ReportWire

Tag: taxes

  • The tax implications of moving to Québec – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    Two tax systems

    Unlike other parts of Canada, you file two tax returns when you live in Québec: a federal tax return with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and a provincial tax return with Revenu Québec. 

    In addition to a federal T1 tax return, you file a provincial TP1 tax return. This alone can add complexity and, in many cases, higher accounting costs—especially if you have a business, significant investment income, or multiple sources of income.

    Québec tax rates

    The tax rates in Québec are relatively high compared to other provinces. This is noticeable particularly at lower- and middle-income levels. The gap tends to narrow at higher incomes, but taxpayers can expect to pay more in Québec than the rates payable in Ontario or western provinces. 

    For example, at $75,000 of taxable income, a Québec resident would pay about $17,000 of tax, ignoring tax deductions or credits. In Ontario, that same taxpayer would pay about $13,600 of tax. In Alberta, it would be roughly $14,100. 

    Tax credits and social programs for families

    Like other parts of Canada, there are province-specific credits and programs that apply. Two appealing ones for families are the Québec Parental Insurance Plan (QPIP) and subsidized daycare program.

    The QPIP replaces federal employment insurance (EI) parent benefits by providing income to parents after the birth or adoption of a child. It is more generous and flexible, and administered through payroll. 

    Income Tax Guide for Canadians

    Deadlines, tax tips and more

    Licensed daycare centres offer heavily subsidized care with a flat fee of about $10 per day. 

    Child benefits—the Allocation familiale (Québec Family Allowance)—is integrated with the Canada Child Benefit (CCB). Québec residents receive a lower CCB in recognition of the provincial benefits provided in that province. The combined total is comparable to what a parent would receive in other provinces. 

    Article Continues Below Advertisement


    Québec Pension Plan for retirees

    The Québec Pension Plan (QPP) complements the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) for retiree pension benefits. Just like an employee or self-employed person in other parts of Canada pays CPP premiums, a Québec worker pays QPP premiums. The two programs coordinate benefits, including retirement pensions. 

    If you worked in both Québec and elsewhere in Canada, and apply for your pension while living outside Québec, you apply to the CPP. If you always worked in Québec but live outside of Québec in retirement, you apply to the QPP with Retraite Québec. 

    Expatriates who retire outside of Canada apply to the Retraite Québec if the last province they lived in was Québec; otherwise, they apply for CPP with Service Canada. 

    Sales tax

    Québec sales tax includes both the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the Québec Sales Tax (QST), as opposed to the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) that applies in some other provinces. 

    QST may apply to some goods and services that are exempt from GST, so there can be some differences versus other provinces. 

    Companies providing services or selling goods in the province of Québec may need to register for and charge QST, despite living and generally operating outside of Québec. 

    Language requirements

    The provincial government and Revenu Québec operate primarily in French, though some English options may be available. This can result in another layer of administration for some taxpayers who are not bilingual. 

    Timing rule

    Like other provinces, your province of residency is determined by where you live on December 31 of the tax year. So, even if you move to or from Québec on December 30, the final day of the calendar year is what determines your tax filing requirements. There is no proration for the year. 

    [ad_2]

    Jason Heath, CFP

    Source link

  • Letters: Protesters should celebrate a new beginning for Venezuela

    [ad_1]

    Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

    We should celebrate
    Venezuela’s new start

    Re: “Protests decry Trump’s actions” (Page A1, Jan. 5).

    How I would love to send the Bay Area protesters to South Florida, where residents are celebrating President Trump’s intervention in Venezuela. President Nicolás Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, are responsible for “one of the most dramatic political, economic and humanitarian collapses in modern history,” according to a Miami Herald piece (“Venezuela left to grapple with wreckage Maduro leaves behind“) published Sunday.

    [ad_2]

    Letters To The Editor

    Source link

  • California Tax Revenue Getting a Boost From AI Boom — but for How Long?

    [ad_1]

    As California becomes more dependent on tax revenue from the tech industry, its stake in the health of the artificial intelligence industry has grown.

    The state is seeing financial benefits from the AI boom, a new analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office shows. But the boom raises questions: Will it continue to be accompanied by a decline in tech and other jobs? Is it a bubble?

    Tax revenue from stock-option withholding paid by some of the state’s biggest tech companies made up about 10% of all income tax withholding in 2025, estimated Chas Alamo, the principal fiscal and policy analyst with the LAO. Alamo looked at tech companies’ public financial filings and other data through the second quarter of 2025. That figure would be about the same as 2024, and is up from more than 6% just three years ago, when he first did the analysis.

    The state’s biggest source of revenue is personal income tax. It’s common for tech companies to pay employees in stock options in addition to their base wages. Stock options that have vested and are fully owned by employees are treated like ordinary income for tax purposes, so companies pay withholding taxes on some of that income to the state and U.S. governments.

    Shining a spotlight on where the state’s tax revenue comes from is especially timely, when it needs all the revenue it can get. California is expected to have a nearly $18 billion budget deficit this year, with the state expecting to have to fill funding gaps because of cuts by President Donald Trump’s administration. But the state’s growing reliance on AI-driven revenue is risky for two reasons: fears that the technology is overhyped, and because AI’s rise threatens livelihoods.

    Alamo based his analysis on the performance of the state’s five most valuable tech companies by market value: Apple, Google, Nvidia, Broadcom and Meta. Shares of Nvidia, Broadcom and Google did especially well in 2025: They rose 25%, 46% and 59% for the year, respectively. Alamo also included Intel, Cisco, AMD, Intuit, PayPal, Applied Materials and Qualcomm in his analysis because they paid substantial amounts of withholding on their employees’ stock options.

    “We’re seeing a real boost to income-tax receipts because of this — for a relatively small number of employees,” Alamo told CalMatters. “If the AI market were to deteriorate, we could see these withholdings decline.”

    In other words, if the AI bubble pops, California could see a steep drop in tax revenue. That’s because there has been little job growth and wages are not rising, Alamo said, adding that the analyst’s office has been raising its concern over “the stagnant nature of the state’s labor market and broader economy” for the past couple of years. In September, the most recent data available, California’s unemployment rate rose to 5.6%, the highest among U.S. states.


    ‘AI is not a job-gainer’

    Despite the AI boom, the number of tech jobs in the Bay Area actually decreased from September 2024 to August 2025, according to the latest analysis by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, a think tank supported by the Bay Area Council, a business coalition. Jobs in the information industry were down 1.3% over that period, while jobs in professional and business services fell 1.5%. Some tech companies, such as San Francisco-based Salesforce, mentioned AI as a factor when they disclosed layoffs of thousands of employees.

    “Right now, on net, AI is not a job-gainer,” said Jeff Bellisario, executive director of the think tank. “The bigger question for us is, you put aside (tech companies’) valuation and think about the number of people employed in these companies.”

    Another analysis of employment data by the California Business Roundtable’s information arm, the California Center for Jobs and the Economy, shows a loss of more than 130,000 jobs in high tech, including manufacturing jobs, through the first quarter of last year.

    “Tech booms in the past have led to an employment boom,” Bellisario said. “This doesn’t feel like that.”

    There’s no consensus about whether this tech boom is set to go bust anytime soon. Some of the biggest AI optimists include Jensen Huang, chief executive of chipmaker Nvidia, who told investors in November: “There has been a lot of talk about an AI bubble. From our vantage point, we see something very different.”

