0 bet wala
0 bet wala
The decision by special counsel Jack Smith, who had fiercely sought to hold Mr Trump criminally accountable for his efforts to subvert the 2020 election, represented the end of the federal effort against the former president following his election victory this month despite the election-related cases and multiple other unrelated criminal charges against him. The move, announced in court papers, marks the end of the Justice Department’s landmark effort to hold Mr Trump accountable for what prosecutors called a criminal conspiracy to cling to power in the run-up to his supporters’ attack on the US Capitol on January 6 2021. In court papers, prosecutors said the Justice Department’s position “is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated”. Mr Smith’s team emphasised that the move to abandon the prosecutions, in federal courts in Washington and Florida, was not a reflection of their view on the merits of the cases but rather a reflection of their commitment to longstanding department policy. “That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,” the prosecutors wrote in Monday’s court filing in the election interference case. The decision was expected after Mr Smith’s team began assessing how to wind down both the 2020 election interference case and the separate classified documents case in the wake of Mr Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris. The Justice Department believes Trump can no longer be tried in accordance with longstanding policy that says sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted. Mr Trump has cast both cases as politically motivated and has vowed to fire Mr Smith as soon as he takes office in January. The 2020 election case brought last year was once seen as one of the most serious legal threats facing the Republican as he vied to reclaim the White House. However, it quickly stalled amid legal fighting over Mr Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity from prosecution for acts he took while in the White House. The US Supreme Court in July ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, and sent the case back to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan to determine which allegations in the indictment, if any, could proceed to trial. The case was just beginning to pick up steam again in the trial court in the weeks leading up to this year’s election. Mr Smith’s team filed a lengthy brief in October laying out new evidence they planned to use against him at trial, accusing him of “resorting to crimes” in an increasingly desperate effort to overturn the will over voters after he lost to President Joe Biden.Is Verstappen the GOAT? Four-time champ now among F1's greats
Vardy helps Van Nistelrooy to first win with Leicester as Guehi defies the FA with religious message
Nutanix Announces Proposed $750 Million Convertible Senior Notes OfferingThe Ultimate Guide to the Best Christmas Gifts 2024: Why VINGUYS Smart Feeder Is Your Ideal Choice
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu caught a break Monday when the absence of a Republican lawmaker who blocked her plan to hike commercial tax rates on two occasions last week allowed the bill to pass the House and advance to the Senate. The bill cleared the House quickly, representing a stark contrast to the drama seen last Thursday and Friday, when, doubting the presence of a quorum, state Rep. David DeCoste used a procedural tactic to end legislative business on both days, while citing concerns with how the plan would impact the economy. State Rep. Rob Consalvo, noting that he’s been hearing from constituents who are “waiting anxiously” for the bill to become law, said he spoke with DeCoste after his second objection last Friday , describing it as a “very cordial conversation.” “I was grateful that he took my call and now I’m just thrilled that we’re able to move forward,” Consalvo, who sponsored the House bill, told the Herald. “This is a good example of a good compromise. The committee had reservations and their reservations were reflected in the compromise. The business community had reservations. “I think the mayor made it a much better bill by the changes she made,” he added, “and I’m grateful that we were all able to work together to get it done.” DeCoste told the Herald, however, that had he been present, he would have deployed the same procedural tactic to block the bill again. He