Latest news with #Congress
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Business
- Yahoo
New ‘bonus' tax deduction up to $6,000 could be on the way for those age 65 or older
If the massive tax package currently being debated in Congress becomes law, Americans who are 65 and older will enjoy a hefty new tax break: An additional $4,000 to $6,000 drop in taxable income, thanks to a new additional standard deduction. The House version of the tax bill calls for a $4,000 additional deduction, while the Senate version ramps that up to $6,000. The House approved its version in May, and the Senate is working now to bring its version to a vote. Then the two chambers will need to massage each bill into one cohesive whole, before sending it to President Donald Trump for signature. The potential bad news for taxpayers? There would be income limits, with the value of the tax break phasing out starting at a modified adjusted gross income of $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for married-filing-jointly filers. This new tax break would be temporary, in effect only from 2025 through 2028. 'The bottom line is if you're in the modified adjusted gross income that gets this, it will save you on taxes,' says Mark Gallegos, a CPA and tax partner at Porte Brown LLC in Chicago. This would put 'more money back in people's pockets, and I think that's the whole point,' he says. House version Senate version Additional standard deduction $4,000 $6,000 Income limits Starts to phase out at income of $75,000 for single filers, $150,000 for couples Starts to phase out at income of $75,000 for single filers, $150,000 for couples Permanent or temporary? Temporary; in effect from 2025 through 2028 Temporary; in effect from 2025 through 2028 Available to taxpayers who itemize? Yes Yes It seems likely that this new tax break would be added on top of the existing additional standard deduction that Americans who are 65 and older already enjoy. In 2025, that additional standard deduction is worth $2,000 for a single filer aged 65 or older, or $3,200 for a married-filing-jointly couple if both spouses are age 65 or older (if just one spouse is 65+, the additional deduction is $1,600). Neither the House nor Senate proposals are clear about whether the new tax break would be added on to that existing tax perk, says Mark Luscombe, a CPA and principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting in Chicago. Nothing indicates that it would replace the existing additional deduction, 'so my interpretation is it's in addition,' Luscombe says. Keep in mind, too, that both bills propose an increase to the existing standard deduction that's available to all taxpayers. This gets a bit complicated, so let's back up a bit: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act essentially doubled the value of the standard deduction, effective from 2018 through 2025. Now, both the House and Senate tax bills would make that tax change permanent. On top of that, each of the bills would give the standard deduction a slight bump: The House bill would temporarily increase the standard deduction by $2,000 for joint filers, $1,500 for head of household filers and $1,000 for single filers and those married filing separately, effective 2025 through 2028. The Senate bill would permanently increase the standard deduction by those same amounts, starting in 2026. So if one of these bills becomes law, then taxpayers aged 65 or older would enjoy the slightly higher standard deduction, plus their regular additional standard deduction, plus the new additional standard deduction. Here's an example of how these tax breaks would work, assuming the Senate's $6,000 version becomes law and assuming the new tax break is on top of the existing additional deduction. Example based on Senate's proposed bill A 70-year-old single taxpayer with taxable income of $50,000 in 2026 likely would qualify for these deductions: $16,000 standard deduction $2,000 existing additional standard deduction $6,000 new additional standard deduction That adds up to a $24,000 total deduction. Thus, $50,000 minus $24,000 = $26,000 taxable income. That reduction in taxable income would drop the taxpayer into the 12 percent tax bracket, from the 22 percent tax bracket. Learn more: Current tax brackets and federal income tax rates This new additional standard deduction would be in lieu of tax-free Social Security benefits for retirees, an idea touted by Trump on the campaign trail. That's because changing how Social Security benefits are taxed would be complex — and costly, reducing government revenues by as much as $1.5 trillion over 10 years, according to an estimate by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Adding an extra standard deduction is simpler and cheaper. The $4,000 proposal in the House bill would reduce government revenue by an estimated $66 billion over 10 years, according to a report from the Bipartisan Policy Center. Also, the proposed tax break would help out lower-income taxpayers more than ending taxes on Social Security benefits would have, Luscombe says. For one, Social Security beneficiaries with lower incomes generally don't owe taxes on their benefits — that's a fate that hits higher-income beneficiaries. Plus, the proposed new tax break – both the Senate and House versions — has income limits that would skew the benefit toward lower-income taxpayers. 'This proposal has a phase-out, which is unusual for a standard deduction,' Luscombe says. 'That would tend to focus it on lower- to middle-income taxpayers.' Also unusual for a standard deduction? This one would be available to people who itemize their deductions. Still, 'very few people at these income levels are itemizing,' Luscombe says. 'Only about 10 percent of taxpayers currently itemize, even with the current standard deduction.' Learn more: How to choose between claiming the standard deduction and itemizing
Otago Daily Times
17 minutes ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Trump to decide US' Israel-Iran action in next two weeks
