tax

Nov. 4 (UPI) — British Chancellor Rachel Reeves signaled Tuesday that she was likely to raise taxes on ordinary people in her upcoming budget this month in spite of an election pledge by the Labour government it would not do so.

In a speech in Downing Street, Reeves said she would make “the choices necessary” to ensure the foundation of the economy was sufficiently strong for the government to deliver on its mandate to protect the NHS, get down the national debt and rebuild the economy.

Notably, she did not repeat the manifesto pledge the party ran on in the 2024 general election, in which it swept to power to leave untouched the three main taxes — income tax, National Insurance and VAT.

Instead, seeking to explain her actions in advance of her watershed budget, which she will deliver to Parliament on Nov. 26, she said people needed to “understand the circumstances we are facing” and that everyone needed to do their bit to rectify the situation.

“As I take my decisions on both tax and spend I will do what is necessary to protect families from high inflation and interest rates, to protect our public services from a return to austerity and to ensure that the economy that we hand down to future generations is secure, with debt under control.

“If we are to build the future of Britain together, we will all have to contribute to that effort. Each of us must do our bit for the security of our country and the brightness of its future.”

Reeves dangled the prospect of rewards down the line, stating that getting it right now would yield more resilient public finances with the headroom to withstand global shocks, which in turn would provide businesses with the confidence to invest.

She said that would in turn leave the government with more leeway to act when necessary, investing in infrastructure and industry to build a stronger economy and get down the cost of government debt, spending less on interest and more and schools and the NHS.

Reeves is betting on the budget, her second, to win the endorsement of the market for her management of the country’s finances by showing she can stick to the fiscal rules she set for herself in October 2024.

Those rules state she must balance spending with revenue — within a plus or minus margin of 0.5% of GDP — within five years, meaning no borrowing for everyday spending from the 2029-30 financial year onward. In addition, the ratio of government debt to GDP must begin falling within the same timeframe.

To do that, however, she must demonstrate how she plans to plug a fiscal hole of as much as $40 billion and boost lackluster economic growth.

The only options to close the gap and balance the books are a return to austerity — which the government has categorically ruled out — or boost the amount of money flowing into government coffers.

Reeves raised some taxes on business in her first budget in November 2024 and to come back for more after promising she would not do so, particulary when it comes to raising the basic rate of income tax — currently 20% — is very high risk, politically.

It hasn’t been done for 50 years and it didn’t work out well for then-Labour government with the country plunged into a currency crisis and forced to seek a bailout loan from the IMF.

Reeves mostly laid blame at the feet of the previous Conservative administration’s policies, including Brexit, austerity and cuts to infrastructure spending, all of which she said had led to falling productivity.

She also cited high inflation globally and economic uncertainty created by the trade tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump in recent months.

Conservative shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, said it was now certain tax hikes for families and businesses were on the way.

He said that if Reeves proceeded to go back on her word, she should quit.

Daisy Cooper, Treasury spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, said the government could no longer dodge responsibility.

“It’s clear that this budget will be a bitter pill to swallow as the government seems to have run out of excuses,” she said.

As inequality deepens and dissent is punished, many are looking to new voices like Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist running for New York City mayor on a platform of rent freezes, free public transit, and taxing the rich. Can candidates like him revive the Democratic Party in the United States, or is real reform from within impossible?

This week on UpFront, Marc Lamont Hill speaks with journalist and former Bernie Sanders Press Secretary Briahna Joy Gray.

Canadian PM Mark Carney says Ottawa “can’t control” US trade policy but will “stand ready” to resume talks “when the Americans are ready.” His remarks came after President Donald Trump halted negotiations and accused Canada of “cheating” over ads opposing US tariffs.

A union secretary said they wanted to send the message that “there’s no room for more people here during the high season” and that the tax was intended as a deterrent for potential visitors

Brits planning a break in the Balearic Islands next summer have been warned they could face a tourist tax hike.

The CCOO, a major trade union on the Spanish islands, have proposed hiking the current tourist tax to €15 a day (approximately £13.08). This would affect Brits visiting holiday hotspots such as Majorca, Ibiza, and Menorca. The proposed tax would apply for stays during July and August, the busiest months on the Mediterranean islands.

The Balearic Islands already have a tourist tax in place, which is between €0.5 and €4 a day (approximately £0.44 and £3.49). The amount of tax paid depends on whether tourists visit during the peak or low season, and the type of accommodation they stay in.

Children under 16 are exempt from paying the current tourist tax, and there’s a 50% discount for longer stays, which is applied after the eighth night. According to the government of the islands, this tax is used for purposes such as sustainable tourism initiatives and preserving cultural heritage.

The proposed increase would mean a seven night break in peak season would see each adult charged approximately £91.52 in tourist taxes.

READ MORE: UK village ‘frozen in time’ with car-free roads where people return year after yearREAD MORE: UK city ‘everyone laughs at’ named one of the best places in the world

The CCOO made clear that the higher tax being proposed wasn’t for the benefit of the islands, but rather to keep people away. According to Majorca Daily News, General Secretary José Luis García said: “This is not an increase aimed at raising revenue, but rather a deterrent, so that the Balearic Islands send a clear message to the world that there’s no room for more people here during the high season.”

He added: “To reduce summer overcrowding, it’s not enough to curb demand; we must also act on supply.”

The news outlet also reported that the CCOO is asking the government to put a hold on new tourist accommodation places, aiming to cut visitor numbers but attract higher-value tourists. Due to the housing crisis in the Balearics, they also want the island declared a “stressed area” and for 40,000 public housing properties to be created.

The move is the latest in a long line of proposals aimed at reducing the pressure of tourism on the popular Balearic Islands. Over the summer, Majorca was named the most unwelcoming spot for British tourists in Europe, with anti-tourism protests cited among the reasons for the dubious honour.

Summer 2024 and 2025 were marked with protests across the islands, but especially in Majorca, where protestors occupied beaches while waving anti-tourist banners. A number of Mirror readers revealed they’d be ditching Spain due to the protests and what they dubbed “anti-British sentiment”.

Speaking to the Mirror over the summer, Kevin Durkin who visited various Spanish destinations over 30 years said: “Over the last few years, the anti-British sentiment has just grown. Some bar owners have put up signs telling the British to keep away and some hotel owners don’t want us either.

“I do not need Spain, they can keep their latest charges and hatred of the British. I will not be back, neither will my friends or family. Adios.”

While Linda Munro revealed that overcrowding at border control at the airport had made her summer trip to Majorca stressful: “My husband and I got through the scanners, no problem. However, the rest of the family had to queue for an hour and a half.

“On the way back, it was worse, as people were worried they might miss their flights home. Our family just made it on time. They all said they wouldn’t be back abroad anytime soon.”

Have a story you want to share? Email us at [email protected].

Growing up in Rawalpindi, a city adjacent to Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, Mahnoor Omer remembers the shame and anxiety she felt in school when she had periods. Going to the toilet with a sanitary pad was an act of stealth, like trying to cover up a crime.

“I used to hide my pad up my sleeve like I was taking narcotics to the bathroom,” says Omer, who comes from a middle-class family – her father a businessman and her mother a homemaker. “If someone talked about it, teachers would put you down.” A classmate once told her that her mother considered pads “a waste of money”.