    Another optimist is Dan Ives, longtime tech analyst and managing director at Wedbush Securities.

    “This is not a bubble,” he told CalMatters. “This is Year 3 of an eight- to 10-year buildout of the AI revolution.” Ives said AI could be huge for U.S. innovation, and that this moment in time reminds him “much more of a 1996 moment than a 1999 or 2000 moment.”

    In the mid-1990s, widespread adoption of personal computers and the advent of the graphical web browser paved the way for the dot-com boom and gave rise to companies such as Google, Netflix and PayPal. But by 2000 or shortly afterward, after the founders of those companies made their fortunes, many other internet companies had gone out of business — some in spectacular flameouts, such as Webvan or Pets.com.

    Today, there are signs that there are too many startups in certain subsectors, according to analysts at PitchBook, which tracks public and private capital markets. Among the ones they mentioned in their 2026 outlook: AI scribes in health care, which automatically generate medical notes; aerial defense drones; content development in gaming; personal assistant bots; and more. The analysts warned investors that startups would really need to differentiate themselves to bring value.

    Researchers for Allianz Trade, the global insurance company, wrote in a November brief: “The financial market frenzy over AI shows classic signs of an asset bubble: widespread consensus, unproven valuations and returns at times detached from earnings.” The researchers also said they were watching a lot of corporate spending on AI as concerns grow around tightening energy constraints. AI is driving demand for data centers, which are straining the electric grid.

    Discussion about a bubble aside, some tech-friendly experts point out that California’s reliance on AI means the state should help the sector succeed, such as by not overregulating it.

    “What’s important to remember is that California’s social safety net depends on a healthy tech industry, “ said Kaitlyn Harger, an economist for Chamber of Progress, a think tank funded by the tech industry. The financial cushion tech provides helps the state fund public-sector jobs, health services, education, social services and more, Harger said.

    California leads all states in trying to regulate AI, and is expected to fight against the president’s recent executive order to develop federal laws around AI that would supersede state laws.

    This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

    Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – December 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • 3 Big Changes for Retirement Planning this year

    [ad_1]

    For retirement savers and retirees, the new year brings more than the usual inflation adjustments to retirement contributions. The retirement legislation known as Secure 2.0 will also continue to phase in, and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will have impacts too.

    Here’s a roundup of three key changes and some moves to consider.

    Thanks to a provision in the Secure 2.0 retirement legislation, high-income earners (with $150,000 or more in FICA income in the prior year) who are over 50 and investing in 401(k) or other company retirement plans must make catch-up contributions to their plans’ Roth option, rather than traditional tax-deferred contributions, starting this year.

    For 2026, 401(k) investors under 50 can contribute $24,500 to their company plans, plus $8,000 in catch-up contributions if they’re over 50, for a total of $32,500. In addition, people age 60 to 63 can make “super-catch-up” contributions: $11,250 on top of $24,500.

    Potential Action Items:Some 401(k) plans may not have a Roth option, so those participants should instead consider making a full IRA contribution in addition to their baseline 401(k) contributions ($24,500).This year, the IRA contribution limit is $8,600 for people over 50and $7,500 for those under 50. If you can invest even more than that, steer the overage to a taxable brokerage account.

    A separate issue is how 401(k) investors should proceed if their goal is to make traditional tax-deferred contributions rather than Roth. Secure 2.0 forces higher-income older workers into Roth, at least with the catch-up portion of their contributions. In that case, workers can contribute the base 401(k) limit ($24,500) to the traditional tax-deferred option, with catch-up contributions directed to the Roth option.

    Thanks to OBBBA, taxpayers can now deduct a higher amount of state and local taxes. The SALT deduction cap was increased from $10,000 to $40,000 starting in 2025. It will revert to $10,000 in 2030.

    Potential Action Items:How is this related to retirement? The amount of SALT that’s deductible phases out for higher-income taxpayers—those with modified adjusted gross incomes over $500,000. High-income earners should consider ways to come in under $500,000 if they’re close. They might favor contributions to traditional tax-deferred retirement plans rather than Roth or max out their health savings accounts. Qualifying for the higher SALT tax deduction might also argue against strategies that increase income, such as converting traditional IRAs to Roth.

    Of course, don’tmiss the forest for the trees. Strategies like making Roth contributions or converting IRAs might make sense long-term, even if they curtail the deductibility of SALT.

    Through 2028, people 65and up can take advantage of a new $6,000 deduction. It’savailable whether you itemize or not and doubles to $12,000 for married couples filing jointly, assuming both are 65. For non-itemizers, the new deduction would stack on top of standard deductions.

    Here’s how the deductions look this year:

      1. Single filers (standard deduction): $16,100

      2. Single filers over 65: $16,100+ $2,050 + $6,000 = $24,150

      3. Married couples filing jointly (standard deduction): $32,200

      4. Married couples over 65 filing jointly: $32,200 + $1,650×2 + $6,000×2 = $47,500

    Higher-income seniors, take note: Income limits apply. The deduction is reduced for single filers with modified adjusted gross incomes over $75,000 and married couples filing jointly with MAGI over $150,000.It goes away entirely for singles with MAGI over $175,000 and married couples filing jointly with MAGI of $250,000 or more.

    Potential Action Items: Early retirees who have a lot of control over their taxable income levels because they’re not yet receiving Social Security or subject to required minimum distributions may be tempted to try to keep MAGI down to qualify for the full deduction. But it’s wise to balance those aims alongside other worthwhile tactics, such as converting traditional IRA balances to Roth.

    ____

    This article was provided to The Associated Press by Morningstar. For more retirement content, go to https://www.morningstar.com/retirement.

    ChristineBenz is director of personal finance and retirement planning for Morningstar.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US-based multinational companies will be exempt from global tax deal

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — U.S. multinational corporations will be exempted from paying more corporate taxes overseas in a deal finalized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    The OECD announced Monday that nearly 150 countries have agreed on the plan, initially crafted in 2021, to stop large global companies from shifting profits to low-tax countries, no matter where they operate in the world.

    The amended version excludes large U.S.-based multinational corporations from the 15% global minimum tax after negotiations between President Donald Trump’s administration and other members of the Group of Seven wealthy nations.

    OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann said in a statement that the agreement is a “landmark decision in international tax co-operation” and “enhances tax certainty, reduces complexity, and protects tax bases.”

    U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called the agreement “a historic victory in preserving U.S. sovereignty and protecting American workers and businesses from extraterritorial overreach.”

    The most recent version of the deal waters down a landmark 2021 agreement that set a minimum global corporate tax of 15%. The idea was to stop multinational corporations, including Apple and Nike, from using accounting and legal maneuvers to shift earnings to low- or no-tax havens.

    Those havens are typically places like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, where the companies actually do little or no business.

    Former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was a key driver of the 2021 OECD global tax deal and made the corporate minimum tax one of her top priorities. The plan was widely panned by congressional Republicans who said it would make the U.S. less competitive in a global economy.

    The Trump administration in June re-negotiated the deal when congressional Republicans rolled back a so-called revenge tax provision from Trump’s big tax and spending bill that would have allowed the federal government to impose taxes on companies with foreign owners, as well as on investors from countries judged as charging “unfair foreign taxes” on U.S. companies.

