Latest News
See the latest news and get GPT analysis of articles
Cash savers still have an opportunity to beat inflation amid cloudy forecast for interest rate cuts 2024-04-09 20:20:00+00:00 - Riska | E+ | Getty Images It may be a while longer before the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates, experts now say. That means savers can still earn the best returns on their cash in years, following a "nuclear winter for the better part of the last 15 years," said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate. "We've now had two years in a row where both liquid savings and timed deposits like CDs [certificate of deposits] are paying yields that are well ahead of inflation," McBride said. The Fed has largely been expected to start a series of interest rate cuts this year after hiking rates to combat historically high inflation. But as the economy continues to perform well and inflation is still higher than the central bank's 2% target, predictions for how much rates will come down and when have become less certain. "Even though rates might start dropping a bit here or there, they're still going to be relatively high," said Ken Tumin, senior industry analyst at Lending Tree and founder of DepositAccounts. 'It's a good time to lock in' Cash savers have a variety of options in which to invest that are beating inflation, according to McBride. "It's a good time to lock in," McBride said, with CDs, Treasury bills and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or TIPs, all paying high rates. Series I bonds have become a better deal, though not as many people are paying attention to them, McBride said. When I bonds were at 9.6%, they were just reimbursing savers for inflation, with no after-inflation return. Now, however, they provide an after-inflation return of 1.3% in addition to reimbursing savers for inflation, for a total of 5.27% available through April 30. To be sure, many of the mentioned investments require savers to stay put for a specified time period, and may require some funds to be forfeited if they are cashed in early. watch now Online savings accounts provide higher yields Online high yield savings accounts provide more flexible terms for accessing cash and annual percentage yields more than 4%, in many cases. Yet 67% of Americans are earning interest rates below that threshold, according to a recent Bankrate survey. The two top reasons respondents cited for not moving their money included wanting access to their cash through their local bank branch and being comfortable with their current financial institution. However, savers should keep in mind they don't necessarily have to give up branch access or completely sever ties with their current bank or credit union if they set up an account that's linked to their existing accounts, McBride said. "You're just going to send your savings somewhere where it's going to be welcomed with open arms and higher yields," McBride said. Consider when you need the money When choosing between locking in returns on cash or finding a better rate on a liquid savings account, the timing of your goals should be your priority. "The fundamental determinant is, 'When do you need the money?'" McBride said.
Sen. Bob Menendez grills Treasury official on curbing illicit finance a month before bribery trial 2024-04-09 20:16:00+00:00 - U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., at center right, and his wife, Nadine Menendez, center rear, leave Manhattan Federal Court in New York City following his arraignment, March 11, 2024. Sen. Bob Menendez questioned a Treasury Department official Tuesday on curbing illegal finance as he prepares to stand trial in a month with his wife and two other men on federal bribery charges. "I'm concerned about the exploitation of our litigation finance industry by foreign actors," the New Jersey Democrat told Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo at a Senate Banking Committee hearing. Menendez cited a Bloomberg Law report that showed Russian billionaires with ties to President Vladimir Putin funded bankruptcy lawsuits in New York despite being sanctioned following the invasion of Ukraine. Menendez also slammed the Biden administration for not stopping Iran under current sanctions from selling its oil to entities in countries including China. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that you can convert those dollars into cryptocurrency and other forms in order to ultimately have access to them," Menendez said. Adeyemo said it is almost impossible for Iran to get access to the money from oil it sells using the traditional financial system. However, he said Congress needs to act so bad actors cannot circumvent sanctions by using cryptocurrencies. "We fear that without congressional action to provide us with necessary tools, the use of virtual assets by these actors will only grow," Adeyemo said in his opening remarks. Republican senators on the committee attacked the Biden administration for its 2023 deal to unfreeze $6 billion of Tehran's funds to be used for humanitarian assistance in exchange for the release of political prisoners in Iran. "Iran is not our friend. Venezuela is not our friend, President Biden keeps giving them money to buy weapons to try to kill us," said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. Adeyemo said that the funds, which were blocked after Hamas' terrorist attack on Israel, have not been sent to Iran. "None of that money has gone to Iran, and that money is not going to go directly to Iran," Adeyemo said. Menendez is set to begin trial May 6 on nearly 20 criminal counts related to allegedly accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, gold bars, and other luxury goods in return for helping three businessmen in their dealings. He has pleaded not guilty. His wife, Nadine Menendez, and two of the businessmen, Wael Hana and Fred Daibes, will be tried with him. The fifth defendant in the case, Jose Uribe, previously pleaded guilty and agreed to assist prosecutors. The senator is accused of, among other things, providing sensitive U.S. government information that secretly aided the government of Egypt, and pressuring a U.S. Department of Agriculture official to protect a business monopoly in Egypt. Menendez was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee until he was indicted in September.
Trump’s reported plan to end Russia’s war in Ukraine isn’t all bad 2024-04-09 20:11:11+00:00 - Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, hasn’t said a lot about Russia’s war in Ukraine, the biggest international news story before Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza shoved it off the front pages. When Trump does mention the conflict, he tends to keep his comments extremely vague. At times, they’re contradictory. The day before Russia’s full-scale invasion more than two years ago, for instance, Trump called Russian President Vladimir Putin “genius” and “savvy” for declaring Ukraine’s Donbas region independent and using it as a pretext to send Russian forces in. Weeks later, once the invasion was in full swing, the former president was more morose on Putin: “Now, a lot of things are changing. … This doesn’t seem to be the same Putin that I was dealing with.” Are there problems with Trump’s reported land-for-peace idea? No question. But as the war goes on, the realistic alternatives are becoming more difficult to spot. But through it all, Trump has been consistent on one thing: The war should end sooner than later, ideally immediately. During a May 2023 CNN town hall, he stated that he wanted Russians and Ukrainians alike “to stop dying” and that striking a deal was the only way to do it. He has bragged repeatedly that he could hammer out a peace deal in 24 hours, even as he refuses to articulate his strategy for pulling off such a feat. We now possibly know more details of Trump’s proposed Russia-Ukraine strategy, as reported by The Washington Post over the weekend. The Post cites people who discussed the plan with Trump or his advisers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about confidential conversations and suggest Trump would plan to push Ukraine to hand over control of Crimea and the Donbas region to Russia in any future settlement, in effect codifying the gains Putin has made in his illegal invasion. In return, Putin would have to stop the war for good. The Washington Post report was met with a flurry of criticism. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a Trump ally, said he was opposed to giving Russia land. The rumored plan raised eyebrows in Kyiv as well, with one former Ukrainian interior ministry official arguing that giving Russia a “face-saving” way out meant destroying the very post-World War II rules-based order the U.S. and its allies claim to defend. Even Robert Reich, President Bill Clinton’s former secretary of labor, piled on: “Did we learn nothing from WWII and the danger of appeasement? Give an inch, he’ll take it all,” he posted on X. Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller blasted the Post report as fake news. Are there problems with Trump’s reported land-for-peace idea? No question. But as the war goes on, the realistic alternatives are becoming more difficult to spot. Such measures would certainly not be welcome in Kyiv. Ukraine, for one, scoffs at the notion that formally gifting Putin a chunk of its territory would result in a long-term peace. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has argued that any cease-fire would only benefit Russia in the end, allowing it to recuperate and rebuild before the inevitable counterattack. Last summer, during the beginning of Ukraine’s counteroffensive in the east, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that cease-fires with Russia are only short-term aberrations rather than a true peace. Zelenskyy himself has been outright dismissive of Trump’s “I can solve it in 24 hours” boast, all but telling him to visit Kyiv so he can receive an education. You can’t blame analysts and world leaders — anybody, really — for rolling their eyes at this specific peace formulation, at least in today’s circumstances. The practicalities of negotiating it, yet alone implementing it, are extremely challenging. The Ukrainians are still very much committed to their own 10-point peace plan, first unveiled by Zelenskyy in November 2022, that demands a full Russian troop withdrawal from every inch of Ukrainian territory, a justice mechanism to prosecute Russians for war crimes, security assurances from the West and compensation for damages. Ukraine’s inability to gain any more ground over the last 18 months hasn’t changed this position in any notable way. On the other side, Putin, his power solidified at home after a stage-managed “election” last month, is in no mood to negotiate at a time when the Russian army is engaged in several counteroffensives along the 600-mile-long front line and weeks after Moscow experienced its biggest territorial victory in nearly a year. Trump’s purported plan leaves even more to be desired. Russia, for example, doesn’t control all of the Donbas, which means that for the scheme to work, Ukraine would have to voluntarily withdraw from the entire region after spending two years trying to liberate that very same stretch of land. To be blunt, this is as likely as Putin waking up one morning and deciding to withdraw Russian forces from Crimea. Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, two entirely different provinces, would apparently be given back to Ukraine, requiring a Russian troop pullout there. The whole thing is almost too delusional to entertain. There are also other factors U.S. policymakers would have to consider if they operationalized such a plan. How would China, for example, react to a situation whereby Russia was in essence rewarded for its aggression? How could the West be certain that Putin wouldn’t try to push farther west a year or five years down the line? Trump, as hard as it is for some to admit, is probably correct that a settlement will have to be explored sooner or later. Yet as deficient as the plan may be — and let’s be clear, “plan” might be too strong a word — it’s increasingly likely that some kind of diplomatic settlement will need to occur to end the war. While even this baseline observation will strike a chord with some of Ukraine’s backers, it’s increasingly evident that the war won’t terminate with a wholesale victory by one side or the other. There won’t be a surrender signing ceremony aboard an aircraft carrier akin to imperial Japan’s declaration of defeat in September 1945. The U.S. and its allies in Europe seem to recognize this, although they remain hesitant to pressure Ukraine into a diplomatic process its own leaders aren’t ready to explore. Trump, as hard as it is for some to admit, is probably correct that a settlement will have to be explored sooner or later. As it stands today, neither Ukraine nor Russia has the military capacity for a full victory. The days of big territorial breakthroughs like Ukraine’s September 2022 counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region are likely over. The conflict is bleeding both sides. U.K. military intelligence estimates that Russia has sustained an average of 638 casualties a day over the last two years, recently having lost 913 men every day through March. The Ukrainian army is doing the best it can with the limited resources at its disposal, but even if another assistance package clears Congress, it won’t mitigate its manpower issues. Those whose patriotic fervor led them to rush the enlistment offices in the first weeks of the war are now dead, injured or still in the trenches, which means Zelenskyy will need to dip deeper into the Ukrainian population to fill the ranks as soldiers rotate out. This was made worse by last year’s failed counteroffensive, the results of which were at best crumbs on a map that is hard to differentiate from one month to the next. So critics may scoff at Trump’s reported “plan” all they want — but when it comes down to it, a diplomatic agreement that is “good enough” for both sides is one of the more realistic avenues to pursue. The only question is how exhausted Ukraine and Russia will become before pursuing it.
Fani Willis fights disqualification appeal in Trump’s Georgia case 2024-04-09 19:35:41+00:00 - Remember the Fani Willis disqualification saga? It’s not over yet. Donald Trump and his co-defendants in Georgia are appealing Judge Scott McAfee’s order that let the Fulton County district attorney stay on the case. If they’re successful on appeal, then that would throw the entire case into question. But Willis is fighting the defense quest to overturn McAfee’s order. The judge said last month that Willis and her office could stay on the case if special prosecutor Nathan Wade, with whom Willis had a romantic relationship, stepped down. Wade did so. Arguing that there was “no error” in McAfee’s ruling, Willis’ office wrote Monday to the state appeals court that the defense complaint “merely reflects the applicants’ dissatisfaction with the trial court’s proper application of well-established law to the facts.” Arguing that there was “no error” in McAfee’s ruling, Willis’ office wrote Monday to the state appeals court that the defense complaint “merely reflects the applicants’ dissatisfaction with the trial court’s proper application of well-established law to the facts.” The DA therefore told the appeals court that it doesn’t even need to take up the appeal at all. McAfee found that there was no actual conflict of interest stemming from the relationship and that Willis hadn’t committed “forensic misconduct” in a speech she gave outside court. The judge nonetheless ruled that the appearance of impropriety required Willis or Wade to step down, which effectively kicked Wade off the case but let Willis’ office continue prosecuting it. The defense had argued that Willis gained an improper stake in the case by hiring Wade. The state appeals court doesn’t have to take the pretrial appeal, and we may not know until next month whether it will. If Willis and her office are kicked off the case, then it would have to go to a different office, which could imperil the multi-defendant election racketeering prosecution. The Georgia case doesn’t have a trial date as it is, while Trump is set to face his first criminal trial next week in his other state case, in New York. A difference between those two cases and Trump’s two federal criminal cases is that he can’t pardon himself in the state cases or order them dropped if he becomes president again. But if the Georgia defendants succeed in their disqualification appeal, then there may never be a trial in that one anyway. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.
Woman who stole and sold Ashley Biden diary sentenced to month in jail and home detention 2024-04-09 19:35:00+00:00 - Ashley Biden speaks alongside her father US President Joe Biden during a Juneteenth concert on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, June 13, 2023. A Florida woman who stole and then sold a diary and other items belonging to Ashley Biden — the daughter of President Joe Biden — to a right-wing media group weeks before the 2020 election was sentenced Tuesday to one month in federal jail and three months of home detention. Aimee Harris, 41, also was ordered to forfeit $20,000 and to serve three years of probation at her sentencing in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, where a lawyer for Ashley Biden was in the audience. Before Harris was sentenced, assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Sobelman told Judge Laura Taylor Swain that Harris had shown a "pattern of disrespect for the law and the justice system," and was motivated to steal Ashley Biden's property "to make as much money as she could," and to harm President Biden politically, The Associated Press reported. "She wanted to damage Ms. Biden's father," Sobelman said, the AP reported. Prosecutors had asked that Harris be sentenced to between four to 10 months in jail, as recommended by federal sentencing guidelines. The Palm Beach resident, whose sentencing was postponed about a dozen times at her request, in turn asked Swain to sentence her to probation, with no time in jail. Although Swain gave Harris a lighter sentence than prosecutors wanted, she called Harris' conduct "despicable," according to the AP. The judge pointed out that Harris initially had tried to sell Ashley Biden's items to the campaign of then-President Donald Trump. "I do not believe I am above the law," Harris said, the AP reported. "I'm a survivor of long-term domestic abuse and sexual trauma." Harris pleaded guilty in August 2022 to conspiring with 60-year-old Robert Kurlander, in September 2020 to steal Ashley's possessions from a Delray, Florida, home where Ashley previously lived and transporting them over state lines for sale. Nicholas Biase, a spokesman for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office, which prosecuted Harris, declined to comment. Harris' attorney Anthony Cecutti declined to comment to CNBC, but in court had told the judge that his client "carries the shame and stigma for her actions," the AP reported. Harris, who temporarily stayed at the Delray residence after Ashley vacated it, discovered the diary, which had "highly personal entries," as well as a digital storage card that the president's daughter had left behind, according to court records. The provocative right-wing group Project Veritas later paid Harris and the Jupiter, Florida, resident Kurlander $20,000 apiece for the items, according to court records. Kurlander, who pleaded guilty at the same time as Harris did, currently is scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 25 by Swain. Harris' sentencing comes more than three months after a federal judge ruled that prosecutors could receive documents seized by the FBI with search warrants executed at the homes of Project Veritas' then-CEO James O'Keefe and two other members of the group in November 2021 in connection with a criminal investigation of the diary theft. Judge Analisa Torres ruled that prosecutors could get documents seized in connection with those warrants that were not protected by attorney-client privilege. Torres' order in late December notes that prosecutors claim that Harris and Kurlander were paid by Project Veritas to travel to New York to hand over Ashley Biden's journal to the group. "There, Harris allegedly revealed that the Victim had additional items in the Florida residence, and, 'at Project Veritas's request,' she and Kurlander returned to Florida to retrieve them," Torres wrote, citing the claims by prosecutors.