“That’s when it hit me,” says Omer. “If middle-class families think this way, imagine how out of reach these products are for others.”

Now 25, Omer has gone from cautious schoolgirl to national centrestage in a battle that could reshape menstrual hygiene in Pakistan, a country where critics say economics is compounding social stigma to punish women – simply for being women.

In September, Omer, a lawyer, petitioned the Lahore High Court, challenging what she and many others say is effectively a “period tax” imposed by Pakistan on its more than 100 million women.

Pakistani governments have, under the Sales Tax Act of 1990, long charged an 18 percent sales tax on locally manufactured sanitary pads and a customs tax of 25 percent on imported ones, as well as on raw materials needed to make them. Add on other local taxes, and UNICEF Pakistan says that these pads are often effectively taxed at about 40 percent.

Omer’s petition argues that these taxes – which specifically affect women – are discriminatory, and violate a series of constitutional provisions that guarantee equality and dignity, elimination of exploitation and the promotion of social justice.

In a country where menstruation is already a taboo subject in most families, Omer and other lawyers and activists supporting the petition say that the taxes make it even harder for most Pakistani women to access sanitary products. A standard pack of commercially branded sanitary pads in Pakistan currently costs about 450 rupees ($1.60) for 10 pieces. In a country with a per capita income of $120 a month, that’s the cost of a meal of rotis and dal for a low-income family of four. Cut the cost by 40 percent – the taxes – and the calculations become less loaded against sanitary pads.

At the moment, only 12 percent of Pakistani women use commercially produced sanitary pads, according to a 2024 study by UNICEF and the WaterAid nonprofit. The rest improvise using cloth or other materials, and often do not even have access to clean water to wash themselves.

“If this petition goes forward, it’s going to make pads affordable,” says Hira Amjad, the founder and executive director of Dastak Foundation, a Pakistani nonprofit whose work is focused on promoting gender equality and combating violence against women.

And that, say lawyers and activists, could serve as a spark for broader social change.

The court docket describes the case as Mahnoor Omer against senior officials of the government of Pakistan. But that’s not what it feels like to Omer.

“It feels like women versus Pakistan.”

‘It’s not shameful’

Bushra Mahnoor, founder of Mahwari Justice, a Pakistani student-led organisation whose name translates to “menstrual justice”, realised early just how much of a struggle it could be to access sanitary pads.

Mahnoor – no relation to Omer – grew up in Attock, a city in the northwestern part of Pakistan’s Punjab province, with four sisters. “Every month, I had to check if there were enough pads. If my period came when one of my sisters had hers too,” finding a pad was a challenge, she says.

The struggle continued in school, where, as was the case with Omer, periods were associated with shame. A teacher once made one of her classmates stand for two entire lectures because her white uniform was stained. “That was dehumanising,” she says.

Mahnoor was 10 when she had her first period. “I didn’t know how to use a pad. I stuck it upside down; the sticky side touched my skin. It was painful. No one tells you how to manage it.”

She says that shame was never hers alone, but it’s part of a silence which starts at home and accompanies girls into adulthood. A study on menstrual health in Pakistan shows that eight out of 10 girls feel embarrassed or uncomfortable when talking about periods, and two out of three girls report never having received information about menstruation before it began. The findings, published in the Frontiers in Public Health journal in 2023, link this silence to poor hygiene, social exclusion and missed school days.

In 2022, when floods devastated Pakistan, Mahnoor began Mahwari Justice to ensure that relief camps did not overlook the menstrual needs of women. “We began distributing pads and later realised there’s so much more to be done,” she says. Her organisation has distributed more than 100,000 period kits – each containing pads, soap, underwear, detergent and painkillers – and created rap songs and comics to normalise conversations about menstruation. “When you say the word ‘mahwari’ out loud, you’re teaching people it’s not shameful,” she says. “It’s just life.”

The same floods also influenced Amjad, the Dastak Foundation founder, though her nonprofit has been around for a decade now. Its work now also includes distributing period kits during natural disasters.

But the social stigma associated with menstruation is also closely tied to economics in the ways in which its impact plays out for Pakistani women, suggests Amjad.

“In most households, it’s the men who make financial decisions,” she says. “Even if the woman is bringing the money, she’s giving it to the man, and he is deciding where that money needs to go.”

And if the cost of women’s health feels too high, that’s often compromised. “[With] the inflated prices due to the tax, there is no conversation in many houses about whether we should buy pads,” she says. “It’s an expense they cannot afford organically.”

According to the 2023 study in the Frontiers in Public Health, over half of Pakistani women are not able to afford sanitary pads.

If the taxes are removed, and menstrual hygiene becomes more affordable, the benefits will extend beyond health, says Amjad.

School attendance rates for girls could improve, she said. Currently, more than half of Pakistan’s girls in the five to 16 age group are not in school, according to the United Nations. “We will have stress-free women. We will have happier and healthier women.”

‘Feeling of justice’

Omer says her interest in women’s and minority rights began early. “What inspired me was just seeing the blatant mistreatment every day,” she says. “The economic, physical, and verbal exploitation that women face, whether it’s on the streets, in the media, or inside homes, never sat right with me.”

She credits her mother for making her grow up to be an empathetic and understanding person.

After completing school, she worked as a gender and criminal justice consultant at Crossroads Consultants, a Pakistan-based firm that collaborates with NGOs and development partners on gender and criminal justice reform. At the age of 19, she also volunteered at Aurat March, an annual women’s rights movement and protest held across Pakistan on International Women’s Day – it’s a commitment she has kept up since then.

Her first step into activism came at 16, when she and her friends started putting together “dignity kits”, small care packages for women in low-income neighbourhoods of Islamabad. “We would raise funds with bake sales or use our own money,” she recalls.

The money she was able to raise enabled her to distribute about 300 dignity kits that she and her friends made themselves. They each contained pads, underwear, pain medication and wipes. But she wanted to do more.

She got a chance when she started working at the Supreme Court in early 2025, first as a law clerk. She’s currently pursuing postgraduate studies in gender, peace and security at the London School of Economics and says that she will go back to Pakistan to resume her practice after she graduates.

She became friends with fellow lawyer Ahsan Jehangir Khan, who specialises in taxation and constitutional law. The plan to challenge the “period tax” emerged from their conversations.

“He pushed me to file this petition and try to get justice instead of just sitting around.”

Khan, who is a co-petitioner in the case, says that fighting the taxes is about more than accessibility and affordability of sanitary pads – it’s about justice. “It’s a tax on a biological function,” he says.

Tax policies in Pakistan, he says, are written by “a privileged elite, mostly men who have never had to think about what this tax means for ordinary women”. The constitution, he adds, “is very clear that you cannot have anything discriminatory against any gender whatsoever”.

To Amjad, the Dastak Foundation founder, the fight for menstrual hygiene is closely tied to her other passion – the struggle against climate change. The extreme weather-related crisis, such as floods, that Pakistan has faced in recent times, she says, hit women particularly hard.

