sums of 2024 cash Without any declared candidacy, and with little spent on Republican candidates, the purpose of Trump’s war chest remains opaque Donald Trump’s ferocious money-raising machine, powered in equal measure by grassroots giving and large individual and corporate donations, has never really stopped turning – and it is currently raising huge sums of cash.Bannon’s escape plan: how the Trump strategist is trying to dodge prisonRead moreAs of this month, Trump has $123m saved in his Save America political fund, more than the Republican and Democratic national committees combined, and 12 times as much as the fund – Pac for the Future – for the Democratic House speaker, Nancy Pelosi.And all of that has been raised while Trump’s own ambitions remain unclear. Though his grip on the Republican party remains tight – and he has waged an endorsement war against his opponents – the big question over whether Trump will run again for the White House remains unanswered.Without any declared candidacy, his war chest’s purpose and thus also that of its master, is unclear – and deliberately so.Trump cannot easily spend the money on himself should he decide to run in 2024. Save America is registered as a leadership pac, or political action committee, not a campaign tool himself for himself. Yet Trump is not yet spending much, according to its “leadership” purpose of supporting Republican candidates going into this year’s hotly contested midterm elections.Despite Trump’s more than 120 Republican endorsements, and even as Democrats pour money into the effort to retain control of Congress, the massive accumulation of cash under his control raises the question: what is it for?Trump has not stopped raising money since he left office, either through thousands of small donations raised at Trump rallies or online, or via the big donor money-machine that Democrats cannot match – being schmoozed by Trump himself on the golf course and in the dining room at Mar-a-Lago.Since Trump founded Save America in November 2020, the group has raised $124m – the largest war chest ever built by an ex-president – but spent only about $14m, or around 11%.In contrast, the main fund for supporting Senate Republican candidates has spent about 80% of the $135m it raised since the start of 2021, while its main fund for congressional candidates has spent half of the $162m it has raised in the same period.The question of Trump’s pac money is beginning to vex strategists on both sides of the political divide. It could be a fund designed to ensure the loyalty of Republican allies forming a new power base within the party, or he may have other designs – namely securing his own path forwards by securing the political future of loyalists.“It’s consistent with Trump’s political priorities – Trump first above everything else – and makes him well positioned for a presidential run in 2024,” said the Democratic consultant Carly Cooperman.“It’s possible he decides to make a big splash in competitive races as we get closer to the midterm elections, but above all, Trump’s immense popularity and ability to raise large sums of money makes him even more powerful in the Republican party,” Cooperman added.According to FEC financial disclosures, Save America spent more than $3m on events through February, $2m on consulting services, including to law firms representing witnesses sought by committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot, including the Trump aide Dan Scavino and Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich.It also spent $300,000 on ads, $200,000 in contributions to Republican congressional candidates, and at least $170,000 at hotels owned by Trump for lodging, meals and the renting of hotel facilities.Budowich, communications director for both Save America and Trump, told Reuters that the former president was supporting candidates through direct contributions, rallies and joint fundraisers – in other words, efforts that bind candidates to the former president.“Save America will not be telegraphing specific tactics or expenditures through the press,” Budowich told the news agency. “Every dollar raised will go to ensuring President Trump’s “America first” agenda is advanced through his endorsed candidates and causes.”“There is a lot of leeway to how the funds are spent,” says Michael Beckel of Issue One, a non-partisan group that advocates for campaign finance reform. “While he remains an unofficial candidate he can build his brand, draw further attention to himself by hosting large rallies, ostensibly to support other candidates in other states, but every rally has the upside of helping to boost his visibility and brand.”Trump is certainly on the move, holding rallies across the US with the usual aim of endorsing local supportive politicians. In some ways, it’s a substitute for social media blackout, in another it’s Trump connecting with his base in the way that has served him in the past.Earlier this month, he held a rally in South Carolina in support of Russell Fry, a state representative he endorsed to challenge the incumbent Republican congressman Tom Rice.Fry spoke briefly, before handing the podium back to Trump who continued for 20 minutes. “In 2024 we are going to take back that beautiful White House. I wonder who will do that. I wonder, I wonder,” Trump teased.But the consequences from straying from Trump’s agenda are also apparent. Last week, the former president withdrew his endorsement of Mo Brooks for “going woke” after the Alabama Senate candidate expressed doubt that the 2020 presidential election was a fraud.“Mo Brooks of Alabama made a horrible mistake recently when he went ‘woke’ and stated, referring to the 2020 presidential election scam, ‘Put that behind you, put that behind you,’” Trump said, as he withdrew his endorsement.But Trump’s enduring influence efforts are not limited to rallies or building his power base. Last Tuesday, Axios reported that Donald Trump Jr is planning to launch a mobile news app after the bumpy launch of Truth Social, a Trump-aligned social media network “that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating against political ideology”.The aggregator site comes with high ambitions to compete with Apple and Google’s news aggregators, and to supplant the Drudge Report that has lost traffic and influence since founder Matt Drudge undercut the White House message on Covid deaths at the peak of the pandemic.A spokesman said that the news site, MxM (short for “Minute by Minute”), will carry the tag “mainstream news without the mainstream bias” and would carry news “from a variety of publishers across the ideological spectrum”.With about 12 employees, an ideologically copacetic news site, could be a useful too. But it is still Trump’s money that is the focus of interest when it comes to his future ambitions.Under election finance laws, should Trump decide to run in 2024, he would have to start a new campaign fund. His previous pac committee, Donald J Trump for President (since renamed The Make America Great Again Pac) still has more than $6m in it, after raising $13m in 2021.“The life of a political action committee after a candidate leaves office can morph to supporting other candidates,” explained Beckel. “The bulk of the money Trump has been raising is for Save America, but he also has a conduit vehicle so a donor can write one check and it’s split between buckets according to political contribution limits.”But how Trump will spend the money remains an open question, Beckel says. “He could shape the 2022 midterms or other future elections significantly if he decides to unleash it. One can predict from how other former president or politicians have spent their money, but Donald Trump is not a conventional politician.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More