said he had a death in the family and was attending services. The bill, designed to fend off a 28% quarterly property tax spike for homeowners in January by allowing the city to shift more of its tax burden onto businesses, now moves onto the Senate. “It is the Senate president’s intention to bring this legislation to the floor on Monday, Dec. 2, 2024, giving Senate members and the Wu administration a week to continue conversations,” a spokesperson for Senate President Karen Spilka said in a statement. Mayor Wu expressed gratitude to the House for advancing the legislation, while looking to further action in the Senate, where a prior version of her tax plan stalled. “We look forward to continuing our work and conversations with the Senate to advance this consensus measure as soon as possible to protect Boston residents from a potential devastating tax spike,” Wu said in a statement. Wu has stated that the Legislature needs to act by the end of this month to allow the city to set tax rates and send bills out in December. The mayor’s plan is responsive to changing post-pandemic work patterns that have resulted in falling commercial property values and vacant office space that has shifted more of the city’s tax burden onto the residential sector and put a strain on a city budget that derives more than 70% of its revenue from property taxes. Wu’s office has provided data that show homeowners would be hit with a 28% quarterly tax spike and 14% annual increase without the legislation, which would lower those respective tax hikes to roughly 18% and 9%. The plan, despite featuring a compromise from four business leaders and fiscal watchdogs who had long objected to a tax shift they felt would be harmful to the economy, still continues to draw concerns. Critics have pointed to the mayor’s rejection of calls to cut a $4.6 billion city budget that grew by 8% this fiscal year, while also arguing that the plan would cause further harm to an already struggling commercial sector. All eyes now turn to the Senate, a chamber that’s been more skeptical of the plan. Republican Sen. Ryan Fattman did not explicitly say Monday whether Republicans in that branch also planned to further delay the bill. “We’ll see,” Fattman told reporters. “I’ve heard a lot of concerns. A lot of people have reached out. Actually, surprisingly, some of my constituents who have business interests in Boston. You know, Boston’s a little unique in that it’s not your typical home rule petition. It affects a lot of people.” Fattman added that he would be doing research over the next few days, citing plans to “eat some turkey and stew on it.” Those concerns were evident soon after the bill cleared the House. The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance and Small Property Owners Association quickly released statements slamming the legislative action. A petition had also been circulating beforehand with signatures from business representatives calling for the Legislature to reject the bill. “This vote represents a betrayal of taxpayers, businesses, and anyone who values a vibrant and competitive economy in Boston,” Mass Fiscal spokesman Paul Craney said in a statement. “Instead of standing up for the hard-working entrepreneurs and small business owners who are the backbone of our capital city, House leadership allowed this reckless bill to sail through. “This is not leadership; it’s complicity in a tax-and-spend agenda that threatens our economy,” Craney added. “House Minority Leader Brad Jones was at this morning’s session and had the power to stop this tax hike bill but declined to act. His decision not to take a stand for a fiscally responsible solution that would include spending cuts instead of putting taxpayers on the hook for a spending problem is tantamount to an endorsement of the policy.” Jones’ office said he was only briefly in the House chamber Monday morning, not present when the Boston bill was taken up, and therefore not in a position to comment on it. Amir Shahsavari, vice president of the Small Property Owners Association, said SPOA was “sorry to see the House pass this bill and hope the Senate will resist it, as it harms small businesses and commercial owners” from the Hub and surrounding cities. “It’s like throwing ice water on the city’s economy,” Shahsavari said in a statement. “We do not support Mayor Wu’s bill as any tax should not be considered without budget cuts.”