She remembers the trauma many women she worked with after the 2022 floods described to her. “Imagine that you are living in a tent and you have mahwari [menstruation] for the first time,” she says. “You are not mentally prepared for it. You are running for your life. You don’t have access to safety or security. That trauma is a trauma for life.”

As temperatures rise on average, women will need to change sanitary pads more frequently during their periods – and a lack of adequate access will prove an even bigger problem, Amjad warns. She supports the withdrawal of taxes on sanitary pads – but only those made from cotton, not plastic ones that “take thousands of years to decompose”.

Amjad is also campaigning for paid menstruation leave. “I have come across women who were fired because they had pain during periods and couldn’t work,” she says. “When you are menstruating, one part of your brain is on menstruation. You can’t really focus properly.”

Meanwhile, opponents of the taxes are hoping that Omer’s petition will pressure the Pakistani government to follow other nations such as India, Nepal and the United Kingdom that have abolished their period taxes.

Taking on that mantle against the government’s policies didn’t come easily to Omer. Her parents, she says, were nervous at first about their daughter going to court against the government. “They said it’s never a good idea to take on the state,” she says.

Now, they’re proud of her, she says. “They understand why this matters.”

To her, the case is not just a legal fight. “When I think of this case, the picture that comes to mind … It’s not a courtroom, it’s a feeling of justice,” she says. “It makes me feel a sense of pride to be able to do this and take this step without fear.”

Reporting from Sacramento — California is poised to charge the highest taxes and fees on gas in the country when an increase kicks in July 1, but officials say the state is still billions of dollars short of what’s needed to properly fix the roads and are considering additional charges.

The gasoline tax is set to climb by 5.6 cents per gallon, the second in a wave of increases approved by state leaders two years ago to raise billions of dollars for road and bridge repairs and mass transit.

Combined with a 12-cent increase that took effect in November 2017, the taxes and vehicle fees approved in a bill known as SB 1 are projected to add $5.4 billion in the coming year to transportation funding.

But officials estimate $130 billion is needed to bring the state’s roads and bridges into a state of good repair. The gas tax increases of 2017 will raise some $52 billion during the first 10 years but that will leave a road repair shortfall of approximately $78 billion.

The tax does not expire after 10 years and will continue to grow with the cost of living in future decades.

“The current funding is not sufficient, it is not enough,” said Tony Akel, a Fresno engineer who is a leader of the American Society of Civil Engineers. “We know that there is a big gap that is a result of years of underfunding.”

The group just released a study that gives California’s roads a “D” grade, saying they are among the worst in the country. State Sen. Jim Beall (D-San Jose), who authored the gas tax measure, said the evaluation appears accurate, but argued it is not a failure of the tax measure, just too early an assessment.

“You won’t see the impact of SB 1 for another couple of years,” Beall said. “The grades are based on actual conditions, and the SB 1 projects are underway but they are not finished. Road conditions will improve.”

The state has completed about 100 transportation projects and 400 more are in the works, according to the administration of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Projects funded so far include $135.9 million to improve 104 lane miles of Interstate 605 and $54.9 million for 99 lane miles of State Route 1 in Los Angeles County. Projects completed so far include repaving a stretch of Interstate 5 between the 605 and Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles County.

“SB 1 was never expected to completely fund all backlog work, but it has given us a great start to making up for years of underfunding,” said Jeff Burdick, a spokesman for Caltrans.

The increase taking effect next month means the total state taxes and fees on gasoline will be 57.8 cents per gallon, based on the current average price of gas across California.

That will just edge out the 57.6 cents-per-gallon charged by Pennsylvania. Washington state will remain in third place, charging motorists 49.4 cents per gallon.

(Some of the California tax is based on a percentage of the cost of a gallon of gas, so a significant drop in prices could cause the overall tax to drop — at least temporarily — below Pennsylvania’s.)

Alaska and Missouri have the lowest gas taxes in the country, with per-gallon charges of 14.34 and 17.35 cents respectively, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Motorists in all states also pay 18.4 cents per gallon in federal fuel taxes.

“California will be number one in another category that it shouldn’t be number one in,” said state Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa), who opposed SB 1 as it made its way through the Legislature. “These incremental increases drive people nuts. They are trying to meet their budgets, and we keep pounding away at it.”

Assembly Democrats, in a 49-17 vote, on Monday blocked an attempt by Republicans to postpone the July tax hike. “Democrats reaffirmed their support for a regressive gas tax increase that punishes every Californian who can’t afford a Tesla,” said Assemblyman Devon Mathis (R-Visalia). “So much for being the party of working people.”

SB 1 calls for additional annual increases to California’s gas tax based on inflation starting July 1, 2020.

Beall, the chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, agreed with the assessment of the engineers’ group that current revenue is insufficient.

“Money went to local [agencies] from the gas tax, but they still need more,” Beall said, adding that the federal government needs to increase its funding for roads, while counties also can go to their voters for local sales tax increases for transportation projects.

Voters in Riverside County are among those who may be asked next year to raise taxes to fill a funding shortfall to fix the roads.

The Riverside County Transportation Commission has launched a study to determine how to make up a $12.6-billion gap between its transportation needs and expected funding over the next 20 years, according to Cheryl Donahue, a manager at the agency.

“As part of its review, the commission will determine whether asking county voters to consider a sales tax measure to fund transportation improvements is part of the best overall approach to reducing congestion and improving mobility,” Donahue said.

The San Diego Metropolitan Transit System also is considering whether to ask voters to increase the sales tax by up to one-half cent next year to pay for transit, highway and road improvements, spokesman Rob Schupp said. The San Diego Assn. of Governments released a poll in March that found strong voter support for such a tax, with 70% of those surveyed saying “improving roads to support transit services” is important.

Voters in San Mateo and San Benito counties approved sales tax increases in November for road projects.

Moorlach said Orange County, where he lives, has approved two local tax measures to fund its transportation needs in recent years, and he does not have a problem with other counties following suit.

The group Move L.A. has proposed a grander plan, suggesting that raising local sales taxes by a half-cent in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties could bring in about $1.5 billion per year for public projects.

Much of the money would go to South Coast Air Quality Management District efforts to increase non-polluting transportation, including electric cars and trucks. But some could be spent on infrastructure including bike and pedestrian lanes, which SB 1 finances.

The air district has sponsored a bill, SB 732, that would allow it to ask voters to raise the sales tax by up to 1% in the four counties. The legislation is expected to be taken up next year.

State law requires a two-thirds vote to approve a local tax increase for transportation, but a pair of other pending bills could make approval easier. A bill in the Legislature would put a measure on the November 2020 statewide ballot that would allow cities, counties and special districts to impose taxes if 55% of local voters approve. The measure would benefit projects involving affordable housing and infrastructure, including improvements to transit and streets and highways.

Another bill, AB 1413, would allow local transportation agencies like San Diego’s to seek voter approval of tax increases in any portion of the county, so if some areas want better roads they can vote on them. The measure would allow communities to pay for “improving roads, transit, highways, or other transportation infrastructure as they see fit,” said Assemblyman Todd Gloria (D-San Diego).

But the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. argued agencies “shouldn’t be able to pick and choose among their tax base to make it easier to increase regressive sales taxes.”