Eclipse watchers stuck in heavy traffic driving home: "Worst traffic I've ever seen" 2024-04-09 19:33:00+00:00 - Solar eclipse travelers clog New England road and more top stories Solar eclipse travelers clog New England road and more top stories 02:45 Drivers returning home Monday from watching the solar eclipse in cities and towns in the path of totality described traffic jams that were among the worst they'd ever experienced, keeping them on roads all night and into Tuesday morning. Indeed, cities and towns in the eclipse's path experienced some of their largest influxes of tourists in their histories, providing an economic boom to states from Texas to Vermont. While eclipse tourists tended to stagger their arrivals during the weekend leading up to the event, many departed roughly at the same time after the eclipse ended on Monday afternoon, clogging highways and local roads. Traffic on I-89 in Vermont, which links Burlington, a city in the path of the totality, with Boston, and on the state's I-91 was heavy on Monday afternoon, according to the Vermont Agency of Transportation. "Worst traffic I've ever seen," wrote Richard Chen of the venture fund 1confirmation on X, formerly known as Twitter, after visiting northern Vermont to view the eclipse. But, he added, "[I]t was totally worth it." It took us over 6 hours to drive 110 miles in MO. last night after the eclipse. I’ve never been in that long of a traffic jam. The majority of it we were only going 8 miles an hour. I guess that’s the price you pay for center line totality! Cell service was out too!🤯 pic.twitter.com/GGVkXEcLn7 — Anne Jones (@1neatgirl) April 9, 2024 Along I-75 near Dixie Highway around Perrysburg, Ohio, motorists were stuck in miles of bumper-to-bumper traffic, according to a local media report. Michigan residents who had driven to Ohio to watch the eclipse described their return trips as taking twice as long as they should have, according to WTOL 11. The Maine Department of Transportation said the state had 10 times the volume of normal traffic in its western and southern regions Monday evening, according to Fox23 Maine. Most eclipse watchers departed at around the same time on Monday, even though they had arrived at different points leading up to the eclipse, according to The Maine Turnpike Authority. The Maine DOT had earlier advised visitors to arrive early and leave late to avoid congestion on the roads. On TikTok, user @schoolhousecaulk said he had anticipated bad traffic in Vermont and that it was "worth it," despite driving overnight for 150 miles at a "snails pace." TikTok user @schoolhousecaulk said it took him 13 hours to drive 370 miles back from viewing the eclipse. TikTok At 5:30 in the morning, he said he finally reached his home in New York City. It had taken him 13 hours to drive 370 miles, he said.
Buyers of newly built homes can face a property tax surprise. Here's why 2024-04-09 19:08:00+00:00 - In this article RDFN Follow your favorite stocks CREATE FREE ACCOUNT Comstock Images | Stockbyte | Getty Images It's not unusual for new homeowners to face financial surprises, but people buying a newly built home may be more likely to encounter sticker shock on a key expense. Almost 75% of recent homebuyers had regrets about their purchase, according to a 2023 survey from Real Estate Witch. Property taxes were the most common gripe, surprising 33% of new owners. With new builds, property taxes can change dramatically after purchase because initial rates are often based on estimates. That can be jarring for homeowners who already stretched their budgets to afford a home in the current market. Newly built homes comprise 30% of the current market, up from the typical 10% to 20%, according to a recent report by the National Association of Realtors. As more buyers turn to builders, potential owners need to be aware of how costs might increase after even just a year, experts say. "Buyers need to understand that real estate taxes ... are not static. They can change on an annual basis," said Melissa Cohn, regional vice president at William Raveis Mortgage. "People don't really have any control." Why property taxes can jump for new builds When lenders qualify someone for a home purchase, they factor in the principal, the interest payment on the mortgage, homeowner's insurance and property taxes. But unlike previously owned homes, new builds lack a tax bill because there's no house to assess yet, experts say. Instead, mortgage lenders will often use an older tax rate from the area or an estimated tax rate to calculate the owner's monthly payment. The calculation is going to vary by lender, said Brian Nevins, a sales manager at Bay Equity, a Redfin-owned mortgage lender. Some take 1% to 2% of the sales price of the home for the property taxes, while others multiply one-third of the sales price by the local tax rate to determine estimated taxes. watch now Initially, the homeowner will typically pay the estimated property tax rate into escrow. Depending on the local tax assessment cycle, the county office will eventually assess the value of the new house to determine the actual property tax rate. "All counties reassess a property's taxes — it depends on when," Cohn said. While some places may differ on frequency, "if it's new construction, they always reassess," she explained. And at that point, if the homeowner has an escrow account, they may learn they have a shortage, meaning they owe more property taxes than expected. If the homeowner cannot pay the owed taxes in a lump sum, the lender usually pays what's owed. In that case, the owner pays back the lender through an increased mortgage payment to make up the difference. Tricks to gauge how property tax may change "People who buy today with the assumption that they qualify based on the current real estate taxes or current insurance need to really do more homework to understand where they could really be in a year," Cohn said. If you're looking to buy in an area you're unfamiliar with, find out how often the county reassesses property taxes and what the reassessment formula is based on, Cohn said.
Michigan Vascular Clinics Shutting Down After Scrutiny 2024-04-09 18:53:45+00:00 - A doctor who called himself the “leg saver” is shutting down his vascular clinics in Michigan, where he performed thousands of lucrative procedures that have come under scrutiny for being unnecessary and potentially dangerous. The doctor, Jihad Mustapha, was featured in a New York Times investigation last year about the increased use of the procedures, which have harmed patients even as they have enriched doctors and the device companies that sell the products they use. Earlier this month, patients received a letter from the staff of Dr. Mustapha’s clinic, Advanced Cardiac & Vascular Centers, informing them that the business, which has clinics in Grand Rapids and Lansing, was closing and advising them to find new doctors. The letter, which did not outline the reason for the closing, said that Dr. Mustapha had already begun working at a practice in Ocala, Fla. His partner and nephew, Dr. Fadi Saab, is relocating to a cardiology practice in Dearborn, Mich., the letter said. Dr. Mustapha and Dr. Saab didn’t respond to requests for comment. Dr. Mustapha is a prominent player in a booming industry that targets the roughly 12 million Americans with peripheral artery disease, in which plaque builds up in arteries, clogging the flow of blood. He was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by device manufacturers to conduct clinical trials, train other doctors and speak about their products, according to a federal database of industry payments to doctors.