Black Hole Jet Stumbles Into Something in the Dark
The sweeping victory of the National People’s Power (NPP) in Sri Lanka’s recent elections marked a resounding call for change, as voters across the nation—from north to south and east to west—rejected corrupt political elitism in favour of a new, principled political culture. The scale of this victory, surpassing all predictions, demonstrated the people’s overwhelming desire for a transformation in governance, as clearly reflected in the election results, particularly the postal votes. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, during his address at the swearing-in of the new Cabinet, emphasised a critical shift: the transition from articulating political slogans in Opposition to the responsibility of implementing them through effective governance. He cautioned that the success of the NPP would now depend on delivering on its promises, as slogans alone would no longer resonate with the public. The formation of the NPP’s maiden Cabinet on 18 November sparked widespread discussion, particularly concerning the absence of a Muslim representative. While many celebrated the Cabinet’s adherence to meritocracy and principles, some expressed dissatisfaction, especially on social media, which had been a key platform for NPP’s success. The criticism appears to stem from two distinct groups: Opportunists: These include individuals, both Muslim and non-Muslim, who opposed the NPP during the elections and now seek to exploit the absence of a Muslim minister to discredit the new Government. Emotionally driven advocates: These are well-meaning individuals, including NPP supporters and non-supporters alike, who view the absence of Muslim representation as a failure to uphold symbolic inclusivity. While opportunistic critiques deserve little attention, the emotionally charged reactions highlight the need for a nuanced discussion. It is essential to recognise the NPP’s track record as a champion of minority rights, even in politically and socially adverse circumstances. The party has consistently prioritised principle-based decision-making over political appeasement, distinguishing itself from traditional political practices. The absence of a Muslim minister in the Cabinet raises a broader question: Should ethnic representation take precedence over governance rooted in principles and the Rule of Law? The NPP’s victory reflects a public mandate to dismantle 76 years of political traditions, including symbolic representation, and replace them with a governance framework that ensures fairness, accountability, and the Rule of Law. It is worth asking whether past inclusion of Muslim ministers resulted in tangible benefits for the community, especially during periods of politically motivated violence and systemic discrimination. Sri Lanka’s most urgent need is not symbolic appointments but a governance system that guarantees equal rights, justice, and security for all citizens. The NPP has committed to: Forming a scientifically structured cabinet with portfolios assigned based on qualifications and expertise. Upholding the rule of law, where legislative processes are transparent and inclusive, ensuring that minority rights are protected. While symbolic representation is valuable, it should not overshadow the importance of creating a society where all communities can thrive under a just and accountable government. The NPP/JVP’s steadfast commitment to its principles sets it apart, making any accusations of racism or chauvinism baseless, even by its most ardent detractors. Here are two notable examples that underscore the party’s unwavering stance against racism, even at significant political risk: Easter Sunday aftermath: Following the tragic Easter Sunday terror attacks carried out by extremist individuals identifying as Muslims, a climate of fear and hostility enveloped the Muslim community. Many Muslim leaders and ministers failed to defend their community’s fundamental rights. Amid such turmoil, some Muslims were even compelled to burn their holy Qur’an out of fear of reprisal. In this difficult period, it was none other than His Excellency Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) of the NPP/JVP who courageously stood up for the rights of Muslims, defending them without hesitation. Dr. Shafi allegations: When Dr. Shafi, a Muslim doctor, was wrongfully accused amid a broader campaign of baseless allegations against the Muslim community, a wave of political opportunists, and racist media outlets united to propagate these myths. Yet, only the NPP/JVP and HE AKD openly defended Dr. Shafi and the community, even when Muslim ministers remained silent. Unlike the opportunism rife in traditional Sri Lankan politics, the NPP/JVP adheres to a value-based approach. This principled stance is in stark contrast to the common perception that political alliances and compromises are essential for survival in Sri Lankan politics. The party’s actions during the Presidential election exemplify this ethos. Despite potential political disadvantages, the NPP/JVP refrained from forming opportunistic alliances, maintaining its independence and commitment to its ideals. Traditional parties in Sri Lanka have long indulged in appeasement politics, creating superfluous ministerial positions—such as those for coconut or kithul—to satisfy political allies, often at the expense of taxpayers. In stark contrast, the NPP/JVP has always prioritised merit and accountability