    Tax transparency groups have criticized the amended OECD plan.

    “This deal risks nearly a decade of global progress on corporate taxation only to allow the largest, most profitable American companies to keep parking profits in tax havens,” said Zorka Milin, policy director at the FACT Coalition, a tax transparency nonprofit.

    Tax watchdogs argue the minimum tax is supposed to halt an international race to the bottom for corporate taxation that has led multinational businesses to book their profits in countries with low tax rates.

    Congressional Republicans applauded the finalized deal. Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith, R-Mo., said in a joint statement: “Today marks another significant milestone in putting America First and unwinding the Biden Administration’s unilateral global tax surrender.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Big Tech Blocked California Data Center Legislation, Leaving Only a Study Requirement

    [ad_1]

    Tools that power artificial intelligence devour energy. But attempts to shield regular Californians from footing the bill in 2025 ended with a law requiring regulators to write a report about the issue by 2027.

    If that sounds pretty watered down, it is. Efforts to regulate the energy usage of data centers — the beating heart of AI — ran headlong into Big Tech, business groups and the governor.

    That’s not surprising given that California is increasingly dependent on big tech for state revenue: A handful of companies pay upwards of $5 billion just on income tax withholding.

    The law mandating the report is the lone survivor of last year’s push to rein in the data-center industry. Its deadline means the findings won’t likely be ready in time for lawmakers to use in 2026. The measure began as a plan to give data centers their own electricity rate, shielding households and small businesses from higher bills.

    It amounts to a “toothless” measure, directing the utility regulator to study an issue it already has the authority to investigate, said Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney with The Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocate.

    Data centers’ enormous electricity demand has pushed them to the center of California’s energy debate, and that’s why lawmakers and consumer advocates say new regulations matter.

    For instance, the sheer amount of energy requested by data centers in California is prompting questions about costly grid upgrades even as speculative projects and fast-shifting AI loads make long-term planning uncertain. Developers have requested 18.7 gigawatts of service capacity for data centers, more than enough to serve every household in the state, according to the California Energy Commission.

    But the report could help shape future debates as lawmakers revisit tougher rules and the CPUC considers new policies on what data centers pay for power — a discussion gaining urgency as scrutiny of their rising electricity costs grows, he said.

    “It could be that the report helps the Legislature to understand the magnitude of the problem and potential solutions,” Freedman said. “It could also inform the CPUC’s own review of the reasonableness of rates for data center customers, which they are likely to investigate.”

    State Sen. Steve Padilla, D-Chula Vista, says that the final version of his law “was not the one we would have preferred,” agreeing that it may seem “obvious” the CPUC can study data center cost impacts. The measure could help frame future debates and at least “says unequivocally that the CPUC has the authority to study these impacts” as demand from data centers accelerates, Padilla added.

    “(Data centers) consume huge amounts of energy, huge amounts of resources, and at least in the near future, we’re not going to see that change,” he said.

    Earlier drafts of Padilla’s measure went further, requiring data centers to install large batteries to support the grid during peak demand and pushing utilities to supply them with 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030 — years ahead of the state’s own mandate. Those provisions were ultimately stripped out.


    How California’s first push to regulate data centers slipped away

    California’s bid to bring more oversight to data centers unraveled earlier this year under industry pressure, ending with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s veto of a bill requiring operators to report their water use. Concerns over the bills reflected fears that data-center developers could shift projects to other states and take valuable jobs with them.

    A September Stanford report on powering California data centers said the state risks losing property-tax revenue, union construction jobs and “valuable AI talent” if data-center construction moves out of state.

    The idea that increased regulation could lead to businesses or dollars in some form leaving California is an argument that has been brought up across industries for decades. It often does not hold up to more careful or long-term scrutiny.

    In the face of this opposition, two key proposals stalled in the Legislature’s procedural churn. Early in the session, Padilla put a separate clean-power incentives proposal for data centers on hold until 2026. Later in the year, an Assembly bill requiring data centers to disclose their electricity use was placed in the Senate’s suspense file — where appropriations committees often quietly halt measures.

    Newsom, who has often spoken of California’s AI dominance, echoed the industry’s competitiveness worries in his veto message of the water-use reporting requirement. The governor said he was reluctant to impose requirements on data centers, “without understanding the full impact on businesses and the consumers of their technology.”

    Despite last year’s defeats, some lawmakers say they will attempt to tackle the issue again.

    Padilla plans to try again with a bill that would add new rules on who pays for data centers’ long-term grid costs in California, while Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-San Ramon, will revisit her electricity-disclosure bill.


    Big Tech warns of job losses, but one advocate sees an opening

    After blocking most measures last year — and watering down the lone energy-costs bill — Big Tech groups say they’ll revive arguments that new efforts to regulate data centers could cost California jobs.

    “When we get to the details of what our regulatory regime looks like versus other states, or how we can make California more competitive … that’s where sometimes we struggle to find that happy medium,” he said.

    Despite having more regulations than some states, California continues to toggle between the 4th and 5th largest economy in the world and has for some time, suggesting that the Golden State is very competitive.

    Dan Diorio, vice president of state policy for the Data Center Coalition, another industry lobbying group, said new requirements on data centers should apply to all other large electricity users.

    “To single out one industry is not something that we think would set a helpful precedent, ” Diorio said. “We’ve been very consistent with that throughout the country.”

    Critics say job loss fears are overblown, noting California built its AI sector without the massive hyperscale facilities that typically gravitate to states with ample, cheaper land and streamlined permitting.

    Data-center locations — driven by energy prices, land and local rules — have little to do with where AI researchers live, said Shaolei Ren, an AI researcher at UC Riverside.

    “These two things are sort of separate, they’re decoupled,” he said.

    Freedman, of TURN, said lawmakers may have a bargaining chip: if developers cared about cheaper power, they wouldn’t be proposing facilities in a state with high electric rates. That means speed and certainty may be the priority, giving lawmakers the space to potentially offer quicker approvals in exchange for developers covering more grid costs.

    “There’s so much money in this business that the energy bills — even though large — are kind of like rounding errors for these guys,” Freedman said. “If that’s true, then maybe they shouldn’t care about having to pay a little bit more to ensure that costs aren’t being shifted to other customers.”

    This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

    Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – December 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Ontario Trillium Benefit payment dates in 2026, and more about the OTB – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    What is the Ontario Trillium Benefit? 

    The OTB is the combined payment of three provincial benefits for Ontario residents. You need to be eligible for at least one of these three credits to receive the benefit.

    • Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit (OEPTC): This tax-free credit applies to a portion of eligible Ontario residents’ property tax and sales tax on energy. Your OEPTC amount depends on several factors, including your age and marital status, as well as your energy costs, property tax or rent paid during the year. The maximum OEPTC is $1,461 for seniors aged 64 and older and $1,283 for other Canadians. 
    • The Northern Ontario Energy Credit (NOEC): This tax credit is available to eligible Northern Ontario residents and offsets the higher energy costs paid by those living in that part of the province. The NOEC amount you receive depends on many factors, including your adjusted family net income, your marital status and whether you have children. The maximum NOEC entitlement is $185 for single individuals with no children and $285 for couples and single parents. If you are a single individual with no children, the credit is reduced by 1% of your adjusted net income over $49,885. And if you are a family, the credit is reduced by 1% of your adjusted family net income over $64,138.
    • The Ontario Sales Tax Credit (OSTC): This is a tax-free payment to eligible Ontarians to offset sales tax. The OSTC provides a maximum annual credit of $371 for each adult and each child in a family. The amount received depends on your age and marital status. 