How Biden can win votes from Trump-doubting Republicans 2024-04-09 18:30:00+00:00 - Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has called his old boss, Donald Trump, a threat to democracy and declared he will not vote for him in November. So, it seemed natural for TV host Bill Maher to ask him in a recent interview if he would vote for President Joe Biden. "I'm not there yet," Esper replied. It's the kind of moment that might cause a hardcore Democrat to throw something at the TV. After all, if you believe Trump is a threat to democracy, it should seem like a no-brainer to say that you would vote for the candidate who has the best chance to defeat him. But as a Republican consultant, I can assure you it's never that simple. It's important not to think of a former Trump voter as a pro-Biden supporter. People are very committed to their partisan identities and find it hard to admit they made a mistake, especially about something as important as a presidential choice. Which is why it's important not to think of a former Trump voter as a pro-Biden supporter. In 2020, I was a senior adviser to The Lincoln Project, focusing on the coalition of Republicans and independents for Biden. The goal was to sway about 5% of Republicans who voted for Trump in 2016 to switch to Biden by having other Republicans deliver the message. We highlighted how dangerous a second Trump term would be, borrowing the John McCain line about putting “country over party.” This was not about getting them to like Biden or supporting his policies; it was about recognizing that this was a tough choice, but our country’s future was at stake. I, too, have yelled at the TV when I hear prominent Republican or former Trump Administration officials speak of the dangers of another Trump term, then refuse to take the next step and “get there” for Biden. Consider it a win if a 2016 or 2020 Trump supporter is willing to say they won’t support Trump in 2024. It is only April, and November is far away. Instead of haranguing these folks, let them be. They’ll either come around and vote for Biden or, at the very least, they won’t be voting for Trump. Sign up for MSNBC’s new How to Win 2024 newsletter and get election insights like this delivered to your inbox weekly.
Why Oil Prices Have Been Rising Recently 2024-04-09 18:02:10+00:00 - Oil prices have climbed in recent weeks, spurred by concerns over supplies and geopolitical risks, including wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Analysts say the momentum could carry prices higher. The price of a barrel of Brent crude oil, the international benchmark, has risen more than 20 percent since mid-December. It has jumped more than 10 percent over the past month alone, to around $90 per barrel. “The sentiment is really bullish,” said Viktor Katona, an analyst at Kpler, a commodities research firm. Rising oil prices could make efforts by central banks to reduce inflation more challenging. In the United States, higher gasoline prices during the summer driving season would also be unwelcome for the Biden administration, which faces a difficult election in November. The average price at the pump has risen about 50 cents per gallon since early January, to around $3.70, according to the Energy Information Administration. Market watchers note that a short-term retreat in prices, after such a rapid rise, is also possible. The oil price also remains below the peaks reached in 2022, when prices jumped well above $100 a barrel.
Arizona Supreme Court: 160-year-old abortion ban can be enforced 2024-04-09 17:52:23+00:00 - After Republican-appointed U.S. Supreme Court justices overturned Roe v. Wade, a 15-week abortion ban ultimately took effect in Arizona. There was some question, however, as to whether or not that state policy superseded an abortion ban first adopted in 1864 — before Arizona was even a state. Today, Arizona’s Supreme Court delivered its answer to that question. NBC News reported: The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a 160-year-old near-total abortion ban still on the books in the state is enforceable. ... The ruling allows an 1864 law in Arizona to stand that criminalized abortion by making it a felony punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone who performs or helps a woman obtain one. After Roe went down, it was common to hear reproductive rights advocates talk about rolling back the clock a half-century. Today's ruling rolls back the clock to a point when obstetricians didn't know they needed to wash their hands. It was a 4-2 ruling (with one recusal). Every member of the state Supreme Court was appointed by Republicans. The decision concluded that the near-total abortion ban won’t take effect for 14 days, which will give litigants an opportunity to at least try to explore additional relief from a trial court. If those efforts fall short, abortion will be illegal in nearly all circumstances across the Grand Canyon State, including in response to pregnancies resulting from rape. “The decision made by the Arizona Supreme Court today is unconscionable and an affront to freedom,” state Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a written statement. The Democrat added, “Make no mistake, by effectively striking down a law passed this century and replacing it with one from 160 years ago, the Court has risked the health and lives of Arizonans.” Mayes concluded, “Today’s decision to reimpose a law from a time when Arizona wasn’t a state, the Civil War was raging, and women couldn’t even vote will go down in history as a stain on our state. This is far from the end of the debate on reproductive freedom, and I look forward to the people of Arizona having their say in the matter. And let me be completely clear, as long as I am Attorney General, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law in this state.” As for the near-future, abortion rights proponents in Arizona recently announced that they believe they’ve exceeded the signature threshold to put a constitutional amendment on reproductive rights on the state’s ballot in November. In other words, voters will soon have an opportunity to undo what the state Supreme Court just did. What's more, two of the justices who ruled in the majority today will also be on the ballot. Arizona also happens to be one of the nation's most closely watched battleground states. Donald Trump suggested yesterday, among other things, that he expects abortion bans to be a state-by-state issue. The consequences of such a policy are increasingly plain.