over political convenience. Merit-based appointments: The NPP/JVP’s maiden cabinet consists of only 21 members, each selected based on professional qualifications and longstanding dedication to party principles. This streamlined approach ensures efficiency and accountability in governance. A focus beyond personal gain: NPP/JVP leaders do not seek positions for personal advancement. For instance, Tilvin Silva has served as the party’s General Secretary since 1995 without holding a Government position. Similarly, even members who secured the highest preferential votes, such as Namal Karunarathne (Kurunegala) and Nalin Hewage (Galle), were not appointed to cabinet roles but given deputy ministries, reflecting the party’s commitment to principle over patronage. The uproar over the absence of a Muslim representative in the maiden Cabinet of the NPP raises critical questions about the role of minority representation in governance and the larger priorities of the nation. While the emotional responses of many Sri Lankans, especially Muslims, are understandable, it is essential to analyse this issue through a rational lens, grounded in facts, history, and the present context. For the first time since independence, Sri Lanka’s Cabinet does not include a Muslim minister. Historically, every Government has accommodated at least one Muslim representative in the cabinet. However, this tradition alone is not a justification for its continuity. The NPP came to power with a clear mandate to break away from the entrenched practices of the last 76 years, which have often been associated with corruption, inefficiency, and symbolic gestures devoid of tangible benefits. The question many intellectuals now pose is whether this tradition of symbolic inclusion has ever translated into meaningful gains for the Muslim community. Muslim ministers have been present during events such as the violence in Dhargatown, Digana, and Minuwangoda, as well as during campaigns like “Wanda Kottu”, “Wanda Underwear”, and the persecution of Dr. Shafi. Their presence did little to prevent the politically motivated cremation of Muslim bodies during the pandemic. This history forces us to question whether representation alone, without action, serves the interests of the community or the nation. The fear that the absence of a Muslim minister could lead to the enactment of laws detrimental to the community is unfounded when one examines the legislative process. Sri Lanka’s legal system provides multiple layers of scrutiny before a bill becomes law: Cabinet review: Proposals are prepared by ministry officials, discussed, and approved by the cabinet. Public scrutiny: Once gazetted, the public can examine and challenge any bill in the Supreme Court if it violates constitutional or fundamental rights. Parliamentary debate: Parliamentarians from all backgrounds scrutinise and vote on the bill before it becomes law. The absence of a Muslim minister in the cabinet does not negate the checks and balances inherent in this process. Moreover, the presence of Muslim MPs in Parliament ensures that community concerns are voiced effectively. The argument that appointing a Muslim minister symbolises inclusivity and diversity is valid. A government that visibly represents all its people fosters a sense of belonging and national unity. However, symbolism must be balanced against the country’s immediate priorities. While inclusivity is desirable, the current socio-political climate demands a focus on ensuring rule of law, eradicating corruption, and establishing good governance. These principles, when implemented effectively, will benefit all communities, including minorities, far more than symbolic representation. The pressing need of the hour is not merely symbolic gestures but substantive governance. The NPP’s mandate is clear: Rule of Law: Ensuring justice, fairness, and equality for all citizens, irrespective of ethnicity or religion. Merit-based appointments: Selecting leaders and officials based on competence and commitment to public service, not tokenism or appeasement. Eradication of corruption and lawlessness and ensuring good governance: This is essential for fostering trust in institutions, promoting equitable development, and creating a stable, just society where all citizens can thrive. I am of the view that the absence of a Muslim minister in the NPP Cabinet is not an oversight but a reflection of the party’s principle-based governance model. It challenges the traditional approach of token minority representation and prioritises structural reforms to address systemic issues. Inclusivity and diversity remain important, but they must be achieved through actions that foster genuine unity and equity rather than symbolic appointments. The ultimate goal should be a Sri Lanka where all communities feel represented and protected under a governance system driven by principles, not traditions. Let us refrain from hastily judging the Government based on the absence of a Muslim minister in the NPP Cabinet—a decision that, while symbolic of inclusivity, has had little tangible impact on effectiveness. It is imperative for intellectuals and opinion leaders within the Muslim community to actively participate in politics and contribute to good governance. This engagement should transcend personal interests and focus on advancing the well-being of the community and the nation as a whole. As the saying goes, “You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.” Meaningful progress often necessitates difficult decisions and collective effort.None
