tax

Caracas, April 9, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez announced a series of upcoming reforms concerning Venezuela’s labor, tax, and pension frameworks during a press conference on Wednesday, April 8. 

Addressing her cabinet at Miraflores Presidential Palace, Rodríguez unveiled the creation of a commission made up of representatives from the state, business sector, active workers, and pensioners to “review labor conditions, address precariousness, and strengthen the social security system.”

Rodríguez acknowledged deficiencies in areas such as working hours, vacation benefits, and pensions, arguing that the present social security system is not sustainable due to insufficient contributions from active workers and the private sector.

The acting president disclosed an upcoming increase to workers’ incomes on May 1, but did not specify if it would come in the form of an adjusted minimum wage or non-wage bonuses. Rodríguez warned that salary adjustments must be “responsible” so that they do not trigger inflation.

Venezuelan authorities have discussed the prospect of reforming the 2012 Labor Law for several months, installing several dialogue commissions and public debates.

The existing labor law, approved by former President Hugo Chávez, prohibits unfair dismissal and outsourcing, enshrines the world’s third-longest maternity leave, guarantees the right to work for both women and people with disabilities, and extends retirement pensions to all workers, including full-time mothers and the self-employed. However, trade unions have pointed out that state institutions and the Labor Ministry have reduced their enforcement of the law in recent years.

Rodríguez’s public broadcast came hours before workers and unions staged a mobilization in Caracas demanding higher wages, improved working conditions, and the repeal of statutes that suspended several collective bargaining rights. In recent protests, workers have called for an end to the government’s bonus-based wage policy and the restoration of collective bargaining agreements.

Venezuela’s minimum wage has remained unchanged since March 2022 at 130 bolívares per month—equivalent at the time to around US $30 but presently worth approximately $0.27 at the official exchange rate.

With the economy heavily constrained by US sanctions, the Venezuelan government relied on non-wage bonuses—paid in bolívares but pegged at a fixed US dollar amount. A recent increase took the so-called Economic War Bonus, paid to public sector employees, to $150 a month. Coupled to a $40 food bonus, it brought the floor income to $190.

Public sector retirees and pensioners receive $130 and $60 Economic War bonuses, and do not access the food bonus.

For their part, business sector representatives have demanded changes to the labor law that reduce costs for employers before any adjustment to the minimum wage. Amid ongoing discussions with the International Labour Organization (ILO), private sector organizations proposed modifying Article 122 of the Labor Law, which establishes that severance payments are calculated based on the last salary earned by the worker.

Tax reform and state asset review

Rodríguez also announced the immediate convening of a National Economic Council tasked with designing a more “efficient” tax model aimed at making Venezuela “more competitive.”

“I hope that this council can produce a new tax model that can generate consensus among the different economic sectors in the country,” the Venezuelan leader stressed. 

She further enacted the Law on Streamlining and Optimization of Administrative Procedures, previously approved by the National Assembly, which seeks to modernize public administration by reducing bureaucracy and incorporating digital tools. According to Rodríguez, the law grants the executive authority to eliminate procedures, shorten timelines, and improve coordination between institutions.

In addition, she ordered the creation of a mixed commission to evaluate which state-owned assets have “strategic” importance, potentially opening some to private investment. However, she clarified that the hydrocarbons sector will remain under state control. The Cisneros group, one of Venezuela’s largest conglomerates, recently announced plans to raise funds ahead of an “expected wave of privatizations.”

The Venezuelan acting administration’s wholesale reform plans follow a recent pro-business overhaul of the Hydrocarbon Law in late January. The South American country’s National Assembly is likewise close to approving a new Mining Law with the goal of attracting foreign investment for extractive activities.

On Wednesday, Rodríguez additionally called for reforms to the country’s housing laws, claiming that there are half a million “frozen” properties presently that could be incorporated into the real estate market.

The acting president’s final announcement was a nationwide “pilgrimage” scheduled from April 19, Venezuela’s Independence Day, to May 1 to demand the lifting of US unilateral coercive measures against the Caribbean nation. While the Trump administration has issued selective and restrictive licenses to favor the participation of Western companies in the Venezuelan oil and mining sectors, wide-reaching sanctions remain in place.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

BBC expert Rebecca Wilcox has warned people may want to opt out of Winter Fuel Payment from April 1 to avoid paying double monthly deductions back to HMRC due to a change this year

A BBC expert has warned that millions of individuals may need to take action on or after 1 April, or risk paying ‘double’ back to HMRC. Consumer specialist Rebecca Wilcox told BBC Morning Live viewers that anyone with a taxable income exceeding £35,000 might want to opt out of the 2026 winter fuel payment to avoid repaying ‘£33 each month’ due to the change.

She cautioned that from April, millions of households will be contacted by HMRC and informed they may need to repay their Winter Fuel Payment. She further clarified that some might want to act to prevent receiving the money and thus bypass the repayment process.

Ms Wilcox highlighted that a significant change later this year would result in people repaying double the full amount. On the topic of early cancellation, she explained: “If you know your personal income is going to be over the threshold of £35,000 then opt out of it for the next year and then you don’t have to worry about the next payment. You cannot do this until 1 April. The reason you’ll want to opt out is because the payments are going to double just for one year.

“This is because the taxman is in debt, he’s in arrears, because he’s paid out all this money and it wants to claw this money back. For one year it is going to charge everybody double on their repayments so it can get back into the normal process of taking the money from you and then returning it. It wants to have its money so for one year it is going to charge you, say you were doing, for example we were talking about, of £17 per month tax deductions, it’s going to charge you double, £34 per month for that one year and then it will go back to £17.

“So that’s why you might want to opt out if you know you’re going to be earning £35,000 and above. If your income then drops just be aware you will have to opt back in to receive the winter fuel payment.”

Ms Wilcox told BBC Morning Live viewers: “The Winter Fuel Payment was a lump sum that was paid out to help you with your fuel bills during the cold months of November and December. That’s when the payments were made. What happened was they paid everybody who was over the age threshold. You were eligible to keep it if you were born before 22 September 1959 – that’s for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Or the 21 September 1959 in Scotland.

“If you’re born before that and you earn £35,000 exactly and under you can keep it. If you earn even a penny over the £35,000 of your personal, taxable income, then you will need to pay back this payment. The payment was between £100 and £300 and that number was calculated on your circumstances, your household circumstances and how old you are.

“For some this is going to be the first they’ve heard about repayment. And there’s a reason that this is happening and it’s because HMRC can do many things but it cannot predict the future. It has no idea how much you’re going to earn in that future tax year. So it’s just given it to everybody and then when it knows how much you’ve earned whic” h is April, it will reclaim the funds that were paid to you in November.

“If you earn over £35,000 and are within the age bracket you will be required to pay this back in full.” She noted that HMRC has an online checker available for those uncertain whether they exceed that threshold.

Winter Fuel Payments, referred to in Scotland as Pension Age Winter Heating Payments, are annual financial grants designed to assist with winter energy costs. For the current payment, eligibility extends to individuals born before 22 September 1959 in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, and before 21 September 1959 in Scotland.

The payment amount varies from £100 to £300 depending on age and household situation. HMRC cannot determine final income until the tax year concludes. Since payments must be distributed before winter, the system operates by paying everyone of qualifying age initially, then contacting those who exceed the income threshold afterwards.

In most instances, the money will be recovered automatically through the tax system. HMRC will modify the individual’s tax code in the 2026 to 2027 tax year. The repayment shows as an underpayment, resulting in slightly higher tax deductions each month.

No interest is charged on the sum being repaid. For instance, someone who received £200 might see their monthly income reduced by approximately £17 while the repayment is collected.