    Although the OTB is funded by the province of Ontario, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) administers the program on behalf of the province. 

    OTB payment dates for 2026

    The OTB is issued on the 10th day of the month, every month. If that date falls on a weekend or statutory holiday, it will be issued for the last “working day” before the 10th. The OTB payment schedule (known as the benefit year) runs from July to June of the following calendar year, because payments are based on your previous year’s tax returns. 

    The next 2025 OTB payments, based on your 2024 income tax return and issued in 2026, will be paid: 

    • January 9, 2026
    • February 10, 2026
    • March 10, 2026
    • April 10, 2026
    • May 8, 2026
    • June 10, 2026

    The 2026 OTB payments, based on your 2025 tax return and issued in 2026, will be paid: 

    • July 10, 2026
    • August 10, 2026
    • September 10, 2026
    • October 9, 2026
    • November 10, 2026
    • December 10, 2026

    Income Tax Guide for Canadians

    Deadlines, tax tips and more

    How much is the Ontario Trillium Benefit?

    The OTB you receive is equal to the combined amount for each of the Ontario energy and property tax credit, Northern Ontario energy credit and Ontario sales tax credit. 

    The amount received depends on your:

    • Age
    • Income
    • Residence
    • Number of family members within the household
    • Amount paid in rent or property tax

    You can estimate your OTB entitlement by using the Government of Canada’s and CRA’s child and family benefits calculator

    Article Continues Below Advertisement


    If your payment amount is more than $2 but less than $10, the amount is increased to $10. You will not receive a payment if the amount is for $2 or less. 

    In most cases, your annual OTB amount is divided by 12 and issued once per month. However, there are a few exceptions.

    How to receive a single OTB payment

    Ontarians with an OTB of $360 or less automatically receive their payment in a single lump sum. And if your OTB is $360 or more, you can choose to receive it in a single payment. Instead of receiving monthly payments from July 2026 to June 2027, those who opt for this option will receive a single payment at the end of the benefit year, in June 2027. 

    You can choose to receive a single OTB payment when filling out your 2025 tax return. Tick box 61060 in the area called “Choice for delayed single OTB payment” on Form ON‑BEN, Application for the Ontario Trillium Benefit and Ontario Senior Homeowners’ Property Tax Grant.

    Who can apply for the Ontario Trillium Benefit? 

    Ontario residents do not have to apply for the OTB. You are automatically eligible for 2026 OTB payments once you file your 2025 tax return. However, if your tax return is assessed on June 20, 2026, or later, the payment may be delayed, with your first payment issued within four to eight weeks of your assessment.

    FAQs

    Get free MoneySense financial tips, news & advice in your inbox.

    More payment dates to watch for:



    About Thomas Kent


    About Thomas Kent

    Thomas Kent is a reporter and author, specializing in personal finance and insurance. With nearly a decade of experience in digital media and financial writing, Thomas has produced high-quality content for leading Canadian finance brands and reported on complex insurance topics with clarity.

    [ad_2]

    Thomas Kent

    Source link

  • Trump delays increased tariffs on upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets and vanities for a year

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump signed a New Year’s Eve proclamation delaying increased tariffs on upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets and vanities for a year, citing ongoing trade talks

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed a New Year’s Eve proclamation delaying increased tariffs on upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets and vanities for a year, citing ongoing trade talks.

    Trump’s order signed Wednesday keeps in place a 25% tariff he imposed in September on those goods, but delays for another year a 30% tariff on upholstered furniture and 50% tariff on kitchen cabinets and vanities.

    The increases, which were set to take effect Jan. 1, come as the Republican president instituted a broad swath of taxes on imported goods to address trade imbalances and other issues.

    The president has said the tariffs on furniture are needed to “bolster American industry and protect national security.”

    The delay is the latest in the roller coaster of Trump’s tariffs wars since he returned to office last year, with the president announcing levies at times without warning and then delaying or pulling back from them just as abruptly.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal ruling blocks Hawaii’s climate change tourist tax on cruise ships

    [ad_1]

    HONOLULU — A federal appeals court ruling on New Year’s Eve blocked Hawaii from enforcing a climate change tourist tax on cruise ships passengers, a levy that was set to go into effect at the start of 2026.

    Cruise Lines International Association challenged the tax in a lawsuit, arguing that the new law violates the U.S. Constitution by taxing cruise ships for entering Hawaii ports. They also argued it would make cruises more expensive. The lawsuit notes the law authorizes counties to collect an additional 3% surcharge, bringing the total to 14% of prorated fares.

    The levy increases rates on hotel room and vacation rental stays but also imposes a new 11% tax on the gross fares paid by a cruise ship’s passenger, prorated for the number of days the vessels are in Hawaii ports. The lawsuit notes the law authorizes counties to collect an additional 3% surcharge, bringing the total to 14% of prorated fares.

    In the nation’s first such levy to help cope with a warming planet, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green signed legislation in May that raises tax revenue to deal with eroding shorelines, wildfires and other climate problems. Officials estimate the tax would generate nearly $100 million annually.

    U.S. District Judge Jill A. Otake last week upheld the law and the plaintiffs appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. government intervened in the case and also appealed Otake’s ruling.

    The order by two 9th Circuit judges granted both requests for an injunction pending the appeals.

    “We remain confident that Act 96 is lawful and will be vindicated when the appeal is heard on the merits,” Toni Schwartz, spokesperson for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, said in an email.

    The order temporarily halts enforcement of the law on cruise ships while the appeals process moves forward, her email noted.

    The lawsuit challenged only the law’s cruise ship provisions.

    Cruise Lines International Association spokesperson Jim McCarthy said he wasn’t sure he could get comment from the plaintiffs given the timing of the ruling before a holiday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal appeals court blocks Hawaii’s climate change tourist tax on cruise ships

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals court ruling on New Year’s Eve blocked Hawaii from enforcing a climate change tourist tax on cruise ship passengers, a levy that was set to go into effect at the start of 2026.

    Cruise Lines International Association challenged the tax in a lawsuit, arguing that the new law violates the U.S. Constitution by taxing cruise ships for entering Hawaii ports. They also argued it would make cruises more expensive. 

    The levy increases rates on hotel room and vacation rental stays but also imposes a new 11% tax on the gross fares paid by a cruise ship’s passenger, prorated for the number of days the vessels are in Hawaii ports. The lawsuit notes the law authorizes counties to collect an additional 3% surcharge, bringing the total to 14% of prorated fares.

    In the nation’s first such levy to help cope with a warming planet, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green signed legislation in May that raises tax revenue to deal with eroding shorelines, wildfires and other climate problems. Officials estimate the tax would generate nearly $100 million annually.

    U.S. District Judge Jill A. Otake last week upheld the law, and the plaintiffs appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. government intervened in the case and also appealed Otake’s ruling.

    The order by two 9th Circuit judges granted both requests for an injunction pending the appeals.