UK’s biggest pubs group Stonegate struggles to refinance £2.2bn debt pile 2024-04-09 17:48:00+00:00 - The UK’s biggest pubs and bars group has warned that there is no guarantee that it can continue as a going concern, as it struggles to refinance a £2.2bn debt mountain. Stonegate Pub Company, which has a network of more than 4,400 UK pubs and bars including the Slug & Lettuce and Be At One chains, said it had not yet agreed new loans to replace debt due for repayment in June 2025. While talks with potential lenders are understood to be under way, the failure to agree a new facility by the time the company published its annual report left it with no choice but to issue an alert about its financial position. “Since the refinancing plans haven’t been executed, there is an indication that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the company and group’s ability to continue as a going concern […],” Stonegate said. It said this meant the group “may be unable to realise their assets and discharge their liabilities in the normal course of business”. Stonegate is domiciled in the Cayman Islands and ultimately owned by TDR Capital, a private equity firm that also owns Asda. It became the UK’s largest pub group with the £1.3bn purchase of Ei Group (formerly Enterprise Inns) in 2019, a deal that included £1.7bn of debt and completed just days before the Covid-19 pandemic triggered a series of nationwide lockdowns that hit the hospitality trade particularly hard. The enlarged business has been trying to refinance its debts since at least February, when Bloomberg reported that it had appointed bankers at Evercore and lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis to explore its options. But despite Stonegate’s vast scale, it has yet to do so, amid tough conditions in debt markets and for hospitality groups in particular. Pubs, bars and restaurant firms have seen their margins badly squeezed between the twin pressures of rising costs and faltering consumer demand as customers’ rein in spending due to the cost of living crisis. The result has been a wave of pub closures and insolvencies in the craft brewing sector. The sector’s travails, coupled with the high interest rate environment, is understood to have made it far harder for major hospitality players such as Stonegate to refinance their debts. Stonegate has more than £3bn of debt in total and paid more than £300m in finance costs last year, including £235m of interest on its loan notes. It borrowed £638m against about 1,000 freehold properties in December but the rating agency Fitch said in January that it may have to downgrade Stonegate’s outlook if it cannot refinance £2.2bn of loans. Stonegate’s chief executive, David McDowall, who joined from BrewDog last year, said: “We have been very clear that we continue to work towards achieving our long-term balance sheet goals, with the successful refinancing of a portion of our estate in December marking a significant strategic step towards this. “Our performance gives me real confidence in the future and excitement in seeing our strategy come to fruition.” skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to Business Today Free daily newsletter Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning Enter your email address Sign up Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy . We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion He pointed to the group’s recent trading performance in the first quarter of this trading year, showing improved revenue and profitability. In the previous year, to 24 September 2023, the group’s losses nearly doubled from £130m to £257m despite a £100m in rise in revenue to £1.7bn. Its operating profits were wiped out by costs, including a £178m negative revaluation of its brands and £300m in finance costs. McDowall pointed to an “asset optimisation plan which makes sure we have the right pub in the right location, further profit improvement initiatives, and above all our efforts to continue to support the Great British pub”. “With a summer of sport on the horizon, and the Euros and T20 World Cup fast approaching, we are looking forward to building on this momentum in the months ahead,” he said. Stonegate faced negative publicity last year when it decided to impose “dynamic pricing”, charging punters 20p more for a pint during busy periods. It was also named and shamed by the Department for Business and Trade for failing to pay more than 3,000 workers minimum wage due to what it said was a misunderstanding over how the cost of uniform was split between the company and staff. The company said the underpayment was unintentional and that it took “immediate steps” to reimburse staff.
Meta’s Nick Clegg plays down AI’s threat to global democracy 2024-04-09 17:48:00+00:00 - Generative AI is overblown as an election risk, according to Meta’s Nick Clegg, who claims the technology is more useful for defending democracy than attacking it. Speaking at the Meta AI Day event in London on Tuesday, the social network’s global affairs chief said that the evidence from major elections that have already been run this year around the world is that technology such as large language models, image and video generators, and speech synthesis tools aren’t being used in practice to subvert democracy. “It is right that we should be alert and we should be vigilant,” Clegg said. “But of the major elections which have taken place already this year, in Taiwan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, it is striking how little these tools have been used in a systematic basis to really try to subvert and disrupt the elections. “I would urge everyone to think of AI as a sword, not just a shield, when it comes to bad content. The single biggest reason why we’re getting better and better and better in reducing the bad content that we don’t want on our walls, on Instagram and Facebook and for so-on, is for one reason: AI.” Meta is co-operating with its industry peers, Clegg added, to try to improve those systems further. “There is an increasingly high level of industry cooperation, particularly this year, with the unprecedented number of elections.” The landscape is likely to change in the next month, however, due to Meta’s own actions in the space. The company is set to launch Llama 3, its most advanced GPT-style large language model, in the coming weeks, with a full release expected by the summer, Clegg said. Unlike many of its peers, Meta has historically released those AI models as open source, with few constraints on their use. That makes it harder to prevent them from being repurposed by bad actors, but also allows outside observers to more accurately vet the accuracy and bias of the systems. Clegg said: “One of the reasons why the whole of the cybersecurity industry is built on top of open source technology is precisely because if you apply the wisdom of crowds to new technologies, you’ll get many more eyes on the potential flaws rather than just relying on one corporate entity playing Whac-A-Mole with their own systems”. Yann LeCun, Meta’s chief AI scientist and one of the three men known as the “godfathers of AI”, argued that there was a more pressing risk to democracy from AI: the potential dominance of a few closed models. “In the near future, every single one of our interactions with the digital world will be through AI assistants,” LeCun predicted. “If our entire digital diet is mediated by AI systems, we need them to be diverse, for the same reason that we need a free and diverse press. Every AI system is biased in some way, is trained on particular data. “Who is going to cater to all the languages, the cultures, the value systems, centres of interest in the world? This cannot be done by a handful of companies on the west coast of the US,” LeCun said.
Are casino workers entitled to a smoke-free workplace? The UAW thinks so. 2024-04-09 17:25:00+00:00 - Atlantic City casino workers suing state to overturn smoking ban exemption Atlantic City casino workers suing state to overturn smoking ban exemption 00:27 Breathing second-hand smoke is still part of the job for many U.S. workers, especially those employed at casinos. "You know you're in a place unlike any other place in 2024, immediately. Nobody has to be smoking near you, you get the effect as soon as you walk into the casino," Lamont White, 61, a dealer in Atlantic City for nearly 39 years, told CBS MoneyWatch. "My eyes are always red, I have upper respiratory infections all the time — nothing serious yet, but we never know," said White, who works at the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, one of nine casinos in Atlantic City. All allow smoking. "We stand at the tables where they can smoke directly in our faces," relayed Nicole Vitola, 49, also a dealer at the Borgata, and, like White, a co-founder of Casino Employees Against Smoking Effects, or CEASE, a grassroots group formed in 2021 in New Jersey. A dealer in Atlantic City for 27 years, Vitola worked in the smoked-filled casino rooms through two pregnancies. "At no time do they show courtesy for the pregnant dealers," she said. After unsuccessfully agitating for more than three years to get lawmakers to ban smoking in Atlantic City casinos, CEASE and the United Auto Workers filed a lawsuit on Friday in state Superior Court challenging a gap in New Jersey's indoor clean air law. New Jersey in 2006 passed legislation banning smoking in enclosed indoor spaces and workplaces, but exempted casino workers from its protections, with smoking allowed on 25% of the casino floor. "This legislation was supposed to protect everyone from the dangers of secondhand smoke. But somehow, our casino workers have been asked to roll the dice, all in the name of corporate greed," UAW President Shawn Fain said. "Every worker deserves safety on the job, and every person deserves equal protection under the law. By leaving out casino workers, the state of New Jersey isn't holding up its end of the bargain." UAW's region 9 represents workers in New Jersey, including more than 3,000 in the Bally's, Caesars and Tropicana casinos in Atlantic City, "many of whom have suffered, and continue to suffer severe health problems as a result of having to work in secondhand smoke," according to the complaint. Casino workers "have cancer and other diseases related to smoking, although they don't smoke," the document stated. The lawsuit names Gov. Phil Murphy and the state's acting health commissioner. Murphy, a Democrat, has signaled that he would sign a smoking ban into law if state lawmakers pass one. His office did not respond to a request for comment. The Casino Association of New Jersey, a trade group that represents all nine Atlantic City casinos, declined to comment on the lawsuit. But the group has opposed a smoking ban, arguing such a prohibition would place the city's casinos at a disadvantage in competing with establishments in neighboring states that allow smoking. "The state of New Jersey has failed casino workers in Atlantic City for 18 years. We let a false argument about economics subjugate our duty to protect the people we serve and in doing so, we allowed corporations to poison their employees for nearly two decades," Joseph Vitale, a New Jersey state senator, said in a statement supporting the lawsuit. By 2022, 26 states had commercial casinos employing more than 745,000 people, 22,796 of them in New Jersey, according to the latest annual report from the New Jersey Casino Control Commission. Casino workers are also leading campaigns to close smoking loopholes in other states, including Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia. Dealers, bartenders and technicians who service the slot machines at U.S. casinos are subjected to on-the-job fumes from the cigarettes of customers still legally allowed to light up inside gambling establishments in 20 states, according to CEASE. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is no safe level of secondhand smoke. Further, allowing smoking in casinos puts 96,000 casino workers in Las Vegas at risk, the agency found in a report issued in last year. Separate data published in June 2022 by Las Vegas-based C3 Gaming found casinos without indoor smoking outperforming their smoking counterparts. "While nearly ever business in Nevada protects workers and guests from the known dangers of secondhand smoke indoors, casinos are the exception," Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights (ANR) said in calling for an end to indoor smoking in the state. MGM in 2020 announced that Park MGM, which includes NoMad Las Vegas, would become the first fully smoke-free casino resort on the Las Vegas Strip. Other casinos have non-smoking sections.