NoneBy Jen Psaki This is an adapted excerpt from the Dec. 2 episode of "Inside with Jen Psaki." It’s getting to be that time when the news cycle is so crazy that some of the wildest storylines out of Trump world start to fly under the radar. That’s what happened this past weekend when Donald Trump announced his choice to be ambassador to France — a position once held by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. On Saturday, Trump announced on social media he would give that plum diplomatic post to New Jersey real estate mogul Charles Kushner, father of his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Like Trump, the elder Kushner has also faced allegations of corruption throughout his life as he built up a family empire. Seems like a typical story out of the Trump orbit, right? A wealthy convicted felon who’s a friend of the family. In fact, if you’re curious why Kushner wasn’t in Trump’s last administration, it might be because he’s a convicted felon. Back in 2004, Kushner pleaded guilty to 18 federal charges, arising from hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign donations he made as a New Jersey political power broker. Kushner admitted to violating election laws, tax evasion and witness tampering. He ended up serving two years in federal prison. Seems like a typical story out of the Trump orbit, right? A wealthy convicted felon who’s a friend of the family. But actually, no one in Trump’s inner circle has ever done what Kushner did to obstruct justice. Back in 2003, when the federal grand jury investigation of Kushner began, the jury heard evidence from two key witnesses: Kushner’s sister and her husband. When he pleaded guilty, Kushner acknowledged that after he found out some members of his family were cooperating with authorities, he arranged to have a prostitute seduce his brother-in-law in a motel room in New Jersey where video cameras were installed. The plot succeeded and Kushner later had a videotape sent to his sister. Then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie called it “one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes” he had prosecuted. But in Trump’s last days as president in 2020, he gave the elder Kushner a presidential pardon, one that was roundly criticized even among his many other questionable pardons. And now Trump wants him to be the ambassador in Paris and the top diplomat to one of America’s oldest nuclear-armed allies. The ambassador to a country where they have the internet and Google and certainly know all about Kushner’s past. This would be bigger news if not for the avalanche of alarming reports surrounding Trump’s other nominees. But guess what? Kushner isn’t even the only presidential in-law named to get a job this week. Then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie called it “one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes” that he had prosecuted. On Sunday, Trump announced on social media that he was naming Massad Boulos to be a senior White House adviser on Arab and Middle Eastern affairs. Boulos is a Lebanese American businessman and the CEO of SCOA Nigeria, a billion-dollar auto company. He has no diplomatic experience, but he is the father-in-law of Trump’s daughter Tiffany Trump. So, I guess the question is: Just how many important government positions can you hand out to wealthy friends and family, including convicted felons with no relevant experience, before that government crumbles under the weight of its own corruption? I honestly don’t know the answer. But we may be about to find out. Allison Detzel contributed. Jen Psaki is the host of "Inside with Jen Psaki" airing Sundays at 12 p.m. ET and Mondays at 8 p.m. EST. She is the former White House press secretary for President Joe Biden.Got 5 Benjamins? After failed AG bid Gaetz selling Cameo videos for pep talks, weddings, whatever
Affiliate links for the products on this page are from partners that compensate us (see our advertiser disclosure with our list of partners for more details). However, our opinions are our own. See how we rate tax products to write unbiased product reviews. Donations to charity are generally tax-deductible if you itemize your deductions. The recipient of your donation must have a special tax-exempt status called 501(c)(3). Gifts of cash, stockholdings, clothing, household goods, and even real estate are potentially tax-deductible. Taxpayers who donate to charitable causes can use a federal income tax deduction to reduce what they owe the IRS. However, only those who itemize their deductions can take advantage of it. According to the Tax Foundation, since 2017 tax reforms, the number of people who itemize has dropped dramatically, making the charitable tax deduction all the more valuable to those who qualify. Qualified organizations for tax-deductible donations Some donations to 501(c)(3) organizations are deductible on your federal tax return and potentially your state return, too. This means you can subtract the value of the donation from your income, which may lead to a lower tax bill. A 501(c)(3) is a tax-exempt organization registered with the IRS. Examples include religious and educational groups, civil and human rights groups, animal and child welfare organizations, private family nonprofits, and medical research groups. Types of tax-deductible donations Most people give cash