    “We remain confident that Act 96 is lawful and will be vindicated when the appeal is heard on the merits,” Toni Schwartz, spokesperson for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, said in an email.

    The order temporarily halts enforcement of the law on cruise ships while the appeals process moves forward, her email noted.

    The lawsuit challenged only the law’s cruise ship provisions.

    Cruise Lines International Association spokesperson Jim McCarthy said he wasn’t sure he could get a comment from the plaintiffs, given the timing of the ruling before a holiday.  

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Some states set to impose SNAP bans on soda, candy and other foods

    [ad_1]

    Starting New Year’s Day, some food-stamp recipients around the U.S. will be banned from using the government nutrition assistance to buy candy, soda and other foods. 

    Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia are the first of at least 18 states to enact waivers prohibiting people enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, from purchasing certain foods. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins have urged states to strip foods regarded as unhealthy from the $100 billion federal program.

    “We cannot continue a system that forces taxpayers to fund programs that make people sick and then pay a second time to treat the illnesses those very programs help create,” Kennedy said in a statement in December.

    The efforts are aimed at reducing chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes associated with sweetened drinks and other treats, a key goal of Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again effort.

    Confusion for SNAP recipients?

    But retail industry and health policy experts said state SNAP programs, already under pressure from steep budget cuts, are unprepared for the complex changes, with no complete lists of the foods affected and technical point-of-sale challenges that vary by state and store. And research remains mixed about whether restricting SNAP purchases improves diet quality and health.

    The National Retail Federation, a trade association, predicted longer checkout lines and more customer complaints as SNAP recipients learn which foods are affected by the new waivers.

    “It’s a disaster waiting to happen of people trying to buy food and being rejected,” said Kate Bauer, a nutrition science expert at the University of Michigan.

    The new restrictions are the latest source of concern for SNAP recipients. Food aid distributed under the program, which is used by 42 million Americans, was interrupted during the 43-day U.S. government shutdown. Reliance on food stamps typically surges during economic downturns, such as the sharp slump that followed the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020.

    Nearly 62% of SNAP participants are in families with children, while roughly 37% are in households with older adults or people with disabilities, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan think tank. 

    Roughly 14% of U.S. households reported food insecurity on average between January and October, up from 12.5% in 2024, according to Purdue’s Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability.

    While the prevalence of food insecurity around the U.S. fluctuates month to month, the overall rate had been declining since 2022, when an average of 15.4% of households were food insecure as inflation hit 40-year highs following the pandemic. 

    Retailers fear impact

    A report by the National Grocers Association and other industry trade groups estimated that implementing SNAP restrictions would cost U.S. retailers $1.6 billion initially and $759 million each year going forward.

    “Punishing SNAP recipients means we all get to pay more at the grocery store,” said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for the anti-hunger advocacy group Food Research & Action Center.

    The waivers are a departure from decades of federal policy first enacted in 1964 and later authorized by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which said SNAP benefits can be used for “any food or food product intended for human consumption,” except alcohol and ready-to-eat hot foods. The law also says SNAP can’t pay for tobacco.

    In the past, lawmakers have proposed stopping SNAP from paying for expensive meats like steak or so-called junk foods, such as chips and ice cream.

    But previous waiver requests were denied based on USDA research concluding that restrictions would be costly and complicated to implement, and that they might not change recipients’ buying habits or reduce health problems such as obesity.

    Under the second Trump administration, however, states have been encouraged and even incentivized to seek waivers – and they responded.

    “This isn’t the usual top-down, one-size-fits-all public health agenda,” Indiana Gov. Mike Braun said when he announced his state’s request last spring. “We’re focused on root causes, transparent information and real results.”

    How many people are affected

    The five state waivers that take effect Jan. 1 affect about 1.4 million people. Utah and West Virginia will ban the use of SNAP to buy soda and soft drinks, while Nebraska will prohibit soda and energy drinks. Indiana will target soft drinks and candy. In Iowa, which has the most restrictive rules to date, the SNAP limits affect taxable foods, including soda and candy, but also certain prepared foods.

    “The items list does not provide enough specific information to prepare a SNAP participant to go to the grocery store,” Plata-Nino wrote in a blog post. “Many additional items — including certain prepared foods — will also be disallowed, even though they are not clearly identified in the notice to households.”

    Marc Craig, 47, of Des Moines, said he has been living in his car since October. He said the new waivers will make it more difficult to determine how to use the $298 in SNAP benefits he receives each month, while also increasing the stigma he feels at the cash register.

    “They treat people that get food stamps like we’re not people,” Craig said.

    SNAP waivers enacted now and in the coming months will run for two years, with the option to extend them for an additional three, according to the Agriculture Department. Each state is required to assess the impact of the changes.

    Health experts worry that the waivers ignore larger factors affecting the health of SNAP recipients, said Anand Parekh, a medical doctor who is the chief health policy officer at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

    “This doesn’t solve the two fundamental problems, which is healthy food in this country is not affordable and unhealthy food is cheap and ubiquitous,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Big Beautiful Bill Act will impact charitable giving in new year

    [ad_1]

    New tax laws going into effect in the new year could impact charitable giving, which is why some people in the South Bay made it a point to make their donations Wednesday on New Year’s Eve.

    President Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Act makes some significant changes that will impact people making charitable gifts in 2026 and beyond, especially when it comes to itemizing deductions.

    The bill imposes a new floor on charitable contributions, so anyone can only deduct the amount “above” 0.5% of their adjusted gross income.

    So for example, if someone has an adjusted income of $200,000, their first $1,000 in donations is not tax deductible.

    [ad_2]

    Marianne Favro

    Source link

  • The big lesson of the 2020s? Don’t ignore the economists.

    [ad_1]

    The 2020s, so far, have been one long and often painful lesson in what happens when policymakers tell economists to shut up and go away.

    From the COVID-19 pandemic through Bidenflation and onto the Trump 2.0 trade wars, each successive administration to occupy the White House during this decade has made a critical error by assuming it could ignore economic principles—or simply substitute them for a different set of underlying assumptions. Those errors have been made in different ways and for different reasons, yes, but they share this common characteristic: a belief that economics is optional, and that tradeoffs can be eliminated if your motives are in the right place.

    But that is simply not true, as circumstances have shown again and again.

    Start with COVID, which is undeniably the defining story of the first half-plus-one-year of the 2020s. When the Trump administration and myriad state and local officials implemented lockdowns under the “15 days to slow the spread” promise in March 2020, it was largely at the behest of public health advisers.

    The dominant attitude driving lockdown policies that closed schools, businesses, churches, playgrounds, and more was well articulated by Jon Allsop in the Columbia Journalism Review‘s newsletter. There is “no choice to be made between public health and a healthy economy—because public health is an essential prerequisite of a healthy economy,” he wrote in April 2020 as debate over “reopening” was ongoing.

    That all-or-nothing approach reveals how little the economists were involved in the early decisions over COVID. “There are no solutions; only tradeoffs,” is how Thomas Sowell once put it, but during the early months of the pandemic, solutions were overly promised and tradeoffs were routinely ignored. That was a tremendous error.

    “At its most basic, economics is about analyzing choices made under constraints. Politicians and government agencies made a vast range of public health decisions this past year that violated principles that good economists take for granted,” wrote Ryan Bourne, an economist with the Cato Institute, in a 2021 review of early COVID policies. “These decisions made the public health and economic welfare impacts of the pandemic worse than they needed to be. In that sense, the poor response to COVID-19 represents a failure to think economically.”