Individuals who complete a Self Assessment tax return will instead have the repayment added to their tax bill for the 2025 to 2026 tax year. Anyone who believes the calculation is wrong can dispute the decision with HMRC.

From 1 April 2026, households can decline the 2026 to 2027 payment by contacting the Winter Fuel Payment Centre or filling in a form online. You will need your National Insurance number to do this.

Once you opt out, you will not receive future payments unless you choose to opt back in. The primary reason to opt out if you expect your income to remain above the threshold is because from the 2027 to 2028 tax year, HMRC plans to recover payments in advance rather than in arrears, meaning deductions could be roughly double.

For a typical £200 payment, this could mean around £33 a month being taken through the tax system instead of about £17. The deductions are expected to return to the lower monthly amount in the following tax year.

Depending on where people stay, they could be paying more than £13 a night in the municipal surcharge

UK travellers to Spain have been told of a ‘doubling’ of a charge for all tourists going to a popular hotspot from today. It has been reported in Spain that the doubling of the municipal surcharge comes into effect on April 1.

Depending on the type of accommodation, tourists may pay up to €15 more per night in Barcelona. This is due to an increase in the tourist tax on the one hand now ranging from €1 to €7 depending on the category of accommodation and a municipal tax which rises from €4 to €8.

Applicable to stays in hotels, hostels and short-term rentals, these taxes can, when combined, amount to up to €15 per night per person, LeFigaro reported.

The measure was announced in March 2025 but was only approved by the Catalan parliament a few weeks ago. Barcelona City Council has voted in favour of increasing the council tax by one euro per year until 2029. The aim is to tackle the housing crisis. Residents regularly protest against rising rents, which they believe are partly due to the growing number of short-term rentals such as Airbnb.

In a four-star hotel – which accounts for nearly half of the local hotel stock – a two-night stay for a couple could therefore cost up to €45 more. Cruise ship passengers must also pay these taxes: they will pay €12 – instead of €8 – if they disembark for more than twelve hours, or €14 (instead of €11) if they stay for less than twelve hours. One exception remains for a specific category of accommodation: hostels listed in the Generalitat de Catalunya’s Youth Hostel Register, for which the fee remains at €1.

With these new rules, the Autonomous Community of Catalonia hopes to raise 200 million euros a year. On its website, the Catalan government states that “25% of the revenue from the tourist tax will be allocated to the Generalitat’s housing policies, whilst 75% will be channelled into the Tourism Promotion Fund, [in particular] for housing policies [and] economic development policies.”

With the new regulation, the tax will rise to seven euros per night in five-star accommodations in Barcelona and to 3.40 euros in four-star accommodations. It will also be more expensive for cruise passengers, especially those disembarking in the Catalan capital. Those staying for less than 12 hours will pay six euros in Barcelona and 4.50 euros in the rest of the ports in Catalonia , 20 Minutos reported.

The tax increase will be phased in over two years. The first increase will take place this April, while the remainder will be implemented a year later, in April 2027. At that point, the tourist tax will be completely doubled. However, in Barcelona, the increase will be more immediate and will begin this month to address the high tourist pressure the city experiences, unlike the rest of Catalonia.

The revenue from the tourist tax will be divided into two parts. 25% of the total income will be allocated to housing policies of the Generalitat (Catalan government), one of the main pillars of Catalan President Salvador Illa’s policies. The remaining 75% of the revenue will be integrated into the Tourism Promotion Fund.

The increase in the tourist tax in Catalonia already has the support of a majority of the parliamentary groups, as well as the backing of a large part of the population. This is especially true in Barcelona, where overtourism has wreaked havoc on both housing and community life. In fact, in the Catalan capital, there have already been demonstrations by residents against the massive influx of visitors, and proof of this is that 76.7% of the population says the city has reached its maximum capacity for receiving tourists.

These data are reflected in the latest survey on tourism perception in Barcelona, published by the city council itself, in which 56% of residents support the increase in the tourist surcharge.

Public support for the increase in the tourist tax contrasts sharply with the total opposition from the Catalan tourism sector. Following the announcement of the agreement between the PSC, ERC, and Comuns parties, business owners in Catalonia’s tourist accommodation sector expressed their “total and unanimous rejection.” The employers’ association Confecat asserted that the measure is “improvised, lacking strategic rigour, disconnected from the country’s real needs, and driven solely by revenue collection.”

Furthermore, the Catalan Federation of Tourist Apartments (Federatur) warned that the tax increase will lead to a loss of competitiveness for the region and make Catalans’ holidays more expensive. This position is also supported by other employers’ associations, trade groups, and federations within the sector, such as Foment del Treball, the Barcelona Hotel Guild, Pimec, and the Barcelona Tourist Apartment Association.

According to Jordi Clos, president of the Hotel Association, there is some concern among representatives of the tourism sector about how the tax increase will affect business. “It will be necessary to monitor the impact this measure may have to prevent a significant and lasting decline,” he stated after the Catalan Parliament approved the increase in February.

HOLIDAYS are getting more expensive from today with a rise in Air Passenger Duty (APD).

ADP, first introduced in 1994, is the ‘tax’ that passengers have to pay when flying from the majority of UK airports, which is built into the cost of flights.

From today, the rates have increased, and how much you pay depends on the final destination and the class of travel.

Band A is any destination abroad whose capital city is 2,000 miles or less from London, which covers all of Europe and parts of North Africa.

For example, flying in economy to a short-haul destination like Spain, Greece or Portugal has some of the lowest rates from £15.

A family of four could therefore expect to pay £60 under the new rules if travelling in economy.

DIG IN

We found 20 of the cheapest all-inclusive hotels for summer… with breaks from £349pp

GET IT BOOKED

The ‘cheap luxury’ beach resorts under 4 hours from UK with breaks from £75pp

However, this can go up to £32 per passenger depending on the class they are flying in.

When flying further afield, or in a premium economy or higher, the tax goes up.

Band B is any destination whose capital city is 2,001-5,500 miles from London, so long-haul destinations such as Egypt or the Maldives.

These range from £102 to £244 – so it would be £408 for a family of four in economy flying to resort towns like Sharm El Sheikh.

Band C is for destinations whose capital city is over 5,500 miles from London.

These include Bangkok, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Buenos Aires and all Australia.

The rates range from £106 to £253 – meaning it could be more than £1,000 for a family of four at the top rate.

There is an even higher rate which in line with Band C can be as high as £1,141 – but this applies to private jets.

UK domestic flights range from £8 to £16 depending on class.

The government will review the rates of APD again on April 1, 2027.

There aren’t many ways to avoid paying APD, but if you still want to go abroad and avoid the extra fee, there are a few ways to do so.

Passengers under 16 who are travelling in basic economy are exempt from paying APD – although if they fly premium economy or above, they will be charged.

One is to fly into the UK on one plane and out within 24 hours on another.

But you need to have them both included in the same ticket.

Or, fly on a route from a UK airport that is not subject to APD.

Scottish Highlands and Islands region are exempt like Inverness, Oban, Sumburgh and Stornoway.

Direct long-haul flights from Northern Ireland are also exempt as long as the first part of the journey is to a destination not in the UK or in Band A.

When the departure tax was first introduced, it was just £5 European flight and £10 on long-haul services.

For how to save money on holiday, TUI expert reveals how to save hundreds on the same break – as well as the little-known money saving tool.

And from someone who has travelled to 41 countries – the simple hotel trick that saved my family of four hundreds.