TV Networks to Urge Biden and Trump to Debate, Wading Into a Fraught Topic 2024-04-09 17:20:28.945000+00:00 - In an unusual move, the five major broadcast and cable news networks have prepared a joint open letter that urges President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump to participate in televised debates ahead of Election Day, according to two people with direct knowledge of their plans. The letter — endorsed by ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and Fox News — thrusts into public view a question that has swirled within media and political circles: whether the presidential debates, one of the nation’s last remaining mass civic rituals in a polarized age, will occur this year at all. “We, the undersigned national news organizations, urge the presumptive presidential nominees to publicly commit to participating in general election debates before November’s election,” the letter reads, according to a draft version obtained by The New York Times. The letter has not yet been finalized, and the networks are also seeking endorsements from other leading national news organizations, including newspapers.
Arizona Supreme Court rules a near-total abortion ban from 1864 is enforceable 2024-04-09 17:07:00+00:00 - PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a 160-year-old near-total abortion ban still on the books in the state is enforceable, a bombshell decision that adds the state to the growing lists of places where abortion care is effectively banned. The ruling allows an 1864 law in Arizona to stand that made abortion a felony punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone who performs one or helps a woman obtain one. The law — which was codified in 1901, and again in 1913 — outlaws abortion from the moment of conception but includes an exception to save the woman’s life. That Civil War-era law — enacted a half-century before Arizona even gained statehood — was never repealed and an appellate court ruled last year that it could remain on the books as long as it was “harmonized” with a 2022 law, leading to substantial confusion in Arizona regarding exactly when during a pregnancy abortion was outlawed. Abortion rights protesters chant at a rally at the federal courthouse in Tucson on July 4, 2022. Sandy Huffaker / AFP via Getty Images file The decision — which could shutter abortion clinics in the state — effectively undoes a lower court’s ruling that stated that a more recent 15-week ban from March 2022 superseded the 1864 law. The Arizona Supreme Court said it would put its decision on hold for 14 days, writing that it would send the case back to a lower court so that court could consider “additional constitutional challenges” that haven’t yet been cleared up. Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, said moments after the ruling that she would not enforce the law. “Let me be completely clear, as long as I am Attorney General, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law in this state,” Mayes said in a statement, adding that the decision was “unconscionable” and “an affront to freedom.” Democrats all the way up to President Joe Biden also blasted the ruling. “Millions of Arizonans will soon live under an even more extreme and dangerous abortion ban, which fails to protect women even when their health is at risk or in tragic cases of rape or incest,” Biden said in a statement. He called the ban “cruel” and “a result of the extreme agenda of Republican elected officials who are committed to ripping away women’s freedom” and vowed to “continue to fight to protect reproductive rights.” Vice President Kamala Harris announced shortly after the ruling that she would travel to Arizona on Friday “to continue her leadership in the fight for reproductive freedoms." Responding to questions from NBC News about the Arizona ruling, a spokesperson for Donald Trump's campaign referred only to the former president's comments on Monday that abortion restrictions should be left to states. “President Trump could not have been more clear. These are decisions for people of each state to make," Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs called for the GOP-controlled Legislature, which is currently in session, to repeal the 1864 ban, though there was no immediate indication that Republican lawmakers in either chamber would take up such an effort. "We are 14 days away from this extreme ban coming back to life," Hobbs, a Democrat, said at a press conference. "It must be repealed immediately." While Hobbs said she was "sure" reproductive rights advocates would appeal the ruling in the 14-day window they were given, she also suggested that the best avenue to counter the ruling would be for voters to support abortion rights on the November ballot. A separate, ongoing suit would allow for abortion providers to continue providing services through the 15th week of pregnancy for another 45 days. "It is more urgent than ever that Arizonans have the opportunity to vote to enshrine the right to abortion in our constitution this November. I’m confident that Arizonans will support this ballot measure, and I’m going to continue doing everything in my power to make sure it is successful," Hobbs said. In a 4-2 ruling, the court’s majority concluded that the 15-week ban “does not create a right to, or otherwise provide independent statutory authority for, an abortion that repeals or restricts” the Civil War-era ban “but rather is predicated entirely on the existence of a federal constitutional right to an abortion since disclaimed” by the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. “Absent the federal constitutional abortion right, and because” the 2022 law "does not independently authorize abortion, there is no provision in federal or state law prohibiting” the 1864 ban. They added that the ban “is now enforceable.” Tuesday’s ruling is the latest chapter in a decadeslong saga of litigation in the battleground state over abortion rights. Reproductive rights groups had sued to overturn the 19th century law in 1971. But when the Roe decision came down in 1973, a lower state court ruled against those groups and placed an injunction on the 1864 ban that remained in effect until the Dobbs decision. In March 2022, Republican lawmakers in the state enacted the 15-week trigger ban, which, months later — after the Dobbs decision — snapped into effect. The law makes exceptions for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest. Litigation resumed after that decision as lawmakers on both sides of the issue sought clarity on whether to enforce the 1864 near-total ban or the 2022 15-week ban. A state appellate court initially ruled that both the 1864 and 2022 laws could eventually be “harmonized,” but also said that the 15-week ban superseded the near-total abortion ban and put on hold large parts of the older law. The decision also sent shockwaves through the reproductive rights community in Arizona and nationally. Angela Florez, the president of Planned Parenthood Arizona, one of the state's remaining abortion care providers, said her group would now only be able to provide abortion care through the 15th week of pregnancy — and only "for a very short period of time." The issue, however, could soon be in the hands of voters. Abortion rights groups in the state are likely to succeed in their goal of putting a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would create a “fundamental right” to receive abortion care up until fetal viability, or about the 24th week of pregnancy. If voters approved the ballot measure, it would effectively undo the 1864 ban that now remains law in the state. It would bar the state from restricting abortion care in situations where the health or life of the pregnant person is at risk after the point of viability, according to the treating health care professional. That ballot effort is one of at least 11 across the country that seek to put the issue directly in the hands of voters — a move that has the potential to significantly boost turnout for Democratic candidates emphasizing the issue. In 2024, that could factor heavily into the outcome of both the presidential and U.S. Senate races in Arizona. Biden, whose campaign is leaning heavily into reproductive rights, won the state by just over 10,000 votes four years ago. And the Senate race features a tough battle to fill the seat held by the retiring independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, most likely between Democrat Ruben Gallego and Republican Kari Lake. During her unsuccessful 2022 run for governor in Arizona, Lake said she supported the 1864 law, calling it “a great law that’s