    As the pandemic waned, the Biden administration repeated that mistake.

    Soon after taking office, President Joe Biden’s team pushed for a “run it hot” approach to economic policy and openly dismissed fears of rising inflation. That came to fruition with the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion spending package that included $1,400 stimulus checks to households earning as much as $160,000 in joint income.

    Larry Summers, a Harvard economist and veteran of the Biden administration, warned in a Washington Post op-ed that the American Rescue Plan would “set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.” Other top economists, including a former chairman of the International Monetary Fund, offered similar warnings.

    Biden and Democrats in Congress did not listen. The result? Inflation of a kind America had not seen in a generation. The annualized inflation rate hit 9.1 percent in June 2022 and still has not returned to the 2 percent annualized rate that the Federal Reserve regards as its target.

    Indeed, inflation has in some ways supplanted COVID as the dominant political narrative of the 2020s. Even though the current inflation level (2.7 percent annualized) is well below that 2022 peak, it is significantly higher than anything Americans experienced during the first two decades of the 21st century. No wonder everyone seems to be mad about how much things cost.

    There were consequences to the Biden administration’s “run it hot” economic policy, and ignoring the economists did not make those tradeoffs go away.

    The same can now be said for President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which his administration implemented over the objections of many economists. Vice President J.D. Vance took to X in July to declare that “the economics profession doesn’t fully understand tariffs.”

    In reality, the tariffs are a huge tax increase—the largest tax increase in more than three decades, according to the Tax Foundation—and the tradeoffs are pretty much exactly what you’d expect to see after a big tax increase: greater revenue for the government (though not as much as Trump routinely claims), and a reduction of private sector productivity.

    Trump and his allies promised that tariffs would usher in a “golden age” for American manufacturing. On the contrary, economists warned that tariffs would harm rather than help American manufacturing firms because the majority of all imports are raw materials and intermediate goods that go into making other products.

    The proof is in the pudding. Higher taxes on those inputs caused the manufacturing sector to fall into a recession during 2025, and the sector has been shedding jobs. The trade deficit continues to grow. Meanwhile, tariffs have also pushed prices higher.

    Economists can be frustrating to advisers in the policymaking process. The impulse to point out the inevitable tradeoffs in any policy can make it seem like their only purpose is to blow holes in the high-minded plans of the nation’s elected officials. But throwing them out of the room does not make foolish ideas more perfect. Six years of dismissing economic reality have not brought us utopia.

    If our elected officials are looking for a handy New Year’s resolution for 2026, here’s an idea: Start listening to the economists again.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Boehm

    Source link

  • Conspiracy theorist-podcaster joins crowded GOP race for Colorado governor, but will candidacy ‘go nowhere’?

    [ad_1]

    A conservative podcaster who’s trumpeted false election conspiracies and called for the execution of political rivals, including Gov. Jared Polis, has formally joined the Republican race to become Colorado’s next governor.

    Joe Oltmann, who filed his candidacy paperwork Monday night, now seeks to participate in an electoral system that he has repeatedly tried to undermine.

    He is the 22nd Republican actively seeking to earn the party’s nomination in June. It’s the largest gubernatorial primary field for a major party in Colorado this century, surpassing the GOP’s previous records set first in 2018, and then again in 2022 — and it comes as the party hopes to break Democrats’ electoral dominance in the state.

    That field will almost certainly narrow in the coming months; four Republicans who’d filed have already dropped out. No more than four are likely to make it onto the ballot — either through the state assembly or by gathering signatures — for the summer primary, said Dick Wadhams, the Colorado GOP’s former chairman.

    The size of the primary field doesn’t really matter, he said, because few candidates will actually end up in front of voters. Eighteen candidates filed ahead of the 2022 race, for instance, but just two were on the primary ballot.

    On the Democratic side, a smaller field of seven active candidates is headlined by Attorney General Phil Weiser and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet. Polis is term-limited from running again.

    For 2026, Wadhams counted only a half-dozen or so Republican candidates whom he considered “credible,” a qualifier that Wadhams said he used “very, very loosely”: Oltmann, state Sens. Barbara Kirkmeyer and Mark Baisley, state Rep. Scott Bottoms, ministry leader Victor Marx, Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell and former Congressman Greg Lopez.

    Wadhams said that other than Kirkmeyer, all of those candidates had either supported election conspiracies or a pardon for Tina Peters, the former Mesa County clerk now serving a nine-year sentence for convictions related to providing unauthorized access to voting equipment.

    Oltmann, of Castle Rock, has repeatedly — and falsely — claimed that the 2020 presidential election was not won by Democrat Joe Biden, while calling for the hanging of political opponents. He previously said he wanted to dismember some opponents to send a message, according to the Washington Post, before adding that he was joking.

    In his Dec. 26 announcement video, Oltmann baselessly claimed that Democrats, who have won control of the state amid demographic shifts and anti-Trump sentiment, were in power in Colorado only because of election fraud.

    He said Polis and Secretary of State Jena Griswold, along with 9News anchor Kyle Clark, were part of a “synagogue of Satan.” Polis and Griswold are both Jewish.

    In his announcement, Oltmann painted an apocalyptic picture of the state and said he hoped that three of its elected leaders — Polis, Griswold and Weiser — would all be imprisoned. He pledged to eliminate property taxes, to focus on the “have-nots” and to pardon Peters, whom President Donald Trump has also sought to release by issuing a federal pardon that legal experts say can’t clear Peters of state convictions.

    Oltmann’s decision to join the field is an example of “extreme candidates” from either major party “who file to run but will go nowhere,” predicted Kristi Burton Brown, another former state GOP chair. She now sits on the Colorado State Board of Education.

    She said the size of the Republican primary field was a consequence of Republicans’ difficulties winning statewide races in Colorado. Democrats have won all four constitutional elected offices for two straight election cycles.

    Burton Brown said it “might be a good idea moving forward” to require candidates to do more than just submit paperwork to run for office. That might include a monetary requirement: She said she didn’t support charging candidates significant sums but thought that “requiring some skin in the game” could prevent “unreasonable primaries.”

    [ad_2]

    Seth Klamann

    Source link

  • 9 states are cutting individual income taxes in 2026. See if yours is one of them.

    [ad_1]

    Nine U.S. states are lowering income taxes on Jan. 1, according to a recent Tax Foundation analysis — a move that could give some taxpayers additional financial breathing room as they head into the new year.

    The cuts are part of an ongoing effort that began during the pandemic, when many states’ budgets ballooned due to federal aid, providing them with an extra incentive to trim state income taxes. 

    Proponents of the cuts argue that they can spur economic growth and make their states more competitive.
    At the same time, groups like the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities have warned that reducing or eliminating state income taxes could stymie investments in public services such as education. 

    As of October, nine states levied no income tax at all, according to the Tax Foundation. 

    Read on to learn about the nine states where individual income taxes will be lower starting on Jan. 1, 2026, according to the Tax Foundation.

    Georgia 

    Georgia, where the Republican Party controls both chambers of the state legislature as well as the governor’s office, will trim its income tax rate to 5.09% in 2026, down from 5.19% in 2025. 