Southwest Airlines has come under fire for its controversial policy change which can require plus-size passengers to purchase an extra seat at the airline’s “sole discretion”, with furious travellers branding it “discrimination”

A so-called “fat tax” aimed at plus-size airline passengers has left travellers furious and feeling “stressed”. Major carrier Southwest Airlines has found itself at the centre of controversy over its contentious new policy, which can compel passengers to shell out for an additional seat at its “sole discretion”.

The policy change comes after 30 years of letting plus-sized passengers request a complimentary extra seat at the gate, and reimbursing those who purchased one in advance – a practice that has now been scrapped.

Under the new rules, customers will only receive a refund for a second seat if their flight departs with at least one empty seat, while those who failed to book ahead can be forced to purchase another ticket on the spot.

In a statement addressing the policy change, a Southwest spokesperson said: “To ensure space, we are communicating to customers who have previously used the extra seat policy that they should purchase it at booking.”

On the airline’s website, the updated “customer of size” policy reads: “Customers who encroach upon the neighboring seat(s) must purchase the number of seats needed. Customers should purchase the seats prior to travel to ensure adjacent seats are available.

“The armrest is considered to be the definitive boundary between seats; you may review information about the width of Passenger seats. In addition, Southwest may determine, in its sole discretion, that an additional seat is necessary for safety purposes.”

But passengers are far from happy. Influencer Samyra Miller turned to TikTok to criticise the policy, branding it a “fat tax”.

She said: “They’ve been doing this way before their little new policy was even supposed to go into effect because, remember, they kicked me off my flight in December.”

She revealed a Southwest representative privately messaged her after she shared her negative experience online and continued: “My primary concern with that whole back and forth with Southwest was for how they were about to treat their plus size customers in changing their customer of size policy.”

Samyra referred to the wording of the policy on the Southwest website but claimed, at the airport, “they’re just eyeing people”. The content creator went on: “There is no criteria that they are using to determine who has to pay for an extra seat.”

Describing it as “discrimination”, Samyra continued: “It is literally just at the discretion of and fatphobia of whoever is working that day.”

In the comments section, people were eager to share their opinions. One TikTok user said: “This is absolutely horrible!”

Another said: “We have a company trip in May and I told my boss to use any other airline BUT Southwest.”

A third posted: “I have a flight in 5 days I AM STRESSED I DON’T have more money to buy an extra seat”.

While another added: “This isn’t fair at all”.

Fellow TikTok user Sassa Ésmith uploaded a video prior to a Southwest flight and added text overlay which read: “Shoutout to Southwest for contributing to my traveling anxiety with your superfluous ‘customer of size policy'”.

In the caption, she said: “Spent my entire lobby time mentally preparing for a random gate agent to tell me I gotta buy an additional seat for a 40 minute flight”.

Passengers should act now before flights get more expensive

Passengers thinking of booking flights from the UK should book before Wednesday if they want to avoid an imminent cost increase. Air passenger duty (APD) is going up on April 1, making flights more expensive. As the duty forms part of the cost of each airline ticket, carriers say the adjustment is likely to result in higher fares on some routes, Majorca Daily Bulletin reports.

The amount of air passenger duty per person depends on several things, including ticket class and how far the country’s capital city is from the UK. The amount goes up significantly if you sit in anything but basic economy and if you fly to a country whose capital is more than 2,000 miles away from London.

Travel expert Simon Calder explains that the levy “is unique to the UK and a topic of much controversy”. He adds: “Chancellor Rachel Reeves has imposed an above-inflation increase from April 1, 2026 and one in line with the retail prices index a year after that. By the summer of 2027, a family of four flying premium economy to Orlando will pay over £1,000 in tax for leaving the UK in anything better than basic economy.”

Four different categories of destination

• UK domestic flights
• Band A: Countries where capital city is 2,000 miles or less from London — this covers all of Europe
• Band B: Capital city is 2,001-5,500 miles from London — includes most long-haul destinations
• Band C: Capital city is over 5,500 miles from London — includes Bangkok, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Buenos Aires and Australia.

What are the rates?

From April 1, 2026, they will all rise to the following:

• UK domestic: £8 (economy) or £16 (anything but economy)
• Band A: £15 or £32
• Band B: £102 or £244
• Band C: £106 or £253

Before April 1, 2026 the rates are as follows:

• UK domestic: £7 or £14
• Band A: £13 or £28
• Band B: £90 or £216
• Band C: £94 or £224

So you can see, the increases are not huge but could add significant costs to the price of a holiday for a family of four to somewhere that is more than 2,000 miles away.

APD does not apply to children under 16 travelling in basic economy but is payable for all children over two travelling in premium classes.

How much APD will I pay?

A family of four with children between two and 15 will pay the following APD from April 1, 2026:

• UK: £16 in basic economy, £64 in premium economy or better.
• Europe: £30 or £128
• Most long-haul destinations: £204 or £976
• Ultra-long-haul destinations: £212 or £1,012

But a family of four with children aged 16 and over will pay the following APD from April 1, 2026:

• UK: £32 in basic economy, £64 in premium economy or better
• Europe: £60 or £128
• Most long-haul destinations: £408 or £976
• Ultra-long-haul destinations: £424 or £1,012

As you can see, the year-on-year increases are not that significant for shorter flights, but can add up more if you are taking older children on longer flights. But if you feel that you want to save every pound possible, if you get your flights booked before Wednesday then you’ll save on APD.

Tourism chiefs are predicting a near two million jump in the number of Brits holidaying at home this Easter

Around 12.5 million Brits are planning an Easter staycation – as the Middle East war deters families from jetting abroad.

The number of people who say they intend to holiday in the UK over the Easter weekend is up sharply from 10.6 million last year. The near two million surge will help deliver a bumper £4.8billion boost to tourism and the wider economy, according to VisitEngland, which published the data.

The number saying they hope to holiday at home dwarfs the estimated 7.4 million who are planning a trip abroad this Easter. Of those definitely aiming to take a staycation during the Easter break, the majority will be short breaks of one to three nights.

READ MORE: UK drivers urged to do three-second car check as clocks change this weekendREAD MORE: UK’s ‘holiday park of the year’ is on family-run farm near beautiful beaches

It came as VisitEngland’s Trip-Tracker revealed that more than a quarter of those it surveyed, 28%, were worried about the impact of the Middle East conflict on their upcoming travel plans in April and May. The top concern was having less money to spend due to the economic impact. There have already been fears of air fare price hikes and possible flight cancellations.

The number of people planning an Easter staycation this year also marks a big jump on 2024’s 11 million, and nearly double the 6.5 million in 2023. A further 5.1 million people surveyed said they were undecided about whether to take an overnight holiday trip in the UK during the Easter weekend. The top reasons were “waiting to see if I can afford it” and “waiting to see what the weather is like”. Forecasts for the weather suggest it will be a mixed bag next week, but with settled conditions over the Easter weekend itself.

However, those driving for days out and holidays in the UK face a hit to the wallet from soaring fuel prices on the back of the Iran war. The nationwide average for unleaded has jumped to 150p a litre, up 17p since before the conflict erupted. Diesel drivers have been hit even harder, with diesel now averaging 176.68p per litre, a leap of 34p in recent weeks.

RAC head of policy Simon Williams said: “Petrol has now broken through the unwelcome milestone of 150p a litre (150.11p), something drivers haven’t seen since mid-May two years ago while the average price of diesel is now approaching 180p at 177.68p.

“With the long-awaited four-day Easter weekend almost within touching distance, the cost of getting away by car is going to be noticeably higher this year.

“And with average prices at motorway services at 166p for unleaded and 182p for diesel, drivers on long journeys will need to plan very carefully where they refuel. The best advice remains to shop around for fuel and make use of free apps such as myRAC to never pay a penny more for fuel than is absolutely necessary.”