to charity, in part because it's easy to report. But you can also donate big-ticket items such as a car or stock portfolio. Donating financial assets that have increased in value helps you avoid the capital gains tax and qualify for an income tax deduction. "Donations can take the form of almost anything of value, and the fair market value most often determines the deduction amount," says H. Jeffrey Spivack, director of financial planning at Prestige Wealth Management Group. Donations to political parties, political action committees, campaigns, or individual political candidates are not eligible for a tax deduction. Neither is money you give to individuals, whether directly or through online fundraisers. For example, a donation to the American Red Cross for hurricane relief might be tax-deductible (provided you meet other conditions), but a check made out to a specific family affected by the disaster is not. Many people give cash or cash equivalents to charity. Other types of donations that may be eligible for a tax deduction include: Stocks and bonds Intellectual property, such as patents, copyrights, and trademarks Jewelry, coin, or stamp collections Clothing, appliances, electronics, furniture, and other household items that are in good condition or better Cars, boats, and airplanes Real estate and land Business inventory (special rules apply to food) 14 cents per mile when you drive your car while volunteering for a qualifying organization Important: Donations to individuals are not considered tax-deductible charitable contributions. They are gifts and fall under separate gift tax rules . Deduction limits and requirements In order to qualify for the charitable donations tax break, you have to itemize your deductions. In addition to charitable donations, common itemized deductions include mortgage interest , state and local taxes up to $10,000, and major medical expenses. Few taxpayers itemize since the standard deduction — an amount that everyone automatically gets to claim against their income — increased substantially in 2018. The standard deduction for taxes due in April 2025 is $14,600 for single tax filers and $29,200 for married joint filers. If your standard deduction is higher than your total itemized deductions, you won't get any benefit from writing off any of your expenses, including charitable donations. Because of these rules, it can be difficult for married couples to deduct any of their charitable contributions. Their total itemized deductions would need to be at least double that of a single filer to eclipse the standard deduction. "The decision about whether to use a standard or itemized deduction is based on which will provide the taxpayer a better benefit, so it may make sense to consider bunching multiple itemized deductions into a single year to obtain a more significant overall deduction, including the tax-deductible charitable contribution," Spivack says. Quick tip: If you receive something in return for making a donation, such as a meal or tickets to a sports game, the tax-deductible portion is your total donation minus the fair market value of the item. The type of donation you make and the charity it goes to determine how much of it will be deductible. In general, the tax deduction for cash contributions is capped at 60% of your adjusted gross income (AGI). Non-cash donations, including property that has increased in value — i.e., capital gain property — are subject to 20%, 30%, and 50% limits. If your total donations for the year exceed your AGI limit, you may be able to carry over the remainder and claim deductions during the next five years. Note: For tax years 2020 and 2021, the IRS temporarily allowed tax filers to claim up to $300 in charitable donations as a deduction without itemizing. That's no longer available. In 2024, a single taxpayer with $100,000 in annual income donated $7,000 to their community church and $1,000 to the Girl Scouts of America for a total of $8,000 in charitable contributions. The standard deduction is $14,600, so the taxpayer needs an additional $6,600 in itemized deductions, such as mortgage interest or state and local taxes, to be able to claim the charitable tax deduction. Say the taxpayer ends up with total itemized deductions of $18,000. That's higher than the standard deduction, so their taxable income becomes $82,000. Record-keeping for tax-deductible donations As with any tax matter, it's important to keep receipts of your charitable donations. Generally, the larger your donation, the more detailed your records should be. For cash donations of less than $250, keep a copy of your bank statement, a canceled check, or a note from the organization to verify the date and size of your gift. For cash or non-cash donations of $250 or more, ask the organization for a receipt showing the estimated value of your donation. Charitable donations of any size for which you are seeking a tax deduction are reported on the tax form Schedule A , under the Gifts to Charity section. For non-cash donations of more than $500, you will need to attach Form 8283 , which asks for details like your original purchase price. For donations above $5,000, you will need a professional to appraise the item. The organization that received your donation will also need to complete and sign part of the tax form. Maximizing your tax benefits If you regularly donate to charity but cannot seem to exceed your standard deduction with gifts to charity and other