    The state is set to decrease its income tax by 0.10% every year until the rate reaches 4.99%, according to WABE, NPR’s member station in Atlanta. Some lawmakers have advocated eliminating the state income tax, the outlet reported.

    Indiana

    In Republican-led Indiana, the state’s flat-rate individual income tax — a single rate applied to all taxpayers regardless of income — will fall to 2.95% from 3% at the start of next year, under a budget measure passed by the state legislature in 2023. The rate is slated to drop another 0.05 percentage point to 2.9% in 2027.

    Kentucky

    Kentucky’s individual income tax rate will be cut to 3.5% on Jan. 1, down from its current 4%. The change stems from a 2022 bill that includes a trigger mechanism to incrementally reduce the state’s income tax each year, as long as revenue, spending and the budget reserve trust fund meet certain thresholds, according to Louisville Public Media.

    Kentucky has a Republican majority in its state legislature and a Democratic governor.

    Mississippi

    The individual income tax in Mississippi will decrease from 4.4%  in 2025 to 4% as of Jan. 1, 2026, in what the Tax Foundation said is the final round of a multi-year scheduled reduction.

    New legislation signed by Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, in March will reduce the individual income tax rate to 3% by 2030, and allow the state to continue cutting it annually until it reaches 0%.

    Montana

    A bill passed in the Montana state legislature this year lowers its top marginal rate — the rate applied to the highest portion of a person’s income — from 5.9% to 5.65% in 2026, then down to 5.4% in 2027. The new law also expands the number of people eligible for the lowest tax bracket.

    Montana has a Republican trifecta, meaning the party controls the governor’s office and holds a majority in both chambers of the state legislature. 

    Nebraska

    The individual income tax rate in Republican-led Nebraska will dip to 4.55% starting Jan. 1 from 5.2% currently. The decrease is part of an ongoing reduction that will lower the rate to 3.99% by 2027, the Tax Foundation said in its analysis.

    In 2023, the state had a budget of $1.9 billion but now faces a $432 million shortfall, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Some lawmakers have called on the state to pause the next phase of income tax cuts to shore up the state’s budget.

    North Carolina

    In North Carolina, where the governor is a Democrat and the state legislature is controlled by Republicans, the individual income tax rate will be reduced from 4.25% to 3.99% in 2026.

    North Carolina has a flat income tax rate, meaning the same rate applies to all state residents regardless of their incomes.

    Ohio 

    The state’s main budget bill this year paved the way for its individual income tax to decline to a flat rate of 2.75% for all nonbusiness income over $26,050, down from 3.125% currrently, according to the Tax Foundation.

    After the budget plan was approved, the Ohio House of Representatives said in a release that the move to a flat tax rate “makes Ohio more competitive with surrounding states, simplifies the tax code and spurs revenue.” 

    The Republican party holds the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general and both chambers of the state legislature.

    Oklahoma

    In Republican-led Oklahoma, the top marginal income tax rate will decrease from 4.75% to 4.5% beginning Jan. 1. A tax reform measure signed into law earlier this year also consolidated the state’s six individual income tax brackets into three.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Might Tax Billionaires. Cue the Inevitable Tech Billionaire Tantrum

    [ad_1]

    Taking money away from billionaires is funny, and threatening to do it can be a nice political sugar rush for anyone with even a tiny amount of class consciousness (even though it would not get close to creating “socialism” in America according to socialists like Doug Henwood). The state of California is now very much threatening to do it, and the predictable result is happening according to the New York Times: tech billionaires like Peter Thiel and ex-Google CEO and co-founder Larry Page are having their obligatory tantrum and threatening to leave.

    The political instrument involved here is not a technocratic and nuanced change to the tax code that happens to tax billionaires, but instead a one-off, 5% billionaire tax. This comes in the form of a proposed ballot measure backed by organized labor—specifically the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West.

    Anyone who lives in California as of January 1, 2026 would be subject to the proposed tax, and the math works like this: If you have $20 billion in assets, you owe $1 billion, and have five years to pay up. Estimates from the union say the state would pull in about $100 billion, basically by legally mugging the 200 most obnoxious people in the state.

    If you’ve followed the similar drama in New York City during the rise of Zohran Mamdani, you already know this next part by heart. According to the Times, Peter Thiel is now weighing an out-of-state office for Thiel Capital, and figuring out how to spend less time in California. Larry Page, listed by Forbes as the second richest person in the world as of this writing, has begun moving three LLCs to Florida, the Times says.

    David Lesperance, a tax advisor for billionaires, told the Times, “almost all of my clients are taking steps as quickly as possible both to sever California residence and to move assets outside of the state.” 

    Billionaire tech and healthcare investor Chamath Palihapitiya also played the hits, with the following X post quoted by the Times: “The inevitable outcome will be an exodus of the state’s most talented entrepreneurs who can and will choose to build their companies in less regressive states.” The post the Times is quoting here doesn’t seem to exist anymore, perhaps because of Palihapitiya’s bizarre, Opposite Day use of the term “regressive.”

    Palihapitiya’s X activity shows that he’s been on a tear with this topic for days, however:

    But do the American rich actually flee a state that has decided to tax them? Maybe, but it doesn’t seem like it so far. The state of Massachusetts passed something a little different: a more widespread income surtax for people making more than $1 million, and after two years, more tax-eligible millionaires are reportedly in the state, not less.

    So yes, Billionaires, we know that if this ends up on the ballot and actually gets voted into law, most of you are going to characterize Californians with less money than you as ungrateful and naive children, and some of you will even make good on your threat to leave. The question would be this: will a fun state with great weather that also happens to manufacture new billionaires all the time actually regret making you cough up some of your money in the long run? Who knows, but I kinda doubt it. 

    [ad_2]

    Mike Pearl

    Source link

  • Judge upholds Hawaii’s new climate change tax on cruise passengers

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge’s ruling allows Hawaii’s new tourist tax, which includes a levy on cruise ship passengers, to take effect in 2026

    HONOLULU — A federal judge’s ruling has cleared the way for Hawaii to include cruise ship passengers in a new tourist tax to help cope with climate change, a levy set to go into effect at the start of 2026.

    U.S. District Judge Jill A. Otake denied a request Tuesday that sought to stop officials from enforcing the new law on cruises.

    In the nation’s first such levy to help cope with a warming planet, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green signed legislation in May that raises tax revenue to deal with eroding shorelines, wildfires and other climate problems. Officials estimate the tax will generate nearly $100 million annually.

    The levy increases rates on hotel room and vacation rental stays but also imposes a new 11% tax on the gross fares paid by a cruise ship’s passengers, starting next year, prorated for the number of days the vessels are in Hawaii ports.

    Cruise Lines International Association challenged the tax in a lawsuit, along with a Honolulu company that provides supplies and provisions to cruise ships and tour businesses out of Kauai and the Big Island that rely on cruise ship passengers. Among their arguments is that the new law violates the Constitution by taxing cruise ships for the privilege of entering Hawaii ports.

    Plaintiff lawyers also argued that the tax would hurt tourism by making cruises more expensive. The lawsuit notes the law authorizes counties to collect an additional 3% surcharge, bringing the total to 14% of prorated fares.

    “Cruise tourism generates nearly $1 billion in total economic impact for Hawai‘i and supports thousands of local jobs, and we remain focused on ensuring that success continues on a lawful, sustainable foundation,” association spokesperson Jim McCarthy said in a statement.