Some families may also think twice given another wave of bill increases – including water and council tax – from the start of April, and warnings that food price inflation could jump again.

Kate Allen, owner of Devon-based Finest Stays, said: “For now, we’re not seeing a slowdown. Bookings are up around 10% on this time last year, with more guests opting to stay in the UK rather than travel further afield to places like Dubai.

“The Great British holiday is very much in favour, as we’re a nation that prioritises getting away, and domestic breaks are benefiting from that shift. That said, there’s a nervous undercurrent. Fuel costs feel like a slow leak, pressure building rather than bursting.

“We’re expecting more guests to postpone or cancel, and that’s where it gets tricky. Terms and conditions may cover it, but it doesn’t make refund conversations any easier when the wider impact on businesses and homeowners isn’t fully understood.”

Tourism Minister Stephanie Peacock said: “It is wonderful that so many people are planning on having a staycation this Easter weekend, whether that’s spending time visiting our stunning landscapes and coastlines or exploring our vibrant towns, cities and cultural landmarks. Supporting domestic tourism helps local areas thrive – fuelling small businesses, boosting pride, and strengthening community economies.”

VisitEngland chief executive Patricia Yates said: “Tourism businesses and destinations will be looking to the critical Easter weekend for much needed cash flow so it’s encouraging to see so many of us are planning a holiday at home, with its ease, convenience and certainty of budgeting. We also know that the cost of living remains a concern for holidaymakers, leaving it difficult too for businesses to plan in advance.

“We have incredible activities, experiences and places to stay for all tastes and budgets, and there really is nowhere quite like Britain in springtime. From walks in our beautiful countryside with the promise of a pub lunch or discovering contemporary culture in our buzzing cities to enjoying fish and chips on the beach, there is something for everyone. So, a rallying cry to please go out and explore the amazing destinations and events here on our doorstep this spring. Tourism businesses will be very pleased to welcome you, you will have an amazing time and create memories to make you smile all year.”

It came as trade body UKHospitality stepped up criticism of what has been dubbed a new “tourist tax”. Labour is proposing to allow regional mayors in England to introduce a “visitor levy” on overnight stays, as already happens in some European countries. While details of how it would work are still to be finalised, it could either be a per head charge or a percentage of the cost of the stay. Small businesses – from guesthouses to B&Bs – say it could lead to closures.

Modelling by Oxford Economics, commissioned by UKHospitality, which assumed a 5% levy, warned it could lead to a £1.6billion tax increase for holidaymakers by 2030, and a £2.2billion hit to the economy.

Published on
25/03/2026 – 15:39 GMT+1

Lille will host the European Custom Authority, a new decentralised agency tasked with supporting and coordinating national customs administrations across the bloc.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The decision was made on Wednesday in Brussels, after EU lawmakers from the European Parliament and the Council of the EU voted on the matter in three rounds.

“France is one of Europe’s leading customs nations, [considering] one in three parcels entering the EU passes through French territory,” Dutch MEP Dirk Gotink, rapporteur on the customs reform, said in a press statement.

“Lille’s strategic location at the crossroads of Europe makes it the natural hub for this authority,” the EU lawmaker continued.

Italy, with Rome as its candidate, was the runner-up in the voting rounds.

Other contenders included Belgium with Liège, Croatia with Zagreb, the Netherlands with The Hague, Poland with Warsaw, Portugal with Porto, Romania with Bucharest, and Spain with Málaga.

Customs management and trade have taken on renewed urgency after former US President Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs shortly after taking office.

Amid growing global trade uncertainty, the EU has stepped up engagement with international partners. This week, it signed a new agreement with Australia, while the EU–Mercosur deal is set to apply provisionally from 1 April.

The establishment of the new authority is part of the overall reform of the EU customs framework, with key negotiations expected to take place on Thursday.

The reform also aims to tackle the rising pressure from increased trade flows, fragmented national systems and the rapid rise of e-commerce.

The agency is expected to be set up in 2026 and could become operational in 2028 according to a draft schedule which is still be subject to significant changes.

FAMILIES are facing a whopping £1.6billion tax blow on the “great British holiday”, a new report has warned.

The findings from industry body UKHospitailty, with figures crunched by Oxford Economics, show that a proposal to slap a five per cent levy on accommodation could “decimate” the industry.

It comes as Labour Government has been proposing to allow local authorities the right to tax overnight stays in holiday parks, campsites, B&Bs and hotels as part of a new holiday tax.

UK Hospitality claim the proposed levy would slash GDP – a benchmark for the country’s economic health – by £2.2billion.

It also warned it would result in a £1.8billion reduction in hospitality spending.

The group also claimed that it would lead to the loss of 33,000 job roles in areas of the UK where there are few alternative employment opportunities.

GRUB’S UP

UK’s top new restaurants of 2026 revealed in awards – is one in YOUR area?

RED REBEL

‘Demoralising’ holiday tax will hit family breaks in the UK, warns Labour MP

Allen Simpson, chief Executive of UKHospitality, said the tax would make staycations “more expensive and decimate tourism.”

“There are no winners from a holiday tax. From coastal communities and city centres to local guesthouses, pubs and taxi firms, the impacts are stark and indiscriminate.

He added: “Taxes up, jobs lost and our high streets hit once again. Holidays are for relaxing, not taxing. The government should keep it that way and stop the holiday tax.”

The charge, which could be applied to hotels, Airbnb-style accommodation and short lets, could amount to a whopping £1.6billion holiday tax on tourists by 2030, according to the figures

Meanwhile, Simon Palethorpe, chief of Haven, said it would mean fewer UK holidays resulting in “less investment and fewer jobs, often in areas where there are few alternative employment opportunities”.

He added: “In the UK, visitors are already paying double the VAT rate of the most popular overseas holiday hotspots. The UK is a great place to visit and we should be encouraging people to do so, not adding extra taxes.”

The government launched a consultation on the tax, with final views submitted last month.

Other measures that also could be introduced include a £2 tax per person per night on staycations.

However, it is worth noting that it will be up to individual mayors to decide whether or not to propose a charge for visitors to their towns or cities.

Government has previously said the charge will help improve local tourism infrastructure, public services.

But it has faced major pushback, with a Labour MP warning last week it will hit family breaks in the UK.

Emma Lewell wrote to Chancellor Rachel Reeves raising “serious” concerns about the proposals.

The South Shields MP said: “When households are already under pressure with the cost of living rises, this is demoralising and unaffordable.

“Families need a break. Taxing their break is a step too far.”

Major firms including Butlin’s, Hilton and Travelodge have responded to the proposals.

They say the plans would drain cash from local businesses and make the UK less competitive.

A Government spokesperson previously said it expect any new charges to be modest, and for mayors to consider the “right level for their area.”

The Sun has launched a campaign to show how the tax could affect YOU, to show your support go to our website at StopTheHolidayTax.uk.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy was supposed to start the year with a bang, fueled by a jump in tax refunds from President Trump’s tax cut legislation. But soaring gas prices are on track to eat up those refunds, leaving most Americans with little extra to spend.

“Next spring is projected to be the largest tax refund season of all time,” Trump boasted in a prime-time speech in December intended to address voter concerns about the economy and stubbornly high prices, though exaggerating the anticipated refunds.

But that was before the Iran war, which the U.S. and Israel began on Feb. 28. Oil and gas prices have skyrocketed since then, with the nationwide average price of gas reaching $3.94 Sunday, up more than a dollar from a month earlier.

Gas prices are likely to remain elevated for some time, even if the war ends soon, because shipping and production have been disrupted and will take time to recover. Economists now expect slower growth this spring and for the year, as dollars that are spent on gas are less likely to be used for restaurants, new clothes or entertainment.