State lawmakers also are considering a bill that would charge a 10% tax on every barrel of oil pumped from the ground in California to bring in some $900 million annually. That, critics say, would mean motorists will pay more at the pump. Backers of the bill deny there would be a significant impact on drivers.

Money raised by the bill would go to the general fund but could help with transportation, said Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont), the legislation’s author.

“While other states have brought in billions of dollars for their constituents through an oil severance tax, California has had to dip into its own pockets to cover extensive clean-up costs brought about by the oil industry’s irresponsible actions,” Wieckowski said. “Californians deserve better.”

Sign up for our Essential Politics newsletter »

[email protected]

Twitter: @mcgreevy99

In the U.S., virtually all of the income you earn is subject to federal income tax. There are specific rules you need to follow regarding how much you pay, as well as the deductions that you are allowed to claim.

The IRS recently announced some changes to the tax rules for 2026, and those changes could affect how much you end up paying. Since these changes are for the 2026 tax year, they will be in effect for income you earn starting in January of 2026 and will affect the tax return that you file in April of 2027.

Here’s what you need to know about two of the big changes that will impact your finances in the 2026 tax filing year.

1. Tax brackets are changing

The first change that is taking place relates to the tax brackets. As the tables below show, the income ranges within each tax bracket are changing.

Tax brackets exist in the U.S. because we have a progressive income tax system. You do not pay the same tax rate on all of the income that you earn. Tax brackets set the rates that you will pay at different income ranges.

For example, everyone — no matter how much they earn — pays 10% on the first $11,925 in earnings they have in 2025. And in 2026, everyone will have a little more of their income taxed at that ultra-low tax rate since they won’t move up to the 12% bracket unless they have earned more than $12,400.

With these changes to the tax brackets, the taxes that most people pay should decline because they can now earn more income before moving up to the next tax bracket and paying a higher rate.

2. The standard deduction is changing

There’s another big change coming for the 2026 tax filing year. As the table below shows, this change is to the standard deduction.

Image source: The Motley Fool.

The majority of tax filers claim the standard deduction, which means they can subtract this set amount from their taxable income when determining how much they owe.

For example, if you make $45,000 a year, you are not taxed on $45,000. You can subtract the amount of the standard deduction from this amount. If you are a single filer or married filing separately, this would mean you could subtract $15,750 in 2025 and $16,100 in 2026. So, you would be taxed on $29,250 in income in the 2025 tax year and on $28,900 in 2026.

Not everyone claims the standard deduction because some people opt to itemize deductions on their return. Itemizing means claiming deductions for specific things like mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

It only makes sense to itemize if the value of your itemized deductions adds up to more than the standard deduction — which is not the case for most people. And, as the standard deduction increases, itemizing makes sense for fewer and fewer people.

How will these changes affect your taxes in 2026?

With a higher standard deduction and income thresholds to move into higher tax brackets increasing, your tax bill should go down in 2026.

You will pay tax on less income due to being able to deduct 2.22% more money, and more of your income will be taxed at lower rates since it takes more income to move up to a higher bracket.

This makes sense, since tax brackets increase each year because of inflation. Each dollar you earn buys less every year as prices rise, so if the tax brackets never changed, taxpayers would be pushed into higher brackets without a real increase in earning power.

Other tax changes will take effect in 2026, thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill, including an added deduction for seniors. All of this means that many people should expect their federal income tax bill to look very different for the 2026 tax year.

Are you eating out less? Is it starting to feel like a sit-down dinner, even at a casual restaurant, can set you back what you might have paid for a big celebratory meal not too long ago?

Daytime is one thing, with lunch deals or happy hour discounts coaxing more consumers out for a bite. But at prime dinnertime lately, getting the check can come with sticker shock.

Industry trends show diners are getting more selective about dining out as inflation worries wallop U.S. consumers. In a 2025 survey from global accounting firm KPMG, 85% of respondents said they are eating at home more often to save money due to budget limitations. As a result, U.S. restaurants and bars saw one of the weakest six-month periods of sales growth during the first half of 2025 — even weaker than during the COVID pandemic when lockdown orders were in place, according to a CNN analysis of Commerce Department data.

In Los Angeles, the added factors of the 2025 wildfires, ICE raids, and rising rental and labor costs make the trend feel especially acute.

But with a little strategy, it’s more than possible to have a standout meal at some of L.A.’s most exciting haunts right now without breaking your budget. For this guide, the Food team challenged ourselves to find 50 L.A. restaurants where you can dine for $50 or less per person, including tax and tip.

A nice dinner out translates differently for everyone, so we set a few parameters before beginning our search:

• The pre-tax total should be no more than $38 per person, in order to account for a roughly 10% sales tax and 20% tip. Sometimes it needs to be even less if a restaurant includes a mandatory service fee.
• The restaurant doesn’t have to offer table service, but there must be seating available to enjoy your food on-site.
• It must be open until at least 9 p.m.
• You must be able to order at least two menu items, whether that’s a starter and a main, an entree and a dessert, or a large plate and a cocktail.

The final list ranges from places ranked on The Times’ annual 101 Best Restaurants guide that require specific hacks to stay within budget, to more casual options where $50 lets you sample a wide swath of the menu. And just in case you’re bringing a date or a friend, we share suggestions for how to approach this challenge as a duo.

Note that the prices outlined below are accurate as of our most recent visits but may change based on which location you visit, whether you’re ordering in person, for pickup or delivery and other factors.

SACRAMENTO — Though raging thousands of miles to the east, the entrenched stalemate in Washington over federal spending and the ensuing government shutdown has thrust California’s expansive healthcare policies into the center of the pitched, partisan debate.

The Trump administration and the Republican leaders in Congress continue to use California, and the benefits the state has extended to eligible immigrants regardless of their legal status, as a cudgel against Democrats trying to extend federal subsidies for taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage.

President Trump claimed recently that Democrats “want to have illegal aliens come into our country and get massive healthcare at the cost to everybody else.” Democrats called Trump’s assertion an absolute lie, accusing Republicans of wanting to slash federal healthcare benefits to Americans in need to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

“California has led the nation in expanding access to affordable healthcare, but Donald Trump is ripping it away,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said.

In return for their votes to reopen the government, Democratic leaders in Congress want to reverse Medicaid cuts made in Republicans’ tax and spending bill passed this summer and continue subsidies through the Affordable Care Act, a program long targeted by Republicans. The subsidies, which come in the form of a tax credit, help lower health insurance costs for millions of Americans.

Can immigrants in the country illegally enroll in federal healthcare programs?

No. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program or Medicare, or coverage through the Affordable Care Act, according to KFF, an independent health research organization.

Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco) held a virtual town hall last week in which he highlighted the “misinformation” about immigrants and healthcare.

“I just want to be completely clear that federal funding does not pay for health insurance for undocumented immigrants, period,” Mullin said.

Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, said the debate is really over “who can benefit from the federal dollars that are flowing to all states, including California,” to help lower costs for health insurance.

Covered California serves as a marketplace exchange for state residents seeking healthcare insurance under the Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, allowing them to select from name-brand insurance providers and choose from a variety of coverage plans. The vast majority of Californians receive federal subsidies to lower their premiums, including many middle-income families who had become eligible when Congress expanded the financial assistance in 2021.