already on the books.” But Lake now says she opposes the 1864 law, as well as a federal abortion ban, while also acknowledging that her own views regarding state policy conflict with some voters’ preferences. In a statement following the decision, Lake said she opposed the ruling, adding that "it is abundantly clear that the pre-statehood law is out of step with Arizonans." She called on state lawmakers to "come up with an immediate common sense solution that Arizonans can support." "Ultimately, Arizona voters will make the decision on the ballot come November," she added. Gallego, who is backed by several reproductive rights groups, has said he supports the ballot measure. As a member of the U.S. House, he is among the co-sponsors of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would create federal abortion protections. In a video posted to X after the ruling, Gallego said he would, with reproductive rights supporters, "fight all the way to November so we can get abortion rights back for women in Arizona." Other Republicans in the state who’d previously expressed robust support for Roe being overturned joined Lake in condemning the ruling. Reps. Juan Ciscomani and David Schweikert, who both face tough re-elections this fall, both called on state lawmakers to address the issue “immediately.” The ruling Tuesday — the second in a swing state on the issue in as many weeks — further highlights the already prominent role abortion rights will play in Arizona and across the country. Last week, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a 15-week ban on abortion in the state, which effectively meant that a six-week abortion ban, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the woman, that Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law last year will take effect. The state's high court also allowed a proposed amendment that would enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution to appear on the November ballot. Tuesday's decision, while jarring to reproductive rights groups, wasn’t entirely unexpected. All seven justices on the Arizona Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors, and during opening arguments in December, they aggressively, but civilly, quizzed attorneys on both sides about the fact that the 15-week ban enacted last year did not feature any language making clear whether it was designed to repeal or replace the 1864 ban. Only six justices participated in Tuesday’s decision, however, after Justice Bill Montgomery — who previously accused Planned Parenthood of practicing “generational genocide” — recused himself. (The court’s chief justice did not appoint another judge to take the spot, which is an option under Arizona law.) The abortion landscape in Arizona has been uniquely confusing since Roe v. Wade was overturned. While the 1864 law had been on hold after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe decision, then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, successfully sued in 2022 to have that injunction lifted following the overturning of Roe, putting the ban back into effect — though a higher court put that ruling on hold. But after Mayes succeeded Brnovich as attorney general, she announced that she would not enforce the 1864 ban. That led to suits from anti-abortion groups seeking enforcement of the ban, which ultimately led to the case making its way up to the state Supreme Court.
Labour creates tax panel to help it clamp down on avoiders 2024-04-09 17:03:00+00:00 - Labour has appointed an expert panel to advise the party on ways to tackle tax avoidance following its plan to reap £5bn from a crackdown on tax dodgers. The party’s shadow financial secretary, James Murray, said the independent group would also advise on how to modernise the tax authority, which has come under fire from MPs for failing to claw back an “eye-watering” amount of owed tax. He said the panel offered decades of experience. Polls are predicting Labour will win the general election but it will inherit a difficult financial legacy. This week shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said she would raise £5bn a year by the end of the next parliament from a clampdown on tax evasion after considering how to fill a hole in her financial plans created by Jeremy Hunt in his budget. Last month, the chancellor offered tax cuts, paid in part with two initiatives – an extended windfall tax on oil and gas companies and higher taxes on non-domiciled residents – that Labour was relying on to boost schools and NHS funding. Reeves said a tightening of rules on non-domiciled taxpayers, forcing them to pay £2.6bn more tax than expected under rules brought in by Hunt, will also help fill the financial hole left by Hunt’s budget. Hinting that a draconian crackdown on tax avoidance was likely, Murray said Labour may need to extend the powers given to tax inspectors to make sure businesses and households pay the correct amount of tax. However, he would take advice from the expert panel before putting forward detailed proposals. Sir Edward Troup, a former Treasury special adviser on tax and head of HMRC, will be joined on the panel by Bill Dodwell, former tax director of the Office for Tax Simplification and a retired senior accountant at Deloittes. The four-person group will also include the Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge, a former chair of parliament’s public accounts committee, and Mike Bracken, founding partner at the consultancy Public Digital, and founder and former executive director of the UK Government Digital Service. Murray said: “I am grateful to the panel for agreeing to support us with this incredibly important piece of work.” Several tax lawyers and accountants said they were dismayed that Labour planned to squeeze the incomes of wealthy non-doms. Sophie Dworetzsky, a partner at the law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, said the move was “disappointing”. She said: “These measures feel like trying to squeeze out every last drop until there’s nothing left. The UK operates in an environment of tax competition, and if the UK makes itself yet more unattractive from a tax point of view, we could lose out to other countries, such as Italy, which have more favourable tax regimes. “One can but hope this is realised before any legislation is implemented,” she added. Nigel Huddleston, the financial secretary to the Treasury, said Labour’s initiative represented a return to “the same old Labour policies of higher spending, higher borrowing and higher taxes”. He added: “Without a plan to pay for Labour’s billions of pounds of unfunded spending promises and their unfunded £28bn a year decarbonisation promise, taxes on working people will rise.” skip past newsletter promotion Sign up to Business Today Free daily newsletter Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning Enter your email address Sign up Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy . We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion Last year the cross-party Commons public accounts committee said an “eye-watering” amount of tax was owed to HMRC, while also criticising tax collectors for lacking ambition to tackle fraud and error. HMRC collected £731.1bn in taxes and duties in the financial year 2021-22, the highest on record. However, the group of MPs tasked with holding the government to account over public spending said billions that could be spent on improving public services was being lost through unpaid tax. Reeves said her plan to invest more than £500m in HMRC to increase the number of tax inspectors would begin to close a £36bn tax gap – the difference between the amount of money HM Revenue and Customs is owed and the amount it actually receives. She said it was not “rocket science” and Labour could “ramp up” the number of HMRC staff “pretty quickly” if the party won the election. “At the start you might need to bring in extra resource but then you need to train people up within the government to do this work,” she said. “This isn’t rocket science. Previous governments have managed to close that tax gap, as it’s called.” She added: “The government’s plans that they announced in March about non-doms, they said they were taking our policy; well, it turns out they’ve taken it but left a load of loopholes in it.” The accountants UHY Hacker Young said fresh data showed that HMRC collected a record high of over £39bn from tax investigations in the year to 31 December, up 22% from £32bn in 2022. Nikhil Oza, a partner at at the firm, said HMRC was already using new technology, including artificial intelligence, to claw back “missing” tax receipts.