President Donald Trump will decide in the next two weeks whether the U.S. will get involved in the Israel-Iran air war, the White House said, raising pressure on Tehran to come to the negotiating table. Citing a message from Trump, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters: "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks." The Republican president has kept the world guessing on his plans, veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the U.S. might join the fighting on Israel's side. On Wednesday (local time), he said nobody knew what he would do. A day earlier he mused on social media about killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then demanded Iran's unconditional surrender. The threats have caused cracks in Trump's support base between more hawkish traditional Republicans and the party's more isolationist elements. But critics said that in the five months since returning to office, Trump has issued a range of deadlines - including to warring Russia and Ukraine and to other countries in trade tariff negotiations - only to suspend those deadlines or allow them to slide. "I think going to war with Iran is a terrible idea, but no one believes this 'two weeks' bit," Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on the social media platform X. "He's used it a million times before to pretend he might be doing something he's not. It just makes America look weak and silly." Leavitt told a regular briefing at the White House that Trump was interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran, but his top priority was ensuring that Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon. She said any deal would have to prohibit enrichment of uranium by Tehran and eliminate Iran's ability to achieve a nuclear weapon. "The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution ... if there's a chance for diplomacy, the president's always going to grab it," Leavitt said. "But he's not afraid to use strength as well I will add." BYPASSING CONGRESS? Leavitt declined to say if Trump would seek congressional authorization for any strikes on Iran. Democrats have raised concerns over reports on CBS and other outlets that Trump has already approved a plan to attack Iran, bypassing Congress, which has the sole power to declare war. Leavitt said U.S. officials remained convinced that Iran had never been closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, saying it would take Tehran just "a couple of weeks" to produce such a weapon. Leavitt's assessment contradicted congressional testimony in March from Trump's intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard. She said then that the U.S. intelligence community continued to judge that Tehran was not working on a nuclear warhead. This week, Trump dismissed Gabbard's March testimony, telling reporters: "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having one." On Wednesday, Trump lieutenant Steve Bannon urged caution about the U.S. joining Israel in trying to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Israel bombed nuclear targets in Iran on Thursday and Iran fired missiles and drones at Israel after hitting an Israeli hospital overnight, as a week-old air war escalated and neither side showed any sign of an exit strategy. Leavitt said Trump had been briefed on the Israeli operation on Thursday and remained in close communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She said Iran was in "a deeply vulnerable position" and would face grave consequences if it did not agree to halt its work on a nuclear weapon. Iran has been weighing wider options in responding to the biggest security challenge since its 1979 revolution. Three diplomats told Reuters that Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi have spoken by phone several times since Israel began its strikes last week.
NBC News
17 minutes ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Judge blocks Trump plan to tie states' transportation funds to immigration enforcement
A federal judge on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from forcing 20 Democratic-led states to cooperate with immigration enforcement in order to receive billions of dollars in transportation grant funding. Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island ruled that the U.S. Department of Transportation lacked authority to require the states to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to obtain transportation funding and that the condition violated the U.S. Constitution. McConnell said the administration provided no plausible connection between cooperating with immigration enforcement and the purposes Congress intended for the funding, which is to support highways, bridges and other transportation projects. 'Congress did not authorize or grant authority to the Secretary of Transportation to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal dollars specifically appropriated for transportation purposes,' McConnell wrote. The judge, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, issued a preliminary injunction preventing such a condition from being enforced against the 20 states that sued along with their government subdivisions, like cities. The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment. It has argued the policy was within the department's discretion. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic state attorneys general who argued the administration was seeking to unlawfully hold federal funds hostage to coerce them into adhering to the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda. They sued after U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on April 24 notified states they could lose transportation funding if they do not cooperate with the enforcement of federal law, including with ICE in its efforts to enforce immigration law. Since returning to office on January 20, Trump has signed several executive orders that have called for cutting off federal funding to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that do not cooperate with ICE, as his administration has moved to conduct mass deportations. Sanctuary jurisdictions generally have laws and policies that limit or prevent local law enforcement from assisting federal officers with civil immigration arrests. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a statement, hailed McConnell's ruling, saying Trump had been 'treating these funds — funds that go toward improving our roads and keeping our planes in the air — as a bargaining chip.' The 20 states are separately pursuing a similar case also in Rhode Island, challenging new immigration enforcement conditions the Homeland Security Department imposed on grant programs.