Those expanded subsidies will expire at the end of the year, and Democrats are demanding that they be extended as part of any deal to reopen the government before they vote in favor of what is known as a continuing resolution, or a temporary funding bill to keep the federal government running.

“From the very beginning, undocumented or illegal — whatever terminology you want to use — individuals were never eligible for those tax credits, never eligible for those cost-sharing reductions, and in fact, and not even eligible to come onto a marketplace and buy coverage if they paid the full costs,” Altman said.

California does offer state healthcare coverage for undocumented immigrants

Through Medi-Cal, the state’s version of the federal Medicaid program, some medical coverage is offered, regardless of immigration status. The majority of that money comes from the state.

H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs at the California Department of Finance, said the cost to provide Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrants in the current fiscal year is just over $12.5 billion.

State money accounts for $11.2 billion and the remaining difference is reimbursed with federal funding because it’s used to cover emergency services, Palmer explained.

“Under current law, hospitals that receive Medicaid are required to provide emergency care, including labor and delivery, to individuals regardless of their citizenship status,” he said. “That goes back to a budget law that was approved by Congress in 1986 and signed by President Ronald Reagan.”

The 1986 law is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and allows for emergency healthcare for all persons.

Some Republicans have raised other concerns about the state’s use of managed care organization taxes.

The MCO tax is a federally allowable Medicaid funding mechanism that imposes a tax on health insurance providers that charge fixed monthly payments for services and is based on the number of people enrolled in plans each month. The revenue from the tax can then be used to support Medicaid expenditures with federal matching funds.

Critics say California exploits a so-called loophole: By increasing the MCO tax, and subsequently bringing in more matching federal funds, California can then put more of its own state money toward healthcare for undocumented immigrants.

“We are bringing in all those additional federal dollars and then reallocating other money away so that we can provide about $9.6 billion for Medi-Cal for undocumented and illegal immigrants,” said Assemblymember David J. Tangipa (R-Fresno). “The MCO tax was never supposed to be weaponized in that process.”

White House officials also contend that California could not afford to put resources toward benefits for undocumented immigrants if it had not received the extra federal money — a claim Newsom disputes.

“What the president is saying, he’s lying,” Newsom said at a recent event. “Speaker [Mike] Johnson’s lying. They’re lying to the American people. It’s shameful. … I guess they’re trying to connect their displeasure with what California and many other states do with state resources in this space, and that is a very separate conversation.”

California is not alone in offering such healthcare to immigrants in the country illegally

A “small but growing” number of states offer state-funded coverage to certain groups of low-income people regardless of immigration status, according to KFF.

California became the first state in the nation last year to offer healthcare to all low-income undocumented immigrants, an expansion spearheaded by Newsom.

Newsom has since partially walked back that policy after the costs exceeded expectations. Starting in January, most adult Medi-Cal applications will be blocked — although current enrollees can continue to renew — and some adults will be required to pay monthly premiums. Undocumented minors under age 19, who became eligible for Medi-Cal nearly a decade ago, will not be affected by the changes.

The upcoming changes to the state’s policies and the enrollment freeze will help decrease the overall costs, which are projected to fall to about $10.1 billion during the next fiscal year, according to the California Department of Finance.

While the governor’s shift angered his most progressive allies and renewed speculation that he is tacking to the political middle ahead of his expected run for president in 2028, the Democratic-led Legislature approved the Medi-Cal eligibility changes in June.

Public opinion on the issue may also be changing.

Fifty-eight percent of adults in California were opposed to providing healthcare for undocumented immigrants, according to a poll released in June from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. This was a notable shift, as previous surveys from the institute conducted between 2015 to 2023 showed the majority approved.

Who would lose coverage if the tax credits end and Medicaid cuts aren’t reversed?

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Republicans this summer, ends healthcare subsidies that were extended during the pandemic and makes other cuts to programs. According to the White House, the bill “contains the most important America First healthcare reforms ever enacted.”

“The policies represent a comprehensive effort to address waste, fraud, and abuse to strengthen the healthcare system for the most vulnerable Americans, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are focused on American citizens and do not subsidize healthcare for illegal immigrants,” the White House said in a statement on Oct. 1.

Among other things, the law limits Medicare and other program eligibility to certain groups, including green card holders, effective July 2025. Other lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylees, are no longer eligible, according to KFF.

It’s estimated that the eligibility restrictions will result in about 1.4 million lawfully present immigrants becoming uninsured, reduce federal spending by about $131 billion and increase federal revenue by $4.8 billion as of 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

At the same time, a broader group of lawfully present immigrants, including refugees, will lose access to subsidized coverage through the ACA marketplace by January 2027.

Covered California’s Altman estimated that there are about 119,000 immigrants in California who are covered and would lose eligibility for financial assistance.

More broadly, Altman and other healthcare experts predict that healthcare premiums will skyrocket if the ACA tax credits expire.

People spend years paying into the Social Security system via payroll taxes. It’s a way of helping to secure somewhat of a financial safety net in your retirement years when you begin receiving benefits. Even if you’re fortunate enough not to need it, it’s a well-earned plus after decades of work and contributions.

Unfortunately, like most other income sources in America, when you receive your Social Security payments, you could potentially owe taxes on them. The good news is that most states don’t tax Social Security benefits. The bad news is that this still leaves others that do. As of October 2025, 41 states do not tax Social Security.

Image source: Getty Images.

Which states don’t tax Social Security benefits?

The following 41 states, along with Washington, D.C., currently do not tax Social Security benefits:

1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. California
6. Delaware
7. Florida
8. Georgia
9. Hawaii
10. Idaho
11. Illinois
12. Indiana
13. Iowa
14. Kansas
15. Kentucky
16. Louisiana
17. Maine
18. Maryland
19. Massachusetts
20. Michigan
21. Mississippi
22. Missouri
23. Nebraska
24. Nevada
25. New Hampshire
26. New Jersey
27. New York
28. North Carolina
29. North Dakota
30. Ohio
31. Oklahoma
32. Oregon
33. Pennsylvania
34. South Carolina
35. South Dakota
36. Tennessee
37. Texas
38. Virginia
39. Washington
40. Wisconsin
41. Wyoming

Which states tax Social Security benefits?

The following nine states do have Social Security taxes in some form:

1. Colorado
2. Connecticut
3. Minnesota
4. Montana
5. New Mexico
6. Rhode Island
7. Utah
8. Vermont
9. West Virginia

In the past five years, four states have eliminated their Social Security tax, so there’s still hope for people who live in a state with the tax. For example, West Virginians won’t have to pay taxes on benefits beginning in 2026.

You could still owe federal taxes on your Social Security check

Unfortunately, your state’s tax-free status doesn’t exempt you from federal taxes on your Social Security check. Luckily, most people won’t pay anything; however, there are still millions who will. To determine if you’ll be subjected to federal taxes on your Social Security benefits, the IRS considers your combined income, which includes the following:

For example, if your AGI is $15,000, you receive $20,000 annually from Social Security, and you have $200 in nontaxable interest, your combined income would be $25,200 ($15,000 + $10,000 + $200). After calculating your combined income, the following ranges are used to determine how much of your benefits are eligible to be taxed:

Source: IRS.