Lower- and middle-income households are likely to be hit particularly hard, because they receive smaller refunds and spend a greater proportion of their earnings on gas.

“The energy shock is to going to hit those who have the least cushion,” said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy at the left-leaning Groundwork Collaborative and a former economist in the Biden White House. “And it doesn’t look like those tax refunds are going to be here to save them.”

Neale Mahoney, director of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, calculates that gas prices could peak in May at $4.36 a gallon, based on oil price forecasts by Goldman Sachs, followed by slow declines for the rest of the year. The notion that gas prices decline much more slowly than they rise is so ingrained among economists that they refer to it as the “rocket and feathers” phenomenon — rising like a rocket before falling like a feather.

In that scenario, the average household would pay $740 more in gas this year, nearly equal to the $748 increase in refunds that the Tax Foundation has estimated the average household will receive.

Through March 6, refunds have risen by much less than that, according to Internal Revenue Service data: They have averaged $3,676, up $352 from $3,324 in 2025. Still, average refunds could rise as more complex returns are filed.

Other estimates show similar impacts. Economists at Oxford Economics, a consulting firm, estimate that if gas prices average $3.70 a gallon all year, it will cost consumers about $70 billion — more than the $60 billion in increased tax refunds.

The gas price spike comes with many consumers already in a precarious position, particularly compared with 2022, when gas prices also soared because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. At that time, many households still had fattened bank accounts from COVID-19 pandemic-era stimulus payments and companies were hiring rapidly and sharply lifting pay to attract workers.

Now, hiring is nearly at a standstill and Americans’ saving rate has steadily fallen in the last few years as many households borrow more to sustain their spending.

“When you start looking across the perspective from a consumer side, you’re seeing people who have maxed out their credit cards, are using ‘buy now, pay later’ to purchase their groceries,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation think tank. “They’re making it work for now, but that can fall apart quite quickly.”

The consequences are likely to worsen the “K-shaped” phenomenon in the U.S. economy, analysts said, in which higher-income households have fared better than lower-income households. The bottom 10% of earners spend nearly 4% of their incomes on gasoline, Pantheon Macroeconomics estimates, while the top 10% spend just 1.5%. The Trump tax breaks also benefited the wealthiest taxpayers most.

For now, most analysts still expect the U.S. economy to expand this year, even if more slowly, given the gas price shock. Higher gas prices will probably worsen inflation in the short run, and over time weaker spending will also slow growth.

American consumers and businesses have repeatedly shaken off shocks since the pandemic emergency — soaring inflation, rising interest rates, Trump’s tariffs — and continued to spend, defying concerns that the economy would tip into recession. Many economists note that the proportion of their incomes that Americans spend on gas and other energy has fallen significantly compared with a decade ago.

Data from the Bank of America Institute released Friday showed that spending on gas on the bank’s credit and debit cards shot 14.4% higher in the week ended March 14 compared with a year ago. Before the war, such spending was running 5% below the previous year, a benefit to consumers.

Spending on discretionary items — restaurants, electronics and travel — is still growing, the institute said, evidence of consumer resilience. But there is little sign it is accelerating, as many economists had hoped.

“The longer these gasoline prices persist, the more that will gradually sap consumer discretionary spending,” said David Tinsley, senior economist at the institute.

Other analysts expect growth will slow because of the war. Bernard Yaros and Michael Pearce, economists at Oxford Economics, forecast that the U.S. economy will grow just 1.9% this year, down from an earlier estimate of 2.5%.

“We had anticipated a lift in spending from a bumper tax refund season,” they wrote, “but the rise in gasoline prices, if sustained, would more than offset that boost.”

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

March 20 (Asia Today) — This commentary is the Asia Today Editor’s Op-Ed.

With Seoul apartment values posting their biggest increase in five years, concerns are growing that a heavier property tax burden will spill into the Jeonse and monthly rental markets. Jeonse is a unique Korean housing lease system where tenants pay a large lump-sum deposit instead of monthly rent, and get it back at the end of the lease.

Landlords are already showing signs of passing higher holding costs on to tenants through steeper rents and larger Jeonse deposits. If the government now moves to raise taxes further, including on single-home owners whose properties are deemed non-residential, it risks worsening instability in the rental market.

According to the Korea Real Estate Board, Seoul apartment Jeonse prices rose for a 57th straight week as of the second week of March, with the cumulative increase reaching 4.79%. Monthly rents climbed even faster. In February, the average monthly rent for an apartment in Seoul stood at 1.515 million won, or about $1,010, up 12.5% from a year earlier.

The sales market, by contrast, has cooled. Apartment prices in Seoul’s three Gangnam districts and Yongsan-gu have fallen for four consecutive weeks. But the Jeonse and monthly rental markets are becoming more unstable as new apartment supply shrinks and listings for existing units tighten. The shortage has been aggravated by the reinstatement in May of a capital gains tax surcharge on owners of multiple homes.

Against that backdrop, higher officially assessed home values are likely to add even more upward pressure on rents. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport said this year’s official values for multifamily housing in Seoul rose 18.67% from a year earlier. That was the third-largest increase on record, behind only 2007 and 2021, both periods of sharp home-price gains.

In the three Gangnam districts and the Mapo-Yongsan-Seongdong area, where assessed values climbed more than 20%, many homeowners could see property tax bills rise by more than 50%. Even without a revision to tax law, the annual burden can increase by as much as 50%. Once local education taxes and the rural special tax are included, the actual increase can be even greater.

The number of single-home owners subject to the comprehensive real estate tax also rose sharply. Homes assessed above 1.2 billion won, or about $800,000, now total 487,362, up 170,000 from a year earlier.

For many elderly homeowners living on national pension payments, interest income or dividends, annual property taxes running from several million won to tens of millions of won can be difficult to absorb. Assessed values are also used to calculate regional health insurance premiums and can affect existing pension burdens, making the overall impact even heavier.

South Korea has already seen what happens when landlords shift tax costs onto tenants. During the previous progressive administration, rising tax burdens contributed to sharp increases in monthly rents and Jeonse deposits. Past data show that when the property tax rate rises by 1 percentage point, about 30% of the additional burden is passed on through Jeonse deposits and roughly 40% to 50% through monthly rent.

Even so, the government is considering higher property taxes or smaller long-term holding deductions to curb what it calls high-value single-home investments used for non-residential purposes. But real estate taxation can have broad collateral effects. If efforts to suppress housing prices go too far, tenants may once again end up paying the price.

The government should scrap any reckless plan to raise property tax rates on single-home owners.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260319010005978

California’s economy might see a boost from the state’s expanded film tax credits, but local lawmakers say it’s not enough.

Despite Gov. Gavin Newsom authorizing a $750-million film and TV tax credit program last summer, the impending merger between Paramount and Warner Bros., and the projected budget cuts that are expected to follow, has reignited fears about Hollywood jobs and U.S.-based productions.

“State programs cannot simply substitute for the kind of global, federal and competitive tax incentives that are needed to bring production back to American soil and stop its offshoring,” U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said during a news conference Friday morning.

“We must act, and the urgency could not be greater,” he said. He revealed he is working on a bipartisan federal film incentive proposal that would be competitive with what other countries are offering for film productions.

He said the program isn’t about Hollywood’s stars; it’s about the jobs that productions create, including roles for set designers, carpenters and lighting crews.

“These are the people who make that magic happen. We want to keep those jobs here, and many of us are deeply concerned about what this potential merger will do to those jobs,” Schiff said.