eligible itemized deductions, you might consider bunching your donations. In this case, you'll make several years' worth of donations in a single year to increase your chances of being able to itemize deductions. Contributing stocks to a donor-advised fund , which lets you choose your recipients over time, can be an effective way to bunch donations and avoid taxes on capital gains. "By donating appreciated securities held for more than one year, a taxpayer is donating up to 20% more than if they had sold the security and written a check," Spivack says. Also, there's one case where you may be able to essentially write off your charitable donations without itemizing your deductions, Spivack says. If you're 70 and a half or older, you can redirect up to $100,000 a year from your IRA to a qualified charity in lieu of taking your required minimum distribution in a move called a qualified charitable distribution, or QCD. Though the mechanics are slightly different from the charitable tax deduction, you still avoid paying income taxes on the amount you donate. FAQs about tax-deductible donations To be tax-deductible, your donations must be received by a 501(c)(3) organization. You will need to provide a receipt for all cash and non-cash donations worth $250 or more. Charitable donations are a type of itemized deduction. If you don't have enough other eligible expenses to itemize this year, you won't be able to claim your gifts to charity. You might consider bunching contributions into a single year in the future so that you have a better chance at eclipsing your standard deduction and being able to itemize. Real estate/mortgages Taxes Retirement planning Small business finances Banking BudgetingCalifornia will revive its own subsidy programs for electric vehicles if Donald Trump guts US federal tax breaks for such cars, the state's governor said Monday. The president-elect has said repeatedly he would scrap what he called the "electric vehicle mandate" -- actually a $7,500 federal rebate for anyone who purchases an EV. Gavin Newsom, who heads the solidly Democratic state and has pitched himself as a leader of the anti-Trump political resistance, said Monday California was not "turning back" towards polluting transport. "We will intervene if the Trump Administration eliminates the federal tax credit, doubling down on our commitment to clean air and green jobs in California," Newsom said. "We're not turning back on a clean transportation future -- we're going to make it more affordable for people to drive vehicles that don't pollute," he added. "Consumers continue to prove the skeptics wrong -- zero-emission vehicles are here to stay." If Trump scraps the tax credit, California could revive its own Clean Vehicle Rebate Project, which ran until November 2023, granting rebates of up to $7,500 for people buying battery-powered cars, a press release said. California leads the nation in electric vehicle adoption, and is the single biggest market in the country, representing around a third of all units sold in the United States. State figures show that more than two million so-called "zero emission vehicles" -- which include fully electric vehicles as well as plug-in hybrids -- have now been sold in the state, with one-in-four new cars in that category. On the campaign trail, Trump was frequently hostile to electric vehicles, which he has linked with what he calls the "hoax" of climate change. He vowed repeatedly that under his watch the United States would become "energy dominant," chiefly through expanded oil and gas extraction. For many in California, such pledges are anathema, with the state frequently battered by the tangible effects of climate change, from huge wildfires to droughts to furious storms. Newsom -- who many believe has White House ambitions of his own -- has positioned himself as a bulwark against the feared excesses of an incoming Trump administration on issues from climate change to immigration, vowing to be a check on its power. With 40 million people, the sheer size of California's market has for a long time helped set the national tone when it comes to pollution standards for automakers. Rather than make two versions of the same vehicles, Detroit giants have willingly adopted California's tougher rules on emissions and efficiency for nationwide sales. That de facto standard-setting power has angered Republicans like Trump, who say -- on this issue -- states should not be allowed to set their own rules.
Friendly reminder |
The authenticity of this information has not been verified by this website and is for your reference only. Please do not reprint without permission. If authorized by this website, it should be used within the scope of authorization and marked with "Source: this website". |
Special attention |
Some articles on this website are reprinted from other media. The purpose of reprinting is to convey more industry information, which does not mean that this website agrees with their views and is responsible for their authenticity. Those who make comments on this website forum are responsible for their own content. This website has the right to reprint or quote on the website. The comments on the forum do not represent the views of this website. If you need to use the information provided by this website, please contact the original author. The copyright belongs to the original author. If you need to contact this website regarding copyright, please do so within 15 days. |