    According to court records, plaintiffs will appeal.

    Hawaii will continue to defend the law, which requires cruise operators to pay their share of transient accommodation tax to address climate change threats to the state, state Attorney General Anne Lopez said in a statement.

    The U.S. government intervened in the case, calling the tax a “scheme to extort American citizens and businesses solely to benefit Hawaii” in conflict with federal law.

    Plaintiff and Department of Justice attorneys filed motions Wednesday seeking to maintain the status quo pending appeal. Otake denied the motions.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hawaii cruise passengers face new climate change tax after court ruling

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge’s ruling clears the way for Hawaii to include cruise ship passengers in a new tourist tax to help pay for the impacts of climate change, a levy set to go into effect at the start of 2026.

    U.S. District Judge Jill A. Otake on Tuesday denied a request seeking to stop officials from enforcing the new law on cruises.

    In the nation’s first such levy to help cope with a warming planet, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green signed legislation in May that raises tax revenue to deal with eroding shorelines, wildfires and other climate problems. Officials estimate the tax will generate nearly $100 million annually.

    The levy increases rates on hotel room and vacation rental stays but also imposes a new 11% tax on the gross fares paid by a cruise ship’s passengers, starting next year, prorated for the number of days the vessels are in Hawaii ports.

    Cruise Lines International Association challenged the tax in a lawsuit, along with a Honolulu company that provides supplies and provisions to cruise ships and tour businesses out of Kauai and the Big Island that rely on cruise ship passengers. Among their arguments is that the new law violates the Constitution by taxing cruise ships for the privilege of entering Hawaii ports.

    Plaintiff lawyers also argued that the tax would hurt tourism by making cruises more expensive. The lawsuit notes the law authorizes counties to collect an additional 3% surcharge, bringing the total to 14% of prorated fares.

    “Cruise tourism generates nearly $1 billion in total economic impact for Hawaii and supports thousands of local jobs, and we remain focused on ensuring that success continues on a lawful, sustainable foundation,” association spokesperson Jim McCarthy said in a statement.

    According to court records, the plaintiffs will appeal. They asked the judge to grant an injunction pending an appeal and requested a ruling by Saturday afternoon, given that the law takes effect Jan. 1.

    Hawaii will continue to defend the law, which requires cruise operators to pay their share of transient accommodation tax to address climate change threats to the state, state Attorney General Anne Lopez said in a statement.

    The U.S. government intervened in the case, calling the tax a “scheme to extort American citizens and businesses solely to benefit Hawaii” in conflict with federal law.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Colombia declares an economic emergency in a criticized effort to raise more taxes

    [ad_1]

    BOGOTA, Colombia — BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — Colombia ’s government has declared an economic state of emergency that enables President Gustavo Petro’s administration to issue taxes by decree, as the nation struggles to finance hospitals and the military while paying off record debts.

    Petro issued the decree late Monday. His leftist government recently failed to get congressional approval for a tax bill that would have boosted the government’s budget by $4 billion in 2026, a year featuring presidential and congressional elections.

    Public spending under Petro, elected in 2022, has ballooned to levels that exceed spending during the pandemic. Colombia’s national government has a budget of approximately $134 billion in 2025.

    The decree says the government needs more funds to pay fuel subsidies, cover health insurance payments and invest around $700 million in infrastructure that will enable the military to counter drone attacks from rebel groups.

    The government has yet to publish a law that spells out the taxes it wants to impose under the emergency. Leaked documents reported by local media last week show that the government plans to impose new wealth taxes on businesses and individuals and place a steep sales tax on alcohol, including rum and wine.

    Business associations have been highly critical of the decree, which they have described as authoritarian and designed to circumvent congressional oversight.

    Bruce Mac Master, president of Colombia’s National Association of Industrialists, asserted on social media that the decree was a “flagrant abuse of the rule of law.”

    Many analysts expect the Constitutional Court to overturn the decree. Under Colombian law, a state of economic emergency can be declared only when there is a grave, imminent and unexpected threat to the nation’s economic order.

    Jorge Restrepo, an economics professor at Bogota’s Javeriana University, said it will be difficult for the government to convince Colombia’s highest court that its decree meets legal requirements.

    “This was not an unexpected situation … like a war or natural disaster,” he said of the current budget deficit. “We knew there was a fiscal crisis brewing since the middle of last year.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Consumer confidence continues to fade despite heady economic growth

    [ad_1]

    American consumers in December remained downbeat about the state of the economy, a new survey shows. 

    The Conference Board, a nonprofit group representing businesses, said Tuesday that its consumer confidence index fell 3.8 points to 89.1 in December, from November’s upwardly revised reading of 92.9. The latest figures are close to the group’s reading in April, when President Trump announced tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners.

    “Despite an upward revision in November related to the end of the shutdown, consumer confidence fell again in December and remained well below this year’s January peak. Four of five components of the overall index fell, while one was at a level signaling notable weakness,” Dana Peterson, chief Economist at The Conference Board, said in a statement. 

    A measure of Americans’ short-term expectations for their income, business conditions and the job market remained stable at 70.7, but still well below 80, the marker that can signal a recession ahead. It was the 11th consecutive month that reading has come in under 80.

    Consumers’ assessments of their current economic situation tumbled 9.5 points to 116.8. Write-in responses to the survey showed that prices and inflation remained consumers’ biggest concern, along with tariffs.

    Perceptions of the job market also declined this month. The conference board’s survey reported that 26.7% of consumers said jobs were “plentiful,” down from 28.2% in November. Also, 20.8% of consumers said jobs were “hard to get,” up from 20.1% last month.

    “Consumers’ write-in responses on factors affecting the economy continued to be led by references to prices and inflation, tariffs and trade and politics,” Peterson said. “However, December saw increases in mentions of immigration, war and topics related to personal finances — including interest rates, taxes and income, banks, and insurance.

    Americans remain generally sour about the economy, with most grading the nation’s economic performance this year as either a “C” or “D” or worse, according to a recent CBS News poll.

    “Consumer confidence continued to tumble at the end of the year, as higher prices, a weaker labor market and the waning impact of the government shutdown weighed on household perceptions of the economy,” Matthew Martin, senior U.S. economist at investment adviser Oxford Economics, said in a report.

    “Consumers’ perceptions of the current state of the economy are at their lowest point in five years,” he added.

    Consumers still spending

    Consumer sentiment continued to ebb last month even as the economy accelerated. Federal data released on Tuesday showed the nation’s gross domestic product expanded at a blistering 4.3% annual pace in the third quarter, up from 3.8% in the previous quarter and the strongest rate of growth in two years.

    “The latest GDP data confirm that even though consumer confidence is slipping, consumers are still spending,” Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, said in a report. “The disconnect must mean that incomes are rising briskly.  But the payroll report says incomes are slowing. So the data are not sending a clear message right now.”

    Consumer spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of economic activity. 

    Last week, the Labor Department reported that the U.S. economy gained a healthy 64,000 jobs in November but lost 105,000 in October. The unemployment rate rose to 4.6% last month, the highest since 2021. Since March, job creation has fallen to an average 35,000 a month, compared to 71,000 in the year ended in March.

    [ad_2]

    Source link