India.com
17 minutes ago
- Politics
- India.com
Goa Congress Alleges Rs 7,200 Crore Annual Loss From Illegal Liquor Smuggling
Goa Pradesh Congress Committee has blamed the state government for permitting open smuggling of liquor, which is causing an estimated loss of Rs 7,200 crore per annum. State Congress president Amit Patkar alleged that at least ten trucks carrying liquor worth Rs 2 crore each cross the Patradevi border every day to reach states such as Gujarat, where alcohol is banned. Patkar pointed out a recent case in which a truck carrying liquor caught fire at Dhargalim, questioning why authorities did not act. "The truck is registered with the transport department, but the police and excise people say they can't identify its owner. How is this possible?" he asked, condemning the excise department for not having mechanisms to trace or intercept illegally made and packaged liquor exiting Goa. Blaming the state government's reaction, Patkar said 36 hours after the Dhargalim incident, both the excise department and the police had done nothing, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was quiet. "This is a national threat," he said, asking Chief Minister Pramod Sawant to explain the source and destination of the smuggled liquor by Thursday. Patkar threatened that unless answers were provided, Congress would protest outside the office of the Excise Commissioner. The charges have raised questions about sloppy enforcement and possible complicity, with Congress urging immediate action to stem the illegal trade.
Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Business
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump Extends Tiktok Ban Deadline for a Third Time, without Clear Legal Basis
AP file photo The TikTok app logo is shown on an iPhone on Friday, Jan. 17, 2025, in Houston. WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order to keep TikTok running in the U.S. for another 90 days to give his administration more time to broker a deal to bring the social media platform under American ownership. Trump disclosed the executive order on the Truth Social platform Thursday morning. 'He's making an extension so we can get this deal done,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday. 'It's wildly popular. He also wants to protect Americans' data and privacy concerns on this app. And he believes we can do both at the same time.' It is the third time Trump has extended the deadline. The first one was through an executive order on Jan. 20, his first day in office, after the platform went dark briefly when a national ban — approved by Congress and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court — took effect. The second was in April when White House officials believed they were nearing a deal to spin off TikTok into a new company with U.S. ownership that fell apart after China backed out following Trump's tariff announcement. It is not clear how many times Trump can — or will — keep extending the ban as the government continues to try to negotiate a deal for TikTok, which is owned by China's ByteDance. While there is no clear legal basis for the extensions, so far there have been no legal challenges to fight them. Trump has amassed more than 15 million followers on TikTok since he joined last year, and he has credited the trendsetting platform with helping him gain traction among young voters. He said in January that he has a 'warm spot for TikTok.' TikTok praised Trump for signing an extension Thursday. 'We are grateful for President Trump's leadership and support in ensuring that TikTok continues to be available for more than 170 million American users and 7.5 million U.S. businesses that rely on the platform as we continue to work with Vice President Vance's Office,' the company said in a statement. As the extensions continue, it appears less and less likely that TikTok will be banned in the U.S. any time soon. The decision to keep TikTok alive through an executive order has received some scrutiny, but it has not faced a legal challenge in court — unlike many of Trump's other executive orders. Jeremy Goldman, analyst at Emarketer, called TikTok's U.S situation a 'deadline purgatory.' The whole thing 'is starting to feel less like a ticking clock and more like a looped ringtone. This political Groundhog Day is starting to resemble the debt ceiling drama: a recurring threat with no real resolution.' That's not stopping TikTok from pushing forward with its platform, Forrester analyst Kelsey Chickering says. 'TikTok's behavior also indicates they're confident in their future, as they rolled out new AI video tools at Cannes this week,' Chickering notes. 'Smaller players, like Snap, will try to steal share during this 'uncertain time,' but they will not succeed because this next round for TikTok isn't uncertain at all.' For now, TikTok continues to function for its 170 million users in the U.S., and tech giants Apple, Google and Oracle were persuaded to continue to offer and support the app, on the promise that Trump's Justice Department would not use the law to seek potentially steep fines against them. Americans are even more closely divided on what to do about TikTok than they were two years ago. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that about one-third of Americans said they supported a TikTok ban, down from 50% in March 2023. Roughly one-third said they would oppose a ban, and a similar percentage said they weren't sure. Among those who said they supported banning the social media platform, about 8 in 10 cited concerns over users' data security being at risk as a major factor in their decision, according to the report. Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the Trump administration is once again 'flouting the law and ignoring its own national security findings about the risks' posed by a China-controlled TikTok. 'An executive order can't sidestep the law, but that's exactly what the president is trying to do,' Warner added.