To see it in action, let’s assume you receive $20,000 annually in benefits, and 50% is eligible to be taxed. In this situation, up to $10,000 would be added to any other income you have and then taxed at your normal income tax rate. It’s helpful to know how the federal tax works, so you don’t mistakenly assume that the IRS is going to take 50% or 85% of your benefits.

Some retirees could see a larger tax deduction

The Trump administration’s “big, beautiful bill” included a provision that provides a temporary tax deduction for eligible people age 65 and older. Single filers are eligible for up to $6,000, while couples filing jointly are eligible for up to $12,000.

To qualify for the full $6,000 deduction, single filers must have a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) below $75,000. If your MAGI is between $75,000 and $175,000, you’re eligible for a reduced deduction, with the amount depending on where your income falls in the range.

Couples filing jointly must have a MAGI below $150,000 to qualify for the full $12,000. Any couple with a MAGI between $150,000 and $250,000 is eligible for the reduced deduction.

This deduction will remain in place until 2028 and is available even if you take the standard deduction (which would otherwise prohibit you from itemizing your deductions).

Reporting from Washington and Honolulu — House Republican leaders, bowing to pressure from both the White House and their Senate colleagues, agreed to a stopgap measure that will forestall a tax increase on American workers that was scheduled to take effect Jan. 1.

The deal is expected to come to a vote Friday under procedures that would require all members in both chambers to agree. If any members object, Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) would call the House back into full session next week for a vote, he told reporters Thursday.

In addition to keeping Social Security payroll taxes at current levels for an additional two months, the deal would maintain unemployment insurance for people who have been jobless for an extended period and would block a cut in the payments doctors receive for treating Medicare patients. After Jan. 1, congressional negotiators would meet to decide how to extend the provisions for the rest of 2012.

Accepting the deal would mark a significant defeat for House conservatives, who in past confrontations have wrested major concessions from President Obama and congressional Democrats. Those previous standoffs, however, involved efforts to reduce spending. This time, the House was in the far trickier position of appearing to oppose a tax cut, and the deal almost entirely followed the terms negotiated in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Agreement came hours after Obama and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, adversaries who rarely agree, both urged House Republicans to accept a bill to keep payroll taxes at their current level.

“This is an issue where an overwhelming number of people in both parties agree. How can we not get that done?” Obama said at a White House event, where he read letters from workers who detailed the hardships that a tax increase would cause. “Enough is enough.”

Earlier in the day, McConnell split publicly from his House colleagues and issued a statement saying Americans “shouldn’t face the uncertainty of a New Year’s Day tax hike.” The House should accept the two-month extension that passed the Senate on Saturday, McConnell said.

The Senate had approved its stopgap measure with bipartisan support, 89 to 10. But when Boehner presented it to House Republicans last weekend, conservatives rebelled.

The impasse largely concerned how to pay for extending the tax cut for a full year. The House had rejected the Democrats’ idea to increase the income tax on millionaires, instead passing a one-year extension that covered the cost by spending cuts and new revenue. The Senate’s stopgap measure would raise fees on federally backed mortgages.

As Thursday wore on, House Republicans who had previously balked began to change their stance. One statement came from Rep. Sean Duffy, a tea party-backed freshman from Wisconsin, who said that he still didn’t like the two-month plan, but that the Senate had “left us with few other options.”

Failure to pass some payroll tax bill by Dec. 31 would mean an increase for the average family of about $40 per biweekly paycheck, or about $1,000 a year.

Conservatives disliked the payroll tax proposal for several reasons. It would increase the deficit and do little to help the economy, they said. And they raised concerns that because payroll taxes fund Social Security, any reduction would hurt that program’s long-term stability, even though the deal calls for the fund to be replenished. Many argued that their constituents would regard the tax increase as acceptable and would rather see taxes go up than give in to one of Obama’s legislative priorities.

But as the reality of a New Year’s tax increase began to sink in, the unpopularity of the idea became increasingly clear. Senior Republicans began warning that their party risked the kind of political damage it suffered 16 years ago with the Christmas-season shutdown of the government — a move that helped reelect then-President Bill Clinton.

Democrats were clearly enjoying the spectacle of Republicans trying to justify opposition to a tax cut. “This is a big moment,” said Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg, who was Clinton’s pollster. Republicans “put the spotlight on themselves” on an issue involving “money coming out of your pocket,” he said. “I don’t think it could be more powerful symbolically.”

Obama did his best to heighten Republican discomfort at his White House event, where he stood surrounded by ordinary citizens and read stories from people who had written to the White House about what a $40 cut in take-home pay would mean for them.

A teacher said she wouldn’t be able to go to the thrift store to buy pencils and books for her fourth-grade class, Obama said. A man from Rhode Island said that $40 buys three nights worth of home heating oil. A Wisconsin man wrote that he would have to give up some of the weekly 200-mile drives he makes to visit his father-in-law in a nursing home.

“What’s happening right now is exactly why people just get so frustrated with Washington,” Obama said. “This is it.”

Inside the White House, officials had believed all along that the payroll tax cut eventually would get renewed. Republicans would not be willing to be tagged as “the cause of taxes going up on 160 million Americans,” one senior White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

At the same time, “their handling of it seemed irrational, so it was hard to know what they were going to do,” the official added.

Republican officials rejected the “irrational” label, but agreed that their handling of the issue had damaged their cause. “It may not have been, politically, the smartest thing in the world,” Boehner told reporters, referring to his caucus’ opposition to the payroll tax bill. “Sometimes it’s hard to do the right thing.”

In the end, however, the agreement came quickly, according to White House and congressional staff who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly.

Thursday morning, Boehner called Obama and asked him to send members of his economic team to Capitol Hill for further negotiations. Obama declined, saying that the House would have to approve the Senate-passed bill first.

With his options running out, Boehner met with senior Republicans, who gave him approval to negotiate terms with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. All agreed that the time had come, aides said.

In the afternoon, Boehner’s aides contacted Reid’s staff. They offered to accept the Senate plan if Reid agreed to two minor matters. One would amend the Senate bill to avoid new tax-reporting requirements that the Senate language might have imposed. The other was an agreement by Reid to appoint Senate members to a conference committee to work out a full-year deal.

Reid, who had orchestrated the successful Democratic negotiating strategy, ratified the agreement in a brief statement: “I am grateful that the voices of reason have prevailed,” he said.

[email protected]

[email protected]

Kathleen Hennessey in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

Tourist taxes are being massively hiked up in a new bid to combat the effects of overtourism as locals have had it with the crowds of visitors coming for photos

Visitors heading to a beautiful city renowned for its gorgeous views and rich culture are about to face a 900% increase in tourist taxes.

Kyoto in Japan has long been a firm favourite with tourists from all over the world, thanks to its beautiful cobbled streets, traditional tea houses and countryside views. However, the city’s popularity means that it’s been fighting against overtourism for years, in a bid to manage the crowds.

Now, the city is taking new steps in a bid to help mitigate the effects of overtourism; last year alone the iconic destination saw over 10 million tourists visiting, marking a 53% increase on the previous year.