Appeals court judge rejects Trump's effort to delay his hush money trial as he appeals a gag order 2024-04-09 16:55:00+00:00 - A New York appeals court judge Tuesday denied Donald Trump's bid to halt his hush money trial while he appeals a gag order, a ruling that came less than 24 hours after another judge rejected the former president's request to delay his impending criminal trial on other grounds. Tuesday's ruling came roughly one hour after Trump attorney Emil Bove argued that his client is entitled to a stay of the proceedings while he challenges the "unconstitutional" partial gag order Judge Juan Merchan handed down against Trump last month and expanded days later. Bove contended the gag order — which prohibits Trump from bashing witnesses, individual prosecutors, court staff and their relatives, the judge's relatives, and jurors and potential jurors — means his client can't comment on publicly filed motions and that it violates the former president's Sixth and First Amendment rights. Former President Donald Trump speaks after a hearing at New York Criminal Court on March 25 in New York. Justin Lane / Pool via AP file His court filing contended the order is causing "ongoing, irreparable harm to Petitioner and the voting public." "He is the leading candidate in a presidential election and this record does not support the gag order," Bove told Justice Cynthia Kern. Steven Wu of the Manhattan district attorney's office, which brought the case against Trump, told the judge that there's no basis for a stay and that Bove was misrepresenting the gag order. "Defense counsel has presented this as high-minded," Wu said, "but we are talking about inflammatory and denigrating remarks about witnesses and family members of court staff. This is not political debate. These are threats against staff that have led to a barrage of attacks that have led to the NYPD becoming involved." Kern’s order allows Trump’s attorneys to make their case for a stay to a full panel of Appellate Division judges. His court filings for that request are due Monday morning — the same time jury selection is scheduled to begin in the case. One of Kern’s Appellate Division colleagues, Justice Lizbeth González, took about two hours Monday to deny Trump’s motion to halt the trial while he pushes forward with an appeal on his argument that he can’t get a fair trial in Manhattan. Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to an adult film star in the closing days of the 2016 presidential election. He's pleaded not guilty.
The Tories let tax dodgers go unchecked. Labour won’t put up with it | Margaret Hodge 2024-04-09 16:36:00+00:00 - This week the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced that Labour would act to tackle tax dodging. HMRC claims £36bn was lost to the exchequer last year simply because people do not pay their tax. Shockingly, that figure is £5bn higher than that lost in the previous year. It represents a third of total government spending on education. It’s a scandal that we must attack. We also know that £36bn is a very conservative estimate of the gap between what the exchequer does collect and what is due – what is known as the tax gap. For instance, many wealthy individuals hide their assets in secret trusts they set up overseas in British tax havens – and they pay no tax on that hidden wealth. Furthermore, the tax gap does not start to take account of the billions lost each year when global companies such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft avoid tax by creating financial structures that have no other purpose than to avoid paying tax. Paying tax is central to the values that we all sign up to in society. If society is to function peacefully and well, we must all agree to abide by a set of rules that enable us to live together in ways that benefit us all. One of those rules is that we should all contribute, according to our income and our wealth, into the common pot for the common good. Failing to do that is both morally reprehensible and illegal. It is shocking that the government has failed to confront this problem throughout its 14 years in power. Indeed, the Conservatives have made it very difficult for HMRC to go after tax dodgers. They have cut the department’s budget by more than 20%, and deliberately not prioritised the work involved in pursuing tax dodgers. Yet we know from HMRC’s own annual report that for every £1 it spends on compliance activities, it can recover £18 in additional revenue. The statistics on enforcement tell a sorry story. Only 11 wealthy people (those who earn more than £200,000 a year, or who hold more than £1m in assets) were prosecuted for tax fraud last year. That miserably low figure is the direct result of the government’s decision to cut the unit that investigates offshore, corporate and wealthy taxpayers by 56% in five years. Overall, prosecutions by the Fraud Investigations Service – the body that deals with the most serious tax offences – fell by three-quarters from 2016/17 to 2022/23. Criminal convictions fell from 808 to 218 in the same period. Many tax dodgers do not dream up the schemes they exploit to avoid paying tax on their own. They are advised by an army of people – accountants, lawyers, bankers and others working in the financial services sector. In 2017, the government created a new criminal offence, whereby a company could be prosecuted if it failed to prevent its employees facilitating tax evasion. The introduction of this new offence should have acted as a powerful deterrent and encouraged behavioural change among financial professionals. But the government has failed to prosecute a single person under this offence. If people know they will not be prosecuted, they carry on behaving badly. Failure to enforce the law makes a mockery of the law. It would seem that the only people HMRC has pursued with vigour have been those who failed to file a tax return on time and were therefore liable to a £100 penalty. According to Tax Policy Associates, 420,000 of those faced with a penalty were individuals who earned so little that they were not liable for any tax at all. The National Audit Office has said we could collect £6bn more in tax each year if we systematically focused on tax compliance. That is money we desperately need to start to repair the public services that have been so appallingly damaged by 14 years of incompetent Conservative government. So I am delighted that Reeves has made tax compliance a priority. I feel privileged and honoured to have been asked by her to join a small group of experts working to the shadow financial secretary, James Murray. Our job is to advise her on how she can achieve her objective. I feel confident that we will be able to identify ways of realising her ambition by using existing laws, tweaking the laws where necessary and investing sensibly in tax compliance activity. If we succeed – and if Labour succeeds in gaining the confidence of the electorate in the general election – we will be helping a Labour government deliver on key commitments to reduce NHS waiting lists, create more emergency dental appointments and introduce breakfast clubs in all our schools. That would be an important and welcome start to restoring our essential public services and creating a better Britain for us all.
New WIC rules include more money for fruits and vegetables for low-income families 2024-04-09 16:26:00+00:00 - The federal program that helps pay for groceries for millions of low-income mothers, babies and young kids will soon emphasize more fruits, vegetables and whole grains, as well as provide a wider choice of foods from different cultures. The final rule changes for the program known as WIC were announced Tuesday by the Food and Nutrition Service, and will take effect within two years with some exceptions. Last updated a decade ago, the new WIC rules make permanent a bump in monthly cash vouchers for fruits and vegetables — something first enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Shoppers can also add canned fish, fresh herbs and lactose-free milk to their carts, among other changes. The voucher piece will take effect by June, officials said. "It places a heavy emphasis on fruits and vegetables, which we think is an important component of a healthy diet," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview. "It's designed to fill the nutrition gaps that are often in the diets of many of us." The WIC program served an average of about 6.6 million low-income Americans a month in 2023 at a cost of a little more than $7 billion. It's designed to supplement the food budgets for pregnant, nursing and postpartum women, as well as to feed babies and young kids up to age 5. That's done by providing vouchers to mothers and children who qualify and specifically listing the amount and types of food they can buy. But officials have said only about half of those eligible are enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. FILE - A woman browses produce for sale at a grocery store, Friday, Jan. 19, 2024, in New York. Peter K. Afriyie / AP Under the new rules, fruits and vegetable vouchers in 2024 will provide $26 per month for kids ages 1 through 4; $47 per month for pregnant and postpartum women; and $52 for breastfeeding women. The changes also expand access to whole grains like quinoa, wild rice and millet and to foods such as teff and whole wheat naan. They also remove or reduce monthly allowances for juice and cut back on allowances for milk. Food plans in the program are based on recommendations from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine and the federal 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The plan failed to include a change requested by top allergists in the U.S. that would have added peanut products to foods allowed for babies ages 6 months to 11 months to help prevent peanut allergies. Research published in 2015 showed early introduction to peanut foods can reduce the chance of allergy development in kids who are at high risk, and several U.S. guidelines suggest exposing high-risk children to peanuts as early as 4 months. Adding peanut to the WIC guidelines may have prevented more than 34,000 infants from developing a peanut allergy, said Dr. Gideon Lack of King's College London, who led the study. But federal nutrition officials concluded that the change was "outside the scope" of the final rule. Dr. Ruchi Gupta, a pediatrics professor and child allergy expert at Northwestern University, called the omission "disappointing." She noted that WIC enrollees often include children of color who are at higher risk of developing dangerous peanut allergies. The decision "can only increase disparities we are already seeing in food allergy prevalence," she said.