Earlier this week, the California Film Commission revealed that 16 shows had recently received tax credits for filming in the state. The projects represent $871 million in qualified in-state spending and are expected to generate $1.3 billion in economic activity in California. Schiff said the state tax credit has generated more than $29.1 billion in motion picture production wages and supported more than 220,000 jobs.

Even as shows start to see gains in Southern California, Los Angeles film activity was still down 13.2% from July through September when compared with the same period in 2024. The downward trend extends the loss of 42,000 jobs in L.A. between 2022 and 2024, the continued suffering of local sound stages and the offshoring of productions internationally.

“Federal policymakers must act to level the playing field and make the U.S. film and television industry more competitive on the global stage,” said Matthew Loeb, the president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. “A globally competitive labor-based and tax incentive is. For us, production that supplements state incentives is essential to return and maintain film and television jobs in America.”

HBO Max’s medical drama “The Pitt” is filmed at one of Warner Bros. soundstages in Burbank and it’s one of the shows benefiting from California’s tax incentive.

Noah Wyle, the star and executive producer of the show, said during the news conference that “it’s really hard to shoot a TV show in Los Angeles, and it’s really expensive, prohibitively” — so adopting an economic model that allows productions to take full advantage of the California tax incentive was essential to “The Pitt” filming in L.A.

“As an Angeleno with generational roots to this city and as a seasoned member of its creative community, advocacy for Los Angeles-based production is something that is very close to my heart,” Wyle said.

“‘The Pitt’ has blessedly become proof of that speculative concept. I’m happy to report we’ll commence shooting season three this summer, and that a rising tide has indeed lifted all boats in season one under the 3.0 tax program,” he added.

The show received a 20% tax rebate on many above-the-line costs. The budget for one episode was approximately $6.6 million, so the show received a rebate of about $760,000 per episode. By the end of season one, the production was able to save over $11 million. Wyle estimated that the first season of “The Pitt” contributed around $125 million toward California’s gross domestic product.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who is working with Schiff on production tax incentives, said that because California is already seeing benefits from the current program, there’s no reason it wouldn’t work nationally. Friedman added that tax incentives are a common practice among many industries in the U.S.

“Hollywood is not asking for special treatment. Whether it is computer chips, the energy sector or pharmaceuticals, this is something that is standard in the United States,” said Friedman. “In terms of our nation, Hollywood and its ability to tell the story of America, it is something worth saving.”

SACRAMENTO — A new poll shows California voters are sharply divided over two brewing statewide ballot measures stirring up the nation’s partisan and economic divides: a one-time tax on billionaires to pay for mostly healthcare and a voter ID mandate that includes citizenship verification.

The survey conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed 52% of registered voters supported the billionaire’s tax, while 33% said they opposed it. Fifteen percent were undecided.

Support for the voter ID measure was more evenly split, with 44% of voters in support, 45% opposed and the remainder undecided.

The pair of statewide proposals, which have yet to qualify for California’s November ballot, emanated from opposite sides of California’s political spectrum. Organized labor and progressives are pushing hard for a new wealth tax in response to Republican cuts to federal healthcare programs, and the GOP-led call for additional voter restrictions comes in the wake of President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Poll director Mark DiCamillo said he “was a little surprised” by the results given how much attention each measure has already received.

“Just from reading the press accounts of these initiatives, I thought they would both be well ahead. There’s been a lot of discussion about them and advocates seem to be very confident in their chances of passage, but the polls seem to indicate otherwise,” he said.

The divisions over each measure fell largely along partisan and ideological lines.

On the billionaire’s tax initiative, 72% of Democratic voters said they would support the measure if the election were held today — and the same percentage of Republicans oppose it. A slim majority — 51% — of voters who are unaffiliated or registered with another party support the wealth tax, while 30% said they oppose it, with the remainder undecided.

Republican voters overwhelmingly support the voter ID initiative, with 91% saying they would vote for it. More than two-thirds of Democratic voters, 68%, said they would oppose the measure. No party preference voters appeared evenly split.

Neither ballot measure has officially qualified for the November ballot thus far, though proponents of the voter ID measure said this month that they turned in 1.3 million voter signatures to elections officials, well above the 875,000 required to qualify. Proponents of the new tax on billionaires have until June 24 to submit signatures to elections officials.

The billionaire tax has generated national news coverage and widespread debate over whether it would benefit low-income Californians or end up hurting the state’s tax base as billionaires move out of the state to avoid paying it.

The proposal is backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which represents 120,000 workers in California. Union leaders say that the tax would raise $100 billion to backfill steep cuts to federal healthcare programs under a sweeping tax and spending bill approved by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed in the summer by Trump.

The measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of California residents who are worth $1 billion or more, with options to pay it over multiple years.

According to SEIU-UHW, the new tax would apply to around 200 people in the state, though several wealthy tech leaders have made moves to change their residences and avoid paying the tax should it pass. In recent months, Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and others have bought up lavish beachfront estates and new commercial office spaces in South Florida.

Some of those billionaires are also ponying up to defeat the measure. Brin, who according to Forbes is the world’s third-richest person, has contributed $45 million to a new ballot measure committee called Building a Better California, which is pushing an alternative statewide ballot measure that could scrap the billionaire’s tax.

Brandon Castillo, a veteran ballot measure campaign strategist who is not working on either of the two measures, said even though it’s currently polling above 50%, the billionaire’s tax is starting out “in a really shaky position.”

“This is not a very strong place to start,” he said. “That’s not to say they can’t keep this thing over 50%, but when you’re starting just barely above 50% and you have a tsunami of money and a huge campaign against you, it’s really hard to keep yourself at that level.”

Though previous public opinion polls at the state and national levels have shown broad support for requiring proof of citizenship to vote in elections, even among Democrats, the new Berkeley poll showed liberal voters are skeptical of the measure.

Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof of citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID requirements threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.

Under current law, Californians are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail. They are required to provide identification when registering to vote, and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and a U.S. citizen.

The poll showed that slim majorities of predominantly Spanish-speaking voters, voters who were born in another country and first-generation immigrants support the voter ID measure. A plurality of Latino voters also favor it, with 44% in support and 41% opposed.

But DiCamillo cautioned against reading too much into those numbers, noting that awareness of the measure is still relatively low.

“I’ve always seen in my history of measuring Latino voters’ support that they are relatively late deciders on most ballot measures,” he said. “How they break will be critical. I would say we’ll have to look at how they feel when we do our final preelection poll.”

Voter ID laws are also a top priority of Trump, who has pressured the Senate into taking up the SAVE Act, which would impose nationwide requirements for proof of citizenship to vote and already has passed the House of Representatives.

Castillo said Trump’s support could sway Democratic and liberal-leaning independents to vote against the measure.

Both DiCamillo and Castillo noted that with the November election still seven months away, voters are not paying much attention and those on either side of each ballot measure have not launched major campaigns yet.

“I suspect by the time election day comes around, these awareness numbers on the billionaire’s tax certainly are going to be much higher,” Castillo said. “You’re going to see 80-90% of voters familiar with it, just because they’re going to be inundated with advertising and earned media between now and November.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 5,019 registered California voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 14. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

Even as California’s soundstages suffer from a slowdown in local production, the local economy may get a boost from the state’s expanded film tax credits.

Medical drama “The Pitt,” a “Family Guy” spin-off and a kids’ science competition show from late-night host Jimmy Kimmel are among the 16 shows that received tax credits for filming in the state, the California Film Commission said Wednesday.

In total, the projects represent $871 million in qualified in-state spending and are expected to generate $1.3 billion in economic activity in California. More than 4,500 cast and crew members will be employed across the 16 shows, along with more than 50,000 background actors, the film commission said.

New to this round of awardees are animated shows and competitions, which were added to the film and television tax credit program during its revamp last year. Under the program, producers can receive up to 25% of qualified production expenses back in the form of credits that they can apply toward tax bills they have in the state.

“California’s creative economy isn’t just part of who we are — it helps power this state forward,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “From the folks on the soundstage to the people designing the sets, these are jobs that anchor communities.”

HBO Max’s “The Pitt” received a credit of $24.2 million, while “Stewie,” a spin-off of Seth MacFarlane’s irreverent adult cartoon “Family Guy,” was awarded $6.4 million. Kimmel’s “Schooled!” competition show, which pits young scientists and their experiments against one another, secured $6.9 million.

Since the state’s production incentive program was bolstered last year, more than 100 films and TV projects have received tax credits.

But it has taken a while for those shows to jump-start local production, which has seen a sustained slump since the pandemic, the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes in 2023 and spending cutbacks at the studios.

That lag has affected the business of local soundstages.

For the first half of 2025, the average occupancy rate at Los Angeles County soundstages was 62%, slightly lower than the 63% average recorded in 2024, according to new data from the nonprofit FilmLA, which tracks local production.

Those figures mark a significant decline from the average occupancy rate of 90% seen from 2016 to 2022, according to FilmLA data.

That’s been a problem for local soundstage operators, which had aggressively funded development of new properties or acquired them only to see production slow.

Earlier this year, Hackman Capital Partners said it was turning over the historic Radford Studio Center in Studio City to Goldman Sachs.

SACRAMENTO — As gas prices surge in California and nationally due to the war in Iran, two Democrats running for California governor are calling for the state to temporarily suspend its fuel tax or ease refinery regulations in an effort to lower costs.

Standing in front of a gas pump in a video posted to social media, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said the costs are “becoming an emergency for working families, and I think we ought to act like it.”

The moderate Democrat called on state lawmakers to suspend California’s gas tax, which at 61 cents per gallon is the highest in the nation.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also called for an “immediate moratorium” on regulations that he blamed for “overburdening” California refineries and working families.

“These failed policies are not only hurting tens of millions of Californians, they are terrible for the environment because they have forced California to depend on imported foreign oil from the Middle East,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

The cost of living in California, including the price at the pump, remains a pivotal issue for voters in the state, and has become central to the moderate-leaning campaigns of Mahan and Villaraigosa as they attempt to distinguish themselves in the tightly contested race for governor.

According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in California on Monday was $5.52, the highest in the nation and more than 50 cents higher than any other state. The national average was $3.71, up from the previous month’s average of $2.92.

Gasoline prices in California are often among the highest in the country for a number of reasons, including environmental rules that require a unique blend of cleaner-burning fuel.

The state also relies mostly on crude oil imported from other countries including Brazil, Iraq and Guyana and processed at in-state refineries. In 2025, 61% of oil processed at California refineries was imported, compared with 23% that was produced in the state, according to data from the California Energy Commission.

A greater reliance on foreign oil has made California more susceptible to price spikes during global conflicts and other disruptions.

Republicans have long supported suspending the gas tax and cutting regulations in order to lower prices at the pump.

Steve Hilton, a GOP candidate for governor and former Fox News host, outlined a plan to lower California gas prices to $3 per gallon by slashing regulations including the low-carbon fuel standard, the rule that requires cleaner-burning gas in order to reduce tailpipe emissions.

The other major Republican in the race, Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, supports suspending the gas tax, according to his website.

The current price spike echoes 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine and disrupted global oil markets.

As prices eventually fell around the rest of the country that year, they remained high for months in California, leading Gov. Gavin Newsom to wage war against oil and gas companies. He accused them of price-gouging drivers and backed laws requiring companies to report their profit margins and keep a supply of fuel on hand to prevent shortages and price spikes.

The governor backed off his battle with the oil companies last year after two refineries announced plans to close. In September, he signed legislation to permit 2,000 new oil wells in Kern County, reflecting an acknowledgement that his war on oil companies threatened to send California’s gas market spiraling.

Republican state lawmakers in 2022 pushed for a temporary suspension of California’s excise tax on gasoline, arguing that it would provide immediate relief to California drivers. That effort was rebuffed by Newsom and Democratic lawmakers, but they later approved $9.5 billion in tax refunds to Californians, providing as much as $1,050 to families as financial relief from record-high gasoline prices and other rising costs.

In 2017, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed Senate Bill 1, which then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law, levying the state’s first gas tax increase in 23 years to fix California’s roads and bridges in disrepair. Under the law, the tax increases each year on July 1 based on the growth in the California Consumer Price Index.

California voters remain conflicted on the state’s regulation of the oil industry, according to an August survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. It found that more than 60% of adults support goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate electricity from renewable energy sources.

But majorities also said the costs of gasoline and utility bills is a major problem for them personally, according to the poll.

Mahan and Villaraigosa are the only two Democrats who have publicly called to roll back regulations on the state’s oil and gas market, illustrating the political murkiness at the nexus of California’s climate and affordability challenges.

Still, Democratic lawmakers – who hold supermajorities in the state Senate and Assembly – continue to shut down proposals to pause the gas tax, arguing that the state would lose out on much-needed money for roads.

“If anyone has a proposal about how to backfill (transportation) revenues, I’m up for that conversation, but so far, it’s just a bulls— political talking point,” said Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine).

Petrie-Norris chairs the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee and has helped lead legislative efforts to stabilize California’s fuels market without retreating from goals to achieve carbon neutrality.

”When I ask people, ‘Do you want affordable gas, clean air or safe roads?’ they say yes. So they want us to do all three of these things,” she said. “We’ve got to be honest with Californians about trade-offs so that we can have real conversations.”

Mahan pushed back on the importance of collecting gas tax revenue.

“The truth is we have the highest taxes in the country and a $350-billion budget, and we ought to be able to pave our roads and enable working families to put food on the table,” he said in an interview. “I just reject the notion that the sky is going to fall if we provide temporary relief to working families who are being pushed to the brink by a war that they didn’t ask for.”

The San José mayor said the state should suspend the fuel tax “for the duration of the war” in Iran “or as long as gas prices are over $5 a gallon” in the state. He also called for “massive regulatory overhaul that brings down costs across the board,” including rules on refineries.

If elected governor, Villaraigosa said he would “reform and overhaul” the California Air Resources Board, which enacts many of the state’s environmental laws — including the low carbon fuel standard and cap-and-invest program.

“We can no longer allow bureaucrats who live in a bubble — with no accountability for the harm they are causing our economy and our people — to have so much power over the lives of every Californian,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

SACRAMENTO — A corporate tax policy that costs California billions in lost tax revenue each year could be coming to an end as the state struggles to backfill federal cuts and resolve a looming budget deficit.

The proposed legislation, Assembly Bill 1790, would repeal the so-called “water’s edge” tax break, a filing option that allows multinational corporations to exclude the income of their foreign subsidiaries from state taxation.

“The tax bills of the wealthiest, most powerful corporations in the world are at all-time lows,” Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael), one of the primary sponsors of the bill, told The Times. “Meanwhile, we’re struggling to fund programs that feed children — I think everyone understands that now is the time for long-term budget solutions.”

Republican Sen. Roger Niello, vice chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, said the bill to repeal water’s edge won’t receive support from GOP lawmakers. He said the legislation would lead to double taxation, meaning the same income would be taxed twice by different countries, and compared taxing corporations’ foreign profits to enacting tariffs.

“California already has the reputation of being not particularly business friendly,” said Niello (R-Fair Oaks). “This would really just compound that.”

A spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom did not respond to a request for comment about the governor’s views on the proposal. Newsom, however, has largely shunned new tax increase proposals.

Legislation to increase taxes requires a two-thirds approval vote instead of a simple majority. Democrats in California hold a supermajority in both the Assembly and Senate, meaning the bill could still pass without Republican support, but it would require backing from the progressive and moderate wings of the party.

Kayla Kitson, a senior analyst at the California Budget and Policy Center, said the measure has a decent chance of winning support among moderate Democrats due to the state’s budgetary woes.

“The stakes are really high this year,” she said. “With any tax policy, it’s certainly hard to get folks beyond the progressive community on board, but there are a lot of discussions happening behind closed doors given the challenges that the state knows it’s going to have to deal with in the next few years.”

When filing taxes, a multinational corporation in the United States can currently choose between two methods. Worldwide reporting takes into account all of the corporation’s global profits or losses, while the water’s edge option allows the U.S.-based parent company to exclude the income of foreign subsidiaries. This can help corporations that own profitable foreign companies pay less taxes in the United States.

California is scrambling for solutions as the state is facing an estimated $18-billion budget deficit and fallout from federal cuts that slashed healthcare. A Republican-backed tax and spending bill signed last year by President Trump shifted federal funding away from safety net programs and toward tax cuts and immigration enforcement.

Carl Davis, a research director for the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said the idea is picking up momentum nationwide, with states like Maryland, Minnesota and New Hampshire also considering a repeal in recent years, due to a growing awareness about profit shifting — a loophole in the water’s edge tax break that some corporations use to reduce their tax burdens by shifting profits made in a high-tax country into tax havens.

“Folks are outraged when they hear that these companies are pretending that they are earning their profits in the Caymans or in Switzerland and are skipping out on paying U.S. taxes as a result,” he said. “That feels insulting to a lot of people who are paying the taxes they owe every day.”

During an informational hearing at the Legislature last month, Rowan Isaaks, an economist with the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, said the state does not know the extent to which corporations use profit shifting, which makes it impossible to determine exactly how much revenue California would gain by eliminating the water’s edge tax exemption. But he estimated it would bring in “single digit billions” for the state each year.

“While there would be revenue gains, the Legislature also faces a trade-off between broadening the tax base but also managing additional uncertainty,” said Isaaks, explaining it could increase budget volatility because foreign income is more sensitive to global economic conditions.

Issaks added that the Legislative Analyst’s Office has found no strong evidence that companies would flee California if the water’s edge tax break was repealed.

Jennifer Barton, director of the legislative services bureau for the California Franchise Tax Board, told legislators that mandating worldwide reporting wouldn’t be difficult for the state from an administrative standpoint, only requiring some additional outreach or educational efforts.

California Tax Foundation visiting fellow Jared Walczak said that the water’s edge option exists for a reason and that it would be unfair to mandate worldwide reporting. “The vast majority of the activity abroad is true economic activity abroad,” he told lawmakers. “Companies don’t just exist in the United States; they have sales, they have manufacturing, they do things abroad.”

A survey last year from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found 63% of adult Americans believe large corporations or businesses should pay more in taxes, while 19% want corporate taxes to be lower and 17% believe corporate tax policy should remain the same.

Tech companies appear to be particularly aggressive with profit shifting. Six U.S. multinational corporations — Apple, Cisco, EBay, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — may have underpaid their U.S. corporate income taxes by $277 billion over varying periods from 2009 through 2022, according to a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Repealing the water’s edge tax break isn’t the only tax-related proposal being considered as the state seeks to increase revenue. The Billionaire Tax Act is a controversial proposed state ballot initiative that would levy a one-time, 5% tax on the state’s billionaires to help offset federal cuts. Newsom is among its critics.

Davis believes it will continue to be a hot topic regardless of the bill’s outcome this year.

“There is very good reason to think this [repeal] is going to happen at some point,” he said. “This is a debate that is certainly not going away.”

Martin Lewis has explained the personal savings allowance and when basic rate taxpayers with over £22,000 in savings could pay tax on interest earned

Martin Lewis has issued a tax alert for savers, with a particular warning for those holding more than £11,000 or £22,000 in savings, depending on their tax bracket. On his ITV programme this week, Mr Lewis provided savers with guidance on structuring their savings to prevent unnecessary tax charges on interest.

He began by explaining the personal allowance, which permits anyone to earn £12,570 before any tax is levied. This threshold has remained frozen since 2021, and last November Chancellor Rachel Reeves controversially extended this freeze until 2031.

The freeze has faced criticism for creating ‘fiscal drag’, meaning more of the lowest earners in the country now pay tax as inflation and wage rises leave them with less disposable income whilst facing higher taxation.

On this he said: “The first one, the personal allowance, £12,570 a year that you can earn from any source, earnings, rent, savings, interest without paying tax on. Most people get that unless you start earning over £100,000 when it’s taken away.”

Starting Rate for Savings Tax.

Mr Lewis said: “The next one not that many people know about is called the starting rate for savings. This is another £5,000 of savings. savings interest you can earn a year on top of the personal allowance. And this is designed for people who have low work earnings but high interest on savings. Often people who are retired. And here’s how it works.

“For every pound of earnings you earn above this allowance, you lose a pound on your starting savings rate. So imagine you earn £13,570. You’re a £1,000 above that. You can now only have £4,000 of tax-free interest in your savings due to the starting savings rate. And by the time you earn from work £17,570, this is gone. So it’s only for people on low work earnings and high interest on savings.”

He previously outlined that those in the ‘perfect circumstance’ would receive £12,570 from earned income. Mr Lewis explained the individual would then gain £5,000 through the starting savings allowance, plus £1,000 from the personal savings allowance on top ‘because they all go on top of each other’.

He added: “You could earn £18,570 a year tax-free with £12,570 of it coming from work or other sources, and another £6,000 of it coming from savings. I hope that makes sense. The main two for most people are the personal allowance and the personal savings allowance, but for those on lower incomes, it’s worth reading the starting savings allowance guide that’s our money saving expert just so you really understand it.”

Personal savings allowance

Mr Lewis described this as the ‘big one’ and said: “Next, we get the big one that many of you will know about, the personal savings allowance. And this is on top of those two. This is the fact that a basic rate taxpayer, 20% taxpayer, can earn £1,000 a year of interest in any form of savings at all without paying tax on it. Now, the top savings accounts at the moment pay about 4.5 per cent. So, you need about 22,000, just a little over £22,000 in the top savings account before you earned £1,000 interest.

“So, if you got less than that, you’re not going to be paying tax on your savings interest because it’s tax free. High rate tax because it’s within your personal savings allowance. High rate taxpayers pay £500 a year of interest they can make each year tax free. It’s about £11,000 saved at the top rate.

“If you’re an additional rate taxpayer earning over £125,000, you don’t get one of these. So, you got your personal allowance, your starting rate for savings, and on top of that up to another £1,000 in your personal savings allowance.”

For the 2025/26 tax year, the UK Personal Allowance stays at £12,570, with a 20% basic rate (up to £50,270), 40% higher rate (£50,271-£125,140), and 45% additional rate (over £125,140) applying to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

ISAs

Mr Lewis stated that this week’s show was focused on ISAs, explaining: “You can put up to £20,000 a tax year in, as you know. And crucially, the interest earned in a cash ISA does not count towards the personal allowance, does not count towards the starting rate of savings does not count towards the personal savings allowance. It is totally separate from that. So, anything you earn in there is not taxable. I should note premium bonds work roughly the same way, but it’s not an annual allowance. It’s a maximum £50,000 you can put in in total. Those are the main ways that you can save without paying tax on them.”