Kyoto has already had a tourist tax in place costing approximately £5 a night per tourist, but it’s set to increase this up to nearly £50 (£48.92) per person, per night. This will apply to visitors staying at the city’s more luxurious hotels, and is expected to come into force from early 2026. It marks a jump of approximately 900% cost for tourists.

READ MORE: World’s top 10 most beautiful cruise ports – and the cruise lines that sail thereREAD MORE: Europe’s most ‘overlooked city’ is ‘best in October’ and just 2 hours from the UK

It’s not the first steps that Kyoto has taken when facing the crowds of holidaymakers that flock to its picturesque districts.

Since 2019, the city has had a ban on tourists taking photos in its historic Gion district. Although some popular areas such as Hanamikoji Main Street are deemed acceptable, locals complained that tourists were heading to private streets and properties in the area, and taking photos without the owner’s permission. As a result, local authorities introduced a ban on photos, with fines for rule-breakers of 10,000 Japanese Yen (approximately £49).

The ban on entering private alleyways and taking photos was reinforced last year. Isokazu Ota, Gion Southside District councillor, said at the time that livelihoods were being “threatened”, not to mention the narrow alleys were becoming overcrowded and therefore posing a danger to both residents and tourists.

Signs have also been placed around private areas to warn off visitors, with requests for tourists not to sit down on people’s properties to eat and drink.

Visitors have also been warned not to take photos of the city’s geishas without requesting their permission first. Nicknamed the ‘maiko paparazzi’, tourists follow local maiko and geisha and wait outside teahouses where they work. Maiko and geisha live and work on these roads and apprentice geisha are often 16 to 17 years of age, with concerns for their safety amplifying after incidents which included them being hounded by strangers for a photo.

Sora News, a Japanese publication, stated last year: “One area struggling more than most is Gion, which, despite being a place of work and residence for many locals, has been treated like something of a theme park by tourists, who have been known to chase and photograph geisha and maiko (trainee geisha) in the area.”

A few years ago the city’s authorities also temporarily released an ‘etiquette guide’ for visitors to help them navigate the local customs and behave in a way that would be deemed appropriate.

Do you have a story to tell us? Email us at [email protected].

HIGH tax fears ahead of next month’s Budget have sent business confidence to its lowest level in three years, a survey shows. 

Company bosses fear a Groundhog Day experience as concerns grow they will bear the brunt of another slew of punishing taxes. 

1

Optimism levels appear to be in freefall as tax concerns hit profits growth, recruitment and investment plans. 

Businesses have now lowered their expectations for the year ahead as muted domestic sales growth also drags down confidence — now at its lowest level since the end of 2022. 

Six in ten bosses say the tax burden is a growing challenge — a historic high for the survey and a big rise from just one in 16 making the claim towards the end of 2020. 

They also say that they were hurt by the £25billion National Insurance tax raid — and are now concerned about rises in next month’s Budget. 

Nearly half say regulatory requirements are the second biggest worry in a push for better performance. 

It comes ahead of the two-year roll out of a new workers’ rights package which will heap more red tape on employers grappling with costs. 

Concerns have been raised over giving day-one rights to workers and bolstered trade union rights.

Business sentiment is found to be weakest in the property sector, followed by retail companies, the research by the Institute for Chartered Accountants in England and Wales reveals. 

CEO Alan Vallance said: “It’s Groundhog Day for Britain’s businesses as we enter another run up to a Budget with poor growth, strained public finances and a fear that business will once again bear the brunt of higher taxes.” 

Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to try to find about £30billion to help plug the gap in the nation’s finances.

But she has been given an extra £2billion of wriggle room after borrowing stats showed inaccurate data on VAT receipts. 

Last month, US President Donald Trump had said he would introduce new tariffs to protect the manufacture of medium- and heavy-duty trucks from outside competition.

United States President Donald Trump has said that all medium- and heavy-duty trucks imported into the country will face a 25 percent tariff rate starting November 1, a significant escalation of his effort to protect US companies from foreign competition.

Trump made the announcement on Monday.

Last month, Trump had said heavy truck imports would face new duties on October 1 on national security grounds, saying the new tariffs were to protect manufacturers from “unfair outside competition” and that the move would benefit companies such as Paccar-owned Peterbilt and Kenworth and Daimler Truck-owned Freightliner.

Under trade deals reached with Japan and the European Union, the US has agreed to 15 percent tariffs on light-duty vehicles, but it is not clear if that rate will be set for larger vehicles.

The Trump administration has also allowed producers to deduct the value of US components from tariffs paid on light-duty vehicles assembled in Canada and Mexico.

Larger vehicles include trucks for delivery, garbage pickup, and public utilities; buses for transit, shuttles, and schools; tractor-trailer trucks; semitrucks; and heavy-duty vocational vehicles.

Impact on allies

The US Chamber of Commerce earlier urged the US Commerce Department not to impose new truck tariffs, noting the top five import sources are Mexico, Canada, Japan, Germany, and Finland, “all of which are allies or close partners of the United States posing no threat to US national security”.

Mexico is the largest exporter of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to the US. A study released in January said imports of those larger vehicles from Mexico have tripled since 2019 to around 340,000 today, according to government statistics.

Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal, medium- and heavy-duty trucks move free of tariffs if at least 64 percent of a heavy truck’s value originates in North America, via parts like engines and axles, raw materials such as steel, or assembly labour.

Tariffs could also affect Chrysler’s parent company Stellantis, which produces heavy-duty Ram trucks and commercial vans in Mexico. Stellantis had been lobbying the White House not to impose steep tariffs on its Mexican-made trucks.

Sweden’s Volvo Group is building a $700m heavy-truck factory in Monterrey, Mexico, due to start operations in 2026.

Mexico is home to 14 manufacturers and assemblers of buses, trucks, and tractor trucks, and two manufacturers of engines, according to the US International Trade Administration.

Mexico opposed new tariffs, telling the US Commerce Department in May that all Mexican trucks exported to the US have on average 50 percent US content, including diesel engines.

Last year, the US imported almost $128bn in heavy vehicle parts from Mexico, accounting for approximately 28 percent of total US imports, Mexico said.

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who lost the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City to Zohran Mamdani by significant margins and is now contesting as an independent, is second in the race to clinch the mayor’s title in the largest city in the United States.

Mamdani won on a message of affordability, but Cuomo has slammed his plans as extreme and not feasible. Al Jazeera did an analysis of Cuomo’s economic policies to see what he has to offer for New Yorkers.

Housing

Cuomo – who only moved into New York City in September 2024 after living in Westchester, a suburban community north of the city – has promised to build over the next decade half a million new apartments, two-thirds of which will be “affordable”. The plan offers tax incentives to private developers to build more residential developments. It also says it will loosen zoning laws to promote office-to-residential conversions.

However, much of what he’s touting is already city policy.

New York launched an office-to-housing programme in 2020 under former Mayor Bill de Blasio, followed by reforms last year to speed up conversions under incumbent Eric Adams.

According to a report from City Comptroller Brad Lander, who also ran in the primaries but has since endorsed Mamdani, those initiatives have already produced 44 conversions. Projects finished or under way are expected to create as many as 17,400 units citywide – mostly studios and one-bedroom apartments – including one of the largest office-to-housing conversions in the country in Lower Manhattan.

Cuomo’s plan to expand housing options across the city also taps into publicly owned land, including vacant lots, to allow for development of new housing and mixed-use development – the same as both other leading candidates, Mamdani, a former State Assembly member, and Adams.

Cuomo wants to pump $2.5bn into public housing over the next five years, which would be a 75 percent increase from the city’s current funding. For housing protections, he wants to add more lawyers in the city’s housing court system to help renters with issues like tenant harassment and unlawful eviction and provide more housing vouchers to help address homelessness.

However, Cuomo’s history says otherwise. When he was governor, he pushed the state to cut funding for a rental voucher programme called Advantage. The cuts from Albany, the state capital, left City Hall no choice but to cut the programme altogether.

One of the few new ideas from Cuomo, who has been US secretary of housing and urban development in the past, is called “Zohran’s Law”, a jab at the most likely next mayor of New York. The new law would put in place income limits on those who are seeking rent-stabilised apartments across the city, which account for about half of the rental housing stock.

Cuomo said the law would not penalise those who see their incomes increase while already living in a rent-stabilised unit.

New York City’s rent-stabilisation programme was never designed with certain income levels in mind. It was intended to regulate the broader housing market and protect residents from rent price surges that market-rate apartments face in times of housing scarcity.

“I think that’s been the playbook all along, kind of pick a fight, steal an idea, deliver less ambitiously than New Yorkers really need or deserve,” Adin Lenchner, founder of the New York based political consultancy Carroll Street Campaigns told Al Jazeera.

Transit

Cuomo’s most ambitious proposal is to bring New York City’s transit system under the control of the city itself. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which oversees subways, buses and commuter railroads, has been under state jurisdiction since the agency was created in 1968. That structure gives the governor disproportionate power over the operations of the nation’s largest transit system.

Shifting control to City Hall would be a steep challenge because much of its funding comes from state-collected taxes and revenues. And even if it were to happen and Cuomo would want to increase the city’s tax rate to pay for it, he would still need a buy-in from the governor, who either accepts or denies the city’s proposed tax rate.

That funding dynamic is a key reason why Mamdani’s free-bus proposal has drawn scepticism. Implementing it would demand coalition-building and leverage in Albany, which critics have said are best used for other pressing issues like universal childcare.

As a state lawmaker, Mamdani was able to help champion a free-bus pilot programme, but expanding such an initiative citywide would be far more complicated from the mayor’s office without control of the MTA, a key weakness in the Mamdani campaign that Cuomo has tried to capitalise on.

Cuomo, on the other hand, is not pushing for free transit quite like Mamdani but has suggested he would consider some free routes. He also said he would expand access to what is called the fair fares programme, which offers discounted rates to low-income New Yorkers.

Cuomo’s push to claim city control of the MTA also comes with a fairly chequered political history.

During his time as governor, he was frequently accused of weaponising the state’s authority over transit against then-Mayor de Blasio, taking credit for successes while deflecting blame for service breakdowns onto City Hall. The tug-of-war over responsibility for transit performance has long been a point of contention between Albany and City Hall.

Cuomo does have a track record of delivering on major transportation projects. Under his watch, a subway line expanded, the long-delayed construction of another subway line began and Penn Station, one of the city’s largest transit hubs, began a substantial revitalisation. He also oversaw the rebuilding of LaGuardia Airport.

Lencher pointed out that Cuomo proudly took credit for those wins but when the city’s subway system faced widespread delays in 2017 during the construction – colloquially referred to as the summer of hell, in which there were constant equipment failures and the worst on-time performance of any mass transit system in the world – Cuomo said it was “the city’s MTA”.

Jobs

Cuomo has pitched a jobs plan that he has called the $1.5bn Five-Borough Economic Transformation Capital Fund, which would fund projects all over the city. He is also proposing an innovation hub that would give grants to start-ups and offer them tax exemptions if they can prove they can provide job growth opportunities to the city.

He is also adding a 90-day “fast-track regulatory review”, a promise to cut red tape for business development. Both of his competitors have made similar promises, but Mamdani’s is focused on the small-business economy.

Cuomo’s plan for workforce training and development programmes includes expanding existing training and apprenticeship programmes for people who want to pursue jobs in fields like healthcare.

While he has offered to promote more training programmes that would help with “preparation for jobs that don’t require a college degree”, he hasn’t offered any details about what that would be. Representatives for Cuomo did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for more details.

Taxes

In 2021, Cuomo was behind one of the biggest tax increases on the ultrawealthy in New York state’s history. His administration raised the corporate tax rate by 0.75 percent. He also raised the taxes for those making $1m to $2m to 9.65 percent from 8.82 percent and built in two new tax brackets: For those making $5m to $25m, it was 10.3 percent, and 10.9 percent for those making more than $25m annually.

His new plan as mayor includes no tax on tips for restaurant workers and eliminating income tax for New Yorkers making at or less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level – $31,300 annually for a single-person household and $64,300 for a family of four.

For wealthy New Yorkers, he said he would increase the threshold for the mansion tax, an additional tax for a real estate transaction, to $2.5m, up from its current level of $1m.

His planned tax cuts are raising questions among experts about how he would pay for his proposals.

Unlike Mamdani, Cuomo has not provided a detailed plan on how he intends to pay for his platform, and Adams has his own existing record to point to, including increased tax collections and decreased spending.

“They [Mamdani’s campaign] always get asked how are you going to pay for it [Mamdani’s policy proposals]. Cuomo and people to the right of him don’t face that same line of questioning,” Kaivan Shroff, a New York State delegate for the Democratic National Committee and senior adviser to the Institute for Education, told Al Jazeera.

“The reality here is that [the Cuomo campaign] has come up with a plan to have a plan.”

THE Chancellor has been dealt another setback after borrowing hit the highest level in five years, making Budget tax rises “inevitable”.

The Government borrowed more money than expected last month, at £18billion, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

This was £3.5billion more than in August 2024.

1

The interest on Government debt soared by £1.9billion to £8.4billion, which added to higher spending on benefits and public services.

This offset any boost from the National Insurance Contributions hike, the ONS said.

It marked the highest August borrowing since 2020, significantly overshooting the £12.8billion expected by economists.

The level of government borrowing was £5.5billion higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in March.

Meanwhile, borrowing for the first five months of the financial year hit £83.8billion.

This was £16.2billion higher than the same period last year and well ahead of the OBR’s £72.4billion prediction.

Martin Beck, chief economist at WPI Strategy, said: “The £10billion buffer the Chancellor pencilled in against her key fiscal rule in March has almost certainly gone.

“That means tax rises in November look inevitable.”

James Murray, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, insisted the Government “has a plan to bring down borrowing because taxpayer money should be spent on the country’s priorities, not on debt interest”.

He added: “Our focus is on economic stability, fiscal responsibility, ripping up needless red tape, tearing out waste from our public services, driving forward reforms and putting more money in working people’s pockets.”

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing [email protected].

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories