tax

California is considering Proposition 40, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on its billionaires. This initiative is seen as a way to generate funds for healthcare, education, and food assistance, given that California is home to around 250 billionaires worth over $2 trillion. However, political analysts suggest that the proposition’s chances of passing are uncertain, especially with rising debates around income inequality and the implications for the state’s economy.

Opinion polls indicate a divide in support for the tax. A UC Berkeley poll from August showed 48% of likely voters in favor while 41% opposed, and a September poll showed support at 52%. However, historically, California ballot measures need strong initial support to succeed, and undecided voters often lean towards rejecting measures. Critics of the proposition argue it might drive billionaires out of the state, lowering potential tax revenue in the future.

Notable figures, including billionaires like Sergey Brin, are actively campaigning against Proposition 40, with Brin sharing his personal experiences to express concerns about socialism and its effects. Additionally, Governor Gavin Newsom opposes the measure and is advocating for a federal wealth tax instead.

California’s history with ballot initiatives reveals a complex relationship with taxation. While the state has a history of direct democracy, it has only approved about a third of citizen initiatives in the past. A recent attempt to raise taxes on high earners, Proposition 30 in 2022, was rejected, reflecting that even in a predominantly Democratic state, voters may not support aggressive tax increases on the wealthy.

The uniqueness of this initiative lies in its retroactive tax structure, which could limit billionaires’ ability to avoid the tax by relocating. However, supporters like economist Emmanuel Saez argue that the tax will not significantly deter wealthy individuals or tech startups, stressing California’s attractive qualities, such as its universities and infrastructure, which he believes outweigh potential tax burdens.

Overall, Proposition 40 encapsulates the ongoing conversation about wealth inequality in America and the contentious debate surrounding the taxation of the ultra-rich, making it a critical issue for California voters in the upcoming election on November 3.

With information from Reuters

The Labour Party chair has said Sir Jim Ratcliffe loses “the moral high ground” by making statements about the UK while living in tax exile.

Speaking to Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Bridget Phillipson said she would take the billionaire businessman’s comments that the UK was “on the slide” with a “pinch of salt”.

Sir Jim, the founder of petrochemical giant Ineos and Manchester United’s co-owner, told the BBC he has lost confidence in the UK due to a combination of high taxes and high immigration.

He has been a tax resident in Monaco since 2020 and said “things would have to get better” in the UK for him to return.

When questioned over the remarks, Phillipson said Sir Jim loses “the moral high ground” by “making these kinds of pronouncements while choosing to make decisions, that he is within his rights to make, to become a tax exile”.

Pushed on whether it bothers her that people who create jobs and pay a lot of tax were leaving the UK, the minister said she was “optimistic about our country’s prospects”.

Other high profile billionaires have left the UK, including including steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal and most recently the UK’s third biggest taxpayer, hedge-fund boss Chris Rokos.

But, Philipson argued the country was in a good position ahead of the Budget next month, and Andy Burnham has shown a “sense of hope and optimism whilst recognising that many families are still struggling and there is more to do.”

“Of course, there are challenges, including big international headwinds, but I fundamentally believe that we are in a strong position going into this budget because of the decisions taken over the last two years, and I believe our country’s best days lie ahead of us,” she said.

Philipson declined to speculate over whether there would be tax rises in the Budget on 28 October, and said the government remained committed to being disciplined about its spending rules.

In another push to revitalize California’s film and TV industry, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed the state’s first standalone post-production tax incentive.

The new incentive is aimed at bringing back jobs for the industry’s editors, sound mixers, composers and visual effects artists. It will allow a 35% to 50% credit on qualified expenses related specifically to post-production work done in California, and unlike the state’s existing film and TV credit, it doesn’t require productions to shoot here.

“This legislation protects the extraordinary people who make this industry possible and makes it unmistakably clear: California is still the future of film and television,” said Gov. Newsom in a statement. “We have the talent. We have the infrastructure.”

The bill, AB 2319, was authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) and introduced earlier this year. It cleared the state Senate 33 to 5 on Aug. 30, and the Assembly approved the final version 72 to 2 the same day. Schultz originally sought $100 million for the program. It is expected to start in January with $10 million, according to the Assemblymember Schulz’s office.

“It’s a historic moment for California’s post-production community. But it’s also just the beginning of what we really need to do to to fight for our industry,” said Marielle Abaunza, president of the California Post Alliance, a group advocating for the bill. She said the group is readying its strategy to get more funding for the program next year.

As Hollywood productions continue chase tax credits to other states and countries, much of the post-production work is going with them. California’s share of U.S. post-production employment has fallen from 53% to 42% over the last 13 years, according to CVL Economics, an economic consulting firm tied to California Post Alliance. The state had about 12,000 post-production jobs last year, per CVL Economics.

Ben Urquhart, 51, spent 18 years as a post-production executive at NBCUniversal. The Culver City resident hasn’t been able to find work in the two and a half years since he was laid off.

“It’s grim and it’s hard. There are jobs, but we have a large amount of extremely qualified people competing for every level of job,” Urquhart said. “When I was a kid, I was a [production assistant] in the 90s, and you could get a job within a couple of weeks. But when I got laid off a couple of years ago, I realized that is certainly not the case at all anymore. It’s been a large-scale transformation.”

Urquhart said the new incentive would help California compete with jurisdictions that already offer these credits and “level the playing field.”

Last year, California expanded its film and TV tax credit program, more than doubling the old $330-million cap to $750 million through June 30, 2030. The existing program already covers post-production, but only if 75% of filming or the overall budget is spent in the state.

Newsom also signed a bill that would strengthen the current tax incentive program overall. In June he revealed a state budget measure that capped how much in tax credits a business can claim each year, a limit industry groups warned would undercut the expanded program. But the new Senate Bill 186 enhances refundability for the industry and exempts independent productions from the credit limits, starting next year.

There’s also been a recent push for a federal film and TV tax incentive. President Trump has previously voiced his support for the effort, and Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) and Rep. Brian Jack (R-Ga.) are leading a bipartisan effort to draft one.

A federal film and television tax credit could boost U.S. production spending by $125 billion and add more than 143,000 jobs by 2035, according to a new study commissioned by the Motion Picture Assn.

The analysis, released Tuesday morning, is expected to bolster Hollywood’s push for a federal production incentive, which the industry says is necessary to compete with the generous credits offered abroad. Sixty-five nations now offer them, the study said.

The effort has been quietly building for more than a year. It got a major boost last month when President Trump posted on Truth Social backing a proposed credit.

Details are still being worked out,, but the study assumed a transferable credit with a minimum rate of 20% on qualified spending for U.S. resident labor — broadly what industry groups have supported. It also assumed add-ons of 5% for independent production companies and 5% for labor costs in areas the Federal Emergency Management Agency has declared disasters.

If the incentive took effect Jan. 1, 2027, U.S. production spending would reach $277.5 billion through 2035, the study said, compared with $152.2 billion without it.

A coalition that includes the Motion Picture Assn., industry unions, producers’ groups and small production businesses, along with Democratic and Republican lawmakers, is expected to press the case at a virtual news conference Tuesday.

“A federal incentive would be a gamechanger for our industry,” Charles Rivkin, chairman and chief executive of the Motion Picture Assn., said in a statement. “This study tells us that we can bring more opportunities to life for people in all 50 states who bring great stories to life.”

SACRAMENTO — President Trump and the Republican Congress have unintentionally provided California state government with the financial means to subsidize — help save — endangered local news reporting.

Now it’s up to Gov. Gavin Newsom to capitalize on the unanticipated gift.

He can sign or veto legislation to end state tax breaks for large corporations paying top executives $1 million-plus salaries and, instead, provide tax breaks for struggling California news outlets employing local reporters.

The state legislation would conform California law to a little-known provision of Trump’s “Big Beautiful” tax bill that eliminated corporate deductions for execs’ compensation exceeding $1 million.

California newsrooms — print, broadcast, digital — would receive an estimated $43 million in tax credits for employees’ wages. There’d still be a net $15 million left over for a small state revenue boost.

I’ll admit to feeling a bit squeamish about this.

First, it’s a conflict of interest, arguing that a governor — whom my colleagues and I write about often — should shovel public dollars into our profession.

Second, why should state government and taxpayers be asked to subsidize a private enterprise that’s flailing in the marketplace? Especially one that prides itself in being an impartial watchdog over government actions and politicians’ behavior. The dog shouldn’t be begging for food from the critters it watches.

Well, one answer is that state government provides tax breaks for lots of interests, including Hollywood movie studios. We’re allotting $750 million annually in tax credits for films produced in California.

And there’s a bill on the governor’s desk to offer $100 million annually in tax credits for post-production work, such as editing, sound mixing and visual effects.

That’s all fine. What would California have become without a healthy Hollywood? I don’t want to imagine.

Newsom also recently provided $3,500 rebates to first-time electric vehicle buyers, benefiting Tesla and other EV makers. It was “investing in our future,” the governor explained.

OK, but subsidizing local news reporting is investing in democracy. Robust coverage of city halls, school boards, Sacramento politicians and the like is essential for self-government.

And that journalism is in free fall all across America as exploding technology and social media opportunism have altered news consumption, mostly bypassing local communities and often spewing misinformation.

So this legislation, AB 2222 by Assemblyman Christopher Ward (D-San Diego), reaches far beyond just helping the troubled news industry. It’s about more than providing media outlets with financial incentives to retain and hire local reporters. It’s bolstering democracy.

Independent journalism is a pillar of democracy, providing citizens with reliable, fact-based information about how their elected representatives are performing their duties, fulfilling their campaign promises and cozying up to special interests.

You’re not going to glean that information from the politicians. You’re going to get mostly self-serving spin — government propaganda — whether it emanates from the White House, the state Capitol or the local mosquito abatement district.

That’s why the nation’s Founders protected press freedom in the Constitution’s 1st Amendment.

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Of course, that was early in Jefferson’s political career, before he became vice president and later president. He ultimately turned into a harsh press critic. For example: “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

Jefferson, like countless politicians ever since, apparently carried a huge chip on his shoulder because of reporting on his job performance that ticked him off.

Newsom is a master at attracting friendly national news coverage, especially on cable TV. But he naturally shudders at more critical coverage by Sacramento beat reporters.

As of this writing, the governor hadn’t publicly disclosed how he feels about the local reporter tax credit bill.

His finance department, which crafts the state budget, opposed the measure when legislators were considering it. The state would “not [be] receiving any incremental economic benefit to justify the expenditure,” its analysis read.

Again, even if that were true, citizens and democracy would benefit.

Also, the analysis contended, the tax credit would likely “provide windfall benefits” for news media owners “rather than encourage new hiring activity.”

That’s not quite accurate. Anyway, it could discourage layoffs and save reporters’ jobs.

Late last week, the McClatchy newspaper chain — owner of the Sacramento Bee and several medium-sized California papers, plus dozens across America — announced massive newsroom layoffs.

Since 2002, more than 12,000 local journalism jobs have been lost in California, according to the bill’s sponsor, the advocacy group Rebuild Local News. More than 3,500 newspapers have closed nationwide.

Many communities have become “news deserts.”

When that happens, fewer citizens turn out to vote, tax money gets spent more carelessly and political corruption increases.

Under the legislation, California media outlets — big and small — would be granted modest tax credits for each employee covering state and local news. There’d be $20,000 for up to five full-time positions and $15,000 for each of the rest. On top of that, there’d be an additional $15,000 for every new full-time job that’s created. Part-timers would be entitled to $7,500.

“National news outlets would be excluded. So would partisan ‘pink slime’ sites controlled by political action committees,” says Matt Pearce, policy director for Rebuild Local News, a former Los Angeles Times reporter and newspaper guild leader.

It would be the most ambitious program of its kind in the country. New York, Illinois and New Mexico currently offer local news subsidies.

“It’s about civic infrastructure and the foundation of democracy. We’re teetering toward autocracy,” says former state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), an ex-mayor who has long pushed for stronger local news coverage.

This bill won’t save local newsrooms. But it may give them breathing room while the big thinkers try to concoct a more profitable business model for democracy’s watchdog.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Architect of billionaire tax tried to ‘extort’ support for the measure and targeted women, union reports find
Money (That’s what I want): Becerra backers with business in Sacramento spend tens of millions boosting his gubernatorial bid
The L.A. Times Special: Will ‘Coxon Day’ save us from AI destruction?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — SEIU United Healthcare Workers West President Dave Regan allegedly tried to “extort” an SEIU state council endorsement of the billionaire tax ballot measure from other California union leaders, according to an investigation commissioned by Service Employees International Union.

The investigation and a second inquiry conducted on behalf of SEIU California found that Regan allegedly threatened and intimidated women who worked for the state council, and in one instance, physically assaulted a former executive director of the labor organization.

Regan, in an interview with The Times, denied the allegations that he attempted to extort from union officials. He also denied assaulting the executive director and said he did not threaten female labor leaders. He repeated a counterclaim he made to the union: The allegations against him are retaliation for his advocacy for Proposition 40, the proposed wealth tax that will be on the Nov. 3 ballot.

“They are internally contradictory, they are fundamentally biased, and maybe most importantly, they are politically motivated,” Regan said about the probes.

The law firm hired by the national union investigated Regan’s claim of retaliation but found the allegation could not be substantiated.

David Huerta, the president of SEIU United Service Workers West, and three other labor leaders filed a rare formal union charge against Regan in February.

The national union of SEIU has ultimate authority to resolve charges filed under its constitution and hired the New York labor law firm Cohen, Weiss and Simon to independently investigate the claims. The firm interviewed 18 current and former SEIU leaders and others in the California labor movement over nearly three months, according to its report.

The law firm’s report, reviewed by The Times, supported Huerta’s claim that on Dec. 3 Regan suggested the state council could be investigated for “governance issues” if the council did not endorse the billionaire tax on the November ballot. Huerta was then president of SEIU California.

“During the investigation, Huerta reported that he left the conversation with Regan feeling ‘extorted’ and believing that Regan might report unspecified governance concerns to the U.S. Department of Labor, which is known to be unfriendly to labor unions under the Trump administration, if state council did not support the billionaire tax,” the report said.

The law firm’s investigation substantiated an allegation that on the same day, Regan threatened Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California, over the council’s position on the ballot measure. The SEIU probe found an allegation that Regan also assaulted one of Orr’s predecessors in the job, Courtni Pugh, in 2009, to be credible.

“SEIU California leaders filed charges against Dave Regan alleging a pattern of bullying, threats, abuse, harassment, physical violence and attempted extortion,” Christopher Calhoun, a spokesperson for SEIU California, said in a statement. “Initial investigations pertaining to these charges substantiated most of SEIU California leaders’ allegations.”

State union officials have temporarily banned Regan from the offices of SEIU California, a council of union leaders that coordinates political operations for all SEIU-affliated unions in the state, to protect female employees, according to the state council’s report.

Democratic National Committee delegate Courtni Pugh speaks at the California Democratic Party breakfast in Chicago on Aug. 20, 2024.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

“Sufficient evidence was also found to substantiate that Regan has engaged in a pattern of subjecting former and current SEIU California female directors to intimidating and threatening physical behavior and verbal abuse,” the report commissioned by the state council said.

Leaders and workers within the labor movement describe Regan’s alleged behavior as an open secret at SEIU, which represents more than 2 million members nationwide and is the largest union in California.

The law firm hired by SEIU submitted its investigation report on July 28. Regan remains in his job as an administrative process moves forward with hearings. Regan will get a chance to make his case before SEIU determines any appropriate disciplinary action.

SEIU President April Verrett has the power to temporarily suspend Regan as the process plays out.

“SEIU is deeply committed to the safety and well-being of all people, including our members, staff, and the public, and takes these matters seriously,” said Dan O’Sullivan, a spokesperson for SEIU. “As soon as these concerns were raised, we initiated a deliberate and thorough process and retained independent, outside investigators to look into these allegations. Our process is active and ongoing, and the next steps include appointing a hearing officer and holding an evidentiary hearing through which all parties will be afforded due process.”

At a California Federation of Labor event on Dec. 3, Regan told Orr that “state council better endorse this measure by Jan. 1 or I’m coming for you,” she told investigators in both probes.

Regan rode to the airport with Orr and sat next to her on the plane “as part of a continued effort to intimidate her into providing state council’s support for the billionaire tax,” Orr told the investigators. As they left, Regan tapped his watch to suggest her time was running out, the report stated.

Regan told investigators that he learned last year that Orr was working behind the scenes to undermine his billionaire tax proposal. If approved by voters, the measure will retroactively apply a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires who were residing in California as of Jan. 1, 2026.

Regan denied that he threatened Orr, calling the claims “completely fabricated.”

“And again, the source of that is somebody who is not in favor of Proposition 40, and somebody who has not been leading the state council with practices of good governance,” Regan said in an interview.

Regan also denied intimidating Orr to investigators hired by the national union, but offered a different perspective on the SEIU California executive director. He said he traveled with Orr as a friend that day, had previously supported her professionally and offered her a job, according to the report.

The law firm said Orr believed that Regan was a “bully” who mistreated women of color and made it difficult for them to do their jobs at SEIU and had even “fought someone” when he didn’t “get his way.” Regan denied those allegations, including that he mistreated women of color.

“Orr therefore took Regan’s statement that he was ‘coming for’ her as a threat to her job security and her physical safety. She contemporaneously shared this fear with a colleague. Moreover, her response to Regan’s statement is reasonable because three interviewees — both current and former employees of state council — corroborated that Regan has verbally berated and at times physically intimidated or assaulted former state council executive directors,” the report stated.

The investigation commissioned by the national union concluded that UHW then launched a “fishing expedition” into the state council’s finances under Orr’s leadership, but did not substantiate a claim that Regan defamed her to allies of the labor movement.

The SEIU investigators also wrote that the claim that Regan assaulted Pugh was substantiated.

Pugh told investigators that Regan kicked open her office door and “jacked” her against the wall, according to the investigative report. While she was “pinned,” Regan pressed his finger into her chest and screamed that she was a “dumb ass,” the report said.

When he left her office, Pugh fell to the ground and began to hyperventilate, according to the report. Two colleagues found her, helped her breathe into a paper bag and walked her home, the report said.

Regan denied the allegation.

“It is a complete fabrication and a fiction made by somebody who has all of the incentive possible to critique or trash or criticize UHW generally, and me specifically, and no, there was no mention of it for 17 years,” he said.

The report also concluded that Regan recently threatened to sue SEIU Local 221 President Crystal Irving in an attempt to silence her from warning others about the alleged assault against Pugh.

Regan said the national union’s investigation was “fundamentally flawed” because it stated that Pugh “had nothing to gain from sharing her story” with Irving. Pugh, now a political consultant, has worked against the billionaire tax ballot measure, something Regan said gave her a reason to lie about him.

Pugh called Regan’s response “offensive to the women” who she said objected to his behavior. She said she detailed the alleged incident at the time to board members who oversaw her work and SEIU leadership. The encounter, she said, was well-known.

“I told my colleagues and organization leaders when it occurred,” Pugh said in a statement. “I was asked to participate in the later investigation because so many people had heard about the 2009 incident over the years. I chose to participate in the investigation because I saw that his behavior had continued and in hopes that no one else would have to endure this kind of treatment from him.”

Regan, in his interview with The Times, also denied the allegation that he attempted to force the state council to support the billionaire tax.

David Huerta, president of SEIU-USWW, speaks during a Memorial Day action in Los Angeles on May 21.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

“Huerta then asked Regan if it was his intention to initiate an investigation,” according to the report. “Regan replied, ‘I don’t have to; there are others who would.’ In that conversation, Regan demanded a full endorsement of the billionaire’s tax initiative measure by the state council by Jan. 1.”

Regan told investigators he raised governance issues with Huerta and could not remember if he demanded the council’s support for the billionaire tax during the conversation, though he said he had been seeking the endorsement for months, according to the national union’s report.

“The investigation found that Regan likely suggested he would cause the DOL to investigate state council,” the report said. “According to Regan, he did discuss with Huerta that an investigation was possible.”

The executive board of SEIU California later voted in July to remain neutral on Proposition 40, marking a blow to Regan’s efforts to overcome an onslaught of opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, billionaires and liberal groups concerned that the measure could backfire and reduce state tax revenue collected from the ultra wealthy.

Regan filed a counterclaim with SEIU in April, alleging that the state council initiated the complaint and launched its own investigation into him as a retaliatory “character assassination” for his advocacy for the billionaire tax, something the SEIU report said was not substantiated.

The investigative report submitted to the national union raised questions about Regan’s tactics to earn support for his causes.

Investigators said their probe “revealed that Regan has been associated with similar extreme efforts to secure political endorsements in the recent past.”

The firm reported that it reviewed text and email messages in which a representative for Regan offered to drop part of his counterclaim “in exchange for the state council’s endorsement of Tom Steyer for governor.”

“In an email response to that offer, a State Council representative stated they have ‘no interest in a behind-the-scenes trade involving dropping internal charges of misconduct in exchange for the making of a political endorsement.’”

The person working with Regan who sent the offer denied to the law firm that the conversation constituted extortion.

“This denial is not credible,” the firm wrote in the report. “The Regan Offeror stated that they were ‘extremely careful’ with their language when conveying Regan’s offer, as they were aware that what they said could be misconstrued as extortion. That the Regan Offeror took such care suggests that the offer was likely extortion.”

Regan also denied the claim, which he called a “complete fabrication.”

A second investigation by the Los Angeles law firm Barboza & Associates, which was hired by SEIU California, found sufficient evidence to substantiate a complaint that Regan bullied Jessica Bartholow, the council’s government relations director.

Bartholow reported to her superiors at SEIU California that Regan stood uncomfortably close and hovered over her at the bar at a fundraiser for the state Senate leader in San Diego in March as tensions flared over the billionaire tax. He then screamed an expletive at her in front of a crowd of lawmakers and lobbyists when she walked away from him, according to the state council’s report.

“Bartholow was scared and her heart was pounding,” investigators wrote in the report for the state council that was reviewed by The Times. “Bartholow had heard that Regan could be violent, and she did not know what he was going to do.”

Regan told investigators and The Times that he swore at Bartholow but denied that he physically intimidated her. Regan said he was upset with her over an allegation that she previously threw “four staff members of UHW out of the state council office.” The report commissioned by the state council discredited his claim and said “Bartholow did not throw UHW staff out of the SEIU California office or treat them rudely or disrespectfully.”

Lawyers hired by the state council said Regan intimidated another woman within the union during their investigation.

The state council investigation included an allegation that Regan physically and verbally intimidated Susan Li, an assistant director of external organizing for SEIU Local 721, on April 30 after a meeting with the Assembly Speaker’s Office and the California Primary Care Assn. Regan was allegedly upset with David Green, president of SEIU Local 721 who had just left for the airport, and began randomly screaming at Li, according to the investigative report on the probe commissioned by the state council.

Regan described the encounter as a conversation and said he did not scream at Li.

The state report said Regan “attacks female staff members instead of taking his concerns to the individuals who had the authority to make decisions.”

“Time and again, Regan unleashed his hostility toward the women who worked for SEIU California, and one from Local 721, in a physically intimidating and verbally abusive manner,” the report concludes.

Regan vigorously denied this assertion.

The state council report said Regan often berated Pugh when she worked at SEIU.

“Every week it was, ‘What the f— were you doing in this meeting? Why did you say that? You dumb ass bitch,’” the SEIU state report said. “Every time Regan called Pugh, she put him on speaker phone so everyone could hear him call her a f—up and tell her to f— off. Not one person said anything.”

Pugh told investigators hired by the national union that Regan continued to belittle her in meetings until she eventually resigned from the state council. She said she believed he formed a coalition to force her out of her job and that she would have been fired if she had not stepped down.

Terry Brennand, director of pensions, revenue and budget at SEIU California, told investigators that he and Mary Gutierrez, now deceased, heard Pugh sobbing in her office after Regan allegedly assaulted her.

“Brennand believed Pugh was in shock and traumatized,” the state SEIU report stated. “Pugh seemed frozen, terrified and not quite clear-headed. It was not the usual Pugh, who was direct, thoughtful and expressive. She was shaking and clearly traumatized.”

Three current and former SEIU California executive directors, all women of color, told Brennand that Regan had bullied them, the report said.

“That’s his forte,” Brennand said to investigators. “That’s his wheelhouse.”

Regan denied that he has a problem with women, or women of color.

“It is 100% false,” he said.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of California Labor Federation, said Regan’s union is overwhelmingly composed of women and women of color, who just reelected him to a position he’s held for 16 years.

“Ultimately they have the ability to make this determination of whether he’s an appropriate leader, which they just made again,” she said. “I think what’s most important is that we have to keep our eyes on the fact that Medi-Cal is being cut and we have no solution but the billionaire’s tax to fill that cut.”

Times staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Labor leader Dave Regan claimedFriday that he was the victim of a “smear” campaign orchestrated in part by wealthy Californians and said he has been falsely accused of attempting to “extort” an endorsement of the billionaire tax ballot measure and of physically assaulting a female union leader.

Investigations commissioned by the Service Employees International Union and SEIU California, and conducted by outside law firms, determined the allegations against Regan were credible, along with reports that he threatened and intimidated other female labor leaders. Regan, who is president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, vehemently denied the allegations, which were first reported by The Times Friday morning.

During a video news conference hours after the allegations were published, Regan claimed the probes were launched by opponents of Proposition 40 — the billionaire tax measure he helped place on the Nov. 3 ballot — as well as members of the SEIU California labor council with whom he had clashed in the past.

Regan, joined by other SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West union leaders and members, also criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom for opposing the proposed one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ assets.

Newsom is “trying to curry favor with the richest people in the state to fund [his] presidential campaign,” Regan said. “That is shameful behavior.”

Newsom and other opponents of the measure, including Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Teachers Assn., have expressed concern that Proposition 40 could push many of the state’s biggest taxpayers to relocate and destabilize state finances.

“The Governor supports a national tax on billionaires and is proud to stand with teachers, firefighters, reproductive health clinics, and others in opposing this poorly written state measure that will harm California,” said Newsom’s spokesperson Izzy Gardon.

Regan also criticized The Times’ reporting on the allegations, and an editorial opposing Proposition 40. He alleged that Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the Times’ owner, influenced coverage about the measure because he is a billionaire.

“We stand by our reporting,” said a Times spokesperson.

David Huerta, president of SEIU-United Service Workers West, and three other labor leaders filed a rare formal union charge against Regan in February. The SEIU investigation report, which was reviewed by The Times, supported Huerta’s claim that in December, Regan suggested the state council could be investigated for “governance issues” if the council did not endorse the proposed billionaire tax. Huerta was then president of SEIU California, which along with their national arm, did not endorse Proposition 40.

In July, the executive board for SEIU California voted to take a neutral position on the proposed wealth tax.

The investigation and a second inquiry conducted on behalf of SEIU California substantiated allegations that Regan threatened and intimidated women who worked for the state council. The investigation also determined an allegation that Regan physically assaulted a former executive director of the state labor organization, Courtni Pugh, in 2009, was credible.

Regan called the allegation that he assaulted Pugh a “complete fabrication.” Regan and other SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West members downplayed Pugh’s allegations against him because of her political consulting firm’s role opposing Proposition 40.

Pugh called his remarks “offensive” to the women who participated in the independent investigation.

“My testimony and the testimony of the other women were substantiated by investigators,” she said. “His claims were not.”

Regan remains in his job as the SEIU administrative process moves forward with hearings. Regan will get a chance to make his case before SEIU determines any appropriate disciplinary action.

Times Staff Writer Phil Willon contributed to this report.

BRITISH families could be charged up to an extra £100 to holiday in England, as Andy Burnham has announced plans to let England’s 14 regional mayors impose an uncapped levy on overnight stays.

But while it will be unwelcome news among cash-strapped Brits, there could be ways to avoid it depending on where you choose to staycation.

Yesterday, the PM announced revealed the tourist tax could be charged on overnight stays across the UK at hotels, B&Bs and holiday lets.

Labour’s regional mayors in England have pledged to cap a new fee on visitors’ overnight stays at 5 per cent.

But it could still hike the cost of a family holiday by as much as £100.

However, there are ways to get round it – the tax isn’t set to be introduced for another two years, and there are some places that might not implement it at all.

TOP STAYS

Best-rated UK hotels as voted for by guests – with rooms from just £31 a night

ISLE BE GOING

Sun Travel’s favourite islands from Europe’s Caribbean to a £2 wine paradise

England is split into 14 regions with different mayors looking after each – and the tourist tax will be added at their discretion.

It’s likely that all Labour mayors will add the tax, and some of the places where there is support are Greater London, the West Midlands, Liverpool City Region, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, York and North Yorkshire and the North East.

Therefore cities within those regions like Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle will all introduce the extra charge – including surrounding towns.

Where there are Reform UK and Conservative mayors ,the levy may not be introduced at all, as both parties have criticised plans for the optional levy.

For example, the mayor of Greater Lincolnshire has said that she won’t be introducing a tourism tax – where many of The Sun’s £9.50 Holiday parks are based.

She went on to warn that it could “drive out” people from visiting the region.

Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Reform UK) has reiterated that she won’t be introducing the levy as she fears it could discourage visitors.

Dame Andrea Jenkyns said: “The Government’s made more announcements about devolution powers that I completely welcome – having more powers and ensuring that your voice is heard here in our region.

“But one thing I won’t be implementing is the visitor levy. I can see how our hospitality industry has been quite frankly hammered over the years – the B&Bs, the hotels, the pubs and restaurants.

“I do not want to drive out people from visiting our region, so I will not be implementing it.

“People are struggling anyway, so don’t worry, your seaside holidays, the local businesses, I’ve got your back.”

Conservative Mayor of Tees Valley Ben Houchen also ruled out introducing any tourist tax last year.

Paul Bristow, the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, wrote on X that “this is not the time to put extra costs on staying overnight in #Cambridgeshire and #Peterborough“.

While at the moment these regions have either said or implied that they won’t be introducing tourist tax, it could change if there are local elections and the ruling party switches.

Another question mark is on the places that do not have an elected regional mayor – for example Cornwall.

Cornwall does not have a mayor for the whole county, but is looking for a way to set up a foundation strategic authority (FSA) so it could be set up by 2028.

During a visit this summer, Burnham said an overnight levy could be a “major game changer” for Cornwall and wanted to start discussions about it “sooner rather than later”.

Other places like Cheshire and Warrington are setting up mayoral authority and will hold elections next year.

Parts of Scotland have a tourist tax – it first started in Edinburgh in July 2026.

Aberdeen is also planning adding a new levy in 2027 with a stay the city potentially costing an extra £4.90 per night.

FOURTEEN British cities are eyeing up a new “tourist tax” meaning tourists and Brits heading on staycations will face paying hundreds more for their trip.

This comes as Andy Burnham approved the plans yesterday (September 10) to add five per cent to overnight stays.

Yesterday, the prime minister announced plans to allow mayors to impose an uncapped charge on overnight stays, although Labour mayors have pledged to cap the new fee at 5 per cent or below.

The additional fee would be added to hotel bills, and apply to those staying overnight in hotels and holiday lets including Airbnb and guesthouses.

All visitors, regardless of nationality and reason for visit, will have to pay it. It will be uncapped, meaning mayors can choose how much to charge.

The money would then be used to fund local amenities such as public transport and infrastructure.

WHAT THE HOL

Fury as PM approves tourist tax which could hike price of UK holidays by £100s

TAX RAID

Workers face being £100s worse off under Labour’s salary sacrifice raid

Cities and regions that may soon introduce the additional charge include London, Liverpool, Bristol and Bath.

As well as cultural hubs such as Durham, Manchester, York and Newcastle.

Earlier, the government had promised to protect budget holidays “by making sure low-cost accommodation always pays lowest levy” and said the extra cash would be invested in high streets.

However, the chief executive of UKHospitality, Allen Simpson, warned the BBC that the new charge could add nearly £100 to £120 to the average cost of a UK family holiday.

This also comes at a time where the hospitality industry has already suffered from rises to Employer National Insurance and the minimum wage, costing the sector billions.

However, these would not be the first regions in the UK to implement the new charge – which could come as early as 2028.

In Manchester, a “city visitor charge” of £1 per room per night already applies to some hotels, however the new tourist charge would replace it.

Hollywood’s film and TV post-production workers took their case directly to Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday, urging him to sign a bill that would create the state’s first standalone post-production tax incentive.

Workers such as editors, singers and sound supervisors joined bill author Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) and Mayor Karen Bass at a news conference Thursday morning in front of the Television Academy’s headquarters in North Hollywood.

The bill, AB 2319, is aimed at supporting the industry’s editors, sound mixers, composers and visual effects artists. It passed the state Senate 33 to 5 on Aug. 30, and the Assembly approved the final version 72 to 2 the same day. Newsom, who has not taken a public position on the measure, has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto it.

Bass urged supporters not to let up before then.

“We need our industry in full force,” Bass said. “It’s all a part of making our city more affordable. We know that this is one of the biggest issues in our city, and so having a strong, robust industry helps Angelenos across the board.”

The incentive would allow a 35% to 50% credit on qualified expenses relating specifically to post-production in California. The state’s existing film and TV tax credit program already covers post-production, but only if 75% of filming or the overall budget is spent in the state. The new credit doesn’t require productions to shoot in California.

Even if Newsom signs the bill, the program would start small. Schultz initially proposed $100 million to fund the effort, but the Legislature’s end-of-session budget sets aside $10 million to launch it.

“When you think about production, it’s easy to think about the actors, the directors and the writers; you don’t think about all that happens when the camera stops rolling,” Schultz said. “What’s changed is that they’re now telling their story about the struggles they’re facing.”

For industry veteran Karen Baker Landers, the decline in local post-production work is impossible to overlook. A two-time Oscar-winning supervising sound editor, Baker Landers is vice president of California Post Alliance, the group sponsoring the bill.

“It’s affecting people in huge ways, like losing their health insurance. I get people calling me asking to get just two weeks of work to qualify for coverage,” said Baker Landers. “It’s really difficult.”

Last year, California expanded its film and TV tax credit program, more than doubling the old $330-million cap to $750 million through June 30, 2030. But a state budget measure Newsom signed in June capped how much in tax credits a business can claim each year, a limit industry groups warned would undercut the expanded program. Lawmakers passed a fix on the final day of the legislative session and it is also awaiting the governor’s signature.

Despite the state’s bigger bet on the industry — and this summer’s fight over the cap — L.A. City Councilmember Adrin Nazarian, whose district includes North Hollywood, argued at the press conference that this is the right moment to keep asking for more.

“It’s that exact momentum that we need. When you double down on something, you’re giving more than hope, and you’re saying welcome back. Please come and do your work. Don’t stop doing this,” Nazarian said.

For years, Hollywood has talked about a federal film and television tax credit that could help the industry combat the growing number of productions fleeing overseas.

This week, the entertainment business got a glimmer of hope.

After more than a year of quiet work from California lawmakers, industry lobbyists and Hollywood unions to build a bipartisan coalition, President Trump endorsed the effort in a post on Truth Social, providing a major boost to the issue.

If passed, a federal incentive is expected to help draw some productions back to the Golden State, industry experts and advocates said. While it probably won’t immediately end Southern California’s production crisis — as many states now have established film hubs stocked with experienced crews and more generous tax breaks — an added federal credit could certainly help make California more competitive, they said.

“I will put our crews and our talent against any talent anywhere in the world,” said Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), a former producer who has been pushing for a national film tax credit. “If we have a level playing field upon which to shoot, where we are not much more expensive than other locations, productions will come back to Los Angeles.”

Trump’s Truth Social post came after a meeting with actor Jon Voight, one of the president’s designated Hollywood ambassadors who has played a key role in lobbying for the film industry and advocating for a federal tax credit. Though Trump has had frosty relations with Hollywood, particularly since many heavyweights did not support his presidential campaign, the industry’s jobs push aligns with his focus on re-shoring work, marking a rare moment of agreement.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump said Wednesday that he has done “a lot of work” in the last week to get something done on federal tax incentives for the film and television industry.

Trump said he has spoken to streaming giant Netflix; Ari Emanuel, chief executive of TKO Group Holdings Inc.; and “many others,” and that he is hopeful there will be a bipartisan push to revive productions in Hollywood with “big subsidies and big credits.”

“We don’t give anything and we should,” Trump said, referring to proposed tax breaks for U.S. productions. He added that he wants legislation to “match” what other countries are offering.

Now, lawmakers must hammer out the details of that legislation.

The bill will have a Republican sponsor from a state known for film and TV production, but Friedman declined to name the person, saying she was waiting for Republicans to make their internal decision about that lead lawmaker.

The bill is likely to go through the House Committee on Ways and Means. While exact provisions are still being negotiated, the expectation is that the credit will be stackable with states’ incentives — similar to how Canada’s tax credit works. A 20% federal tax credit on all labor costs — including for salaries of actors and crew members — is being discussed.

An earlier proposal from Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) had called for a baseline labor-based tax credit of 15% to 20%, in addition to bonus add-ons for indie productions among others, a Schiff spokesperson said.

Schiff has previously noted that 45% of all U.S. films and scripted TV shows were shot internationally last year, up from about 33% in 2022.

Having Schiff and Trump on the same side of this national tax credit is emblematic of the odd bedfellows the effort has gathered.

The Motion Picture Assn. studio lobbying group has released a statement backing the proposal, as have unions such as the Screen Actors Guild — American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Directors Guild of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

“I am in strong agreement with the President,” Schiff wrote Monday in a post on X. “Congress should immediately take up and pass a federal film tax incentive to bring back these good-paying jobs that we’ve lost to other countries.”

Production incentive experts say any national film tax credit will need to have a seamless process, one with minimal red tape.

One idea is to make the national production incentive an overlay that’s attached to states’ incentives, so the federal government doesn’t need a separate agency to vet the same criteria, which could slow the process, said Peter Marshall, managing principal of media insurance services at Epic, an insurance broker and consultant.

Parameters will also need to be clear, and the program easy to access, said Kathleen Thompson, vice president of tax incentives at payroll service Cast & Crew.

“There is an excitement and an energy and a hopefulness right now from the production community,” she said. “I’ve certainly gotten notes from clients, potential clients and industry colleagues that are very excited about the possibility of this passing and becoming a reality.”

Stacking a federal tax credit on top of the newly bolstered California production incentives could help give the state an edge when producers are pricing out location shoots.

“California is still the leader in production,” said Joe Chianese, senior vice president at Entertainment Partners, which tracks production incentives worldwide. “Producers would like to stay home if they can, but it boils down to the math.”

But even with the improvements to California’s film and TV tax credits, the state’s program still has limitations.

California has an annual funding cap of $750 million, has designated application windows and does allow the cost of actors’ salaries — a major driver of movie budgets — to be counted toward the tax breaks.

Beyond the program, the Golden State is just more expensive than other U.S. locales, and some filmmakers have criticized the red tape that makes shooting in L.A. more difficult.

“Can we be more competitive with a federal incentive? Absolutely,” Thompson said. “Can it completely turn the tide? I don’t know, but I hope so for our industry and our state.”

Industry stakeholders say they are hoping for quick movement on the issue, particularly since it will probably take more than a year after any tax credit is passed for producers to start making plans to move filming back to the U.S. due to lengthy production timelines for movies and TV shows.

“There is a ticking clock,” said Marshall of Epic. “If something isn’t done by the end of the year or in sight, there will be a further solidification of offshoring.”

For Peter Max-Muller, owner of The Ruby, a North Hollywood contemporary clothing rental business, the loss of film and TV shoots in L.A. is one of many threats his business faces, in addition to the use of AI production.

His sales typically mirror the production data from the nonprofit FilmLA, which recorded a 13% drop in shoot days in L.A. County in the second quarter over the same period a year ago.

The goal of a federal incentive, Max-Muller said, “is that we get that runaway production back.”

It’s why Friedman said she is pushing to get the tax credit legislation done as soon as possible.

“The film industry is deep in the identity of Los Angeles,” she said. “And it’s worth saving.”

Staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday urged Congress to approve federal tax incentives aimed at reviving American film and television productions, saying Hollywood has been hollowed out by productions moving to Canada and other countries.

In a social media post, Trump said he met with actor Jon Voight, whom he has designated as “Hollywood Ambassador,” and concluded there is “no incentive” to work in Hollywood anymore and that it is “hurting California very badly.”

“Jon, and many others in the Industry, are suggesting we do Federal Tax Incentives in order to Make our Movie and Television Production Business GREAT AGAIN, Perhaps GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!,” Trump said wrote on Truth Social.

Trump said meetings are already being set up to talk to lawmakers from both parties, noting that he wants to the discussions to be bipartisan, “especially since so much money is being lost in California, and other largely Blue States.”

“I am going to suggest that Republicans and Democrats get together, and immediately craft Legislation to save the Movie, Television and Entertainment Business in America,” he said.

There are few details about what these incentives would look like at this time, but Trump said “the amount of money spent” on tax breaks will be made up “tenfold by the money pouring into the Treasury’s coffers.”

Charles Rivkin, chairman and chief executive of the Motion Picture Assn., applauded Trump’s announcement, and, in a statement, added that “for over a century, American studios, casts, and crews have produced the films and series that the world wants to see.”

“A federal incentive,” Rivkin added, “would be a landmark step toward bringing more production to local communities in all 50 states, strengthening our nation’s economy, and making our country a more competitive place to produce, create, and tell great stories.”

Trump’s push comes as production has continued to shift overseas. Last year, 45% of all U.S. films and scripted television shows were shot internationally, up from about 33% in 2022, an issue that has worried California lawmakers such as Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

California and other states have bolstered their production incentive programs, but Schiff has said in the past that it is not enough. He, too, has made the case for a federal tax credit.

“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,” Schiff said at an event in March. “The urgency could not be greater.”

Trump has previously floated more aggressive measures, including a threat to impose tariffs on foreign-made films, but that idea did not gain traction.

State lawmakers have approved a series of modest changes intended to bolster California’s film and TV tax credit program.

Among the key revisions, independent filmmakers would be exempted from the $5 million state corporate tax credit cap that was approved earlier this year as part of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s state budget.

Film industry advocates lobbied hard for a carve-out, saying the cap would undercut gains made under the current film and TV tax credit program at a time when Hollywood has been reeling from job losses.

The exemption is a compromise. Film industry advocates were hoping all types of producers would be exempt from the corporate tax cap.

The bill includes other changes intended to help Hollywood, such as allowing companies to carry forward older tax credits for up to 15 years (the old limit was nine) and reducing the discount they are charged when they opt to seek a cash refund on unused credits.

Producers will also be able to collect their refund money more quickly — within two years instead of five.

California offers tax credits of up to 35% on qualified expenses, which can be applied to any tax liabilities the production companies have in the state. The program allocates $750 million annually in film and TV tax breaks.

The budget trailer bill was introduced to the Senate on Friday by Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), chair of the Assembly Democratic Caucus and Senator Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica).

The new cap, issued by Gov. Newsom, would have undermined the “competitiveness” of the current California Film and Television Jobs Program, said the Entertainment Union Coalition, an advocacy group that supports the bill. But with these new modifications, the group — which represents the Directors Guild, SAG-AFTRA, IATSE and more — said the program will be able to continue to “support the fragile recovery of our industry here in California.”

“Most importantly, we want to recognize the major role our members played in today’s success as advocates for their industry in California,” Rebecca Rhine, the coalition’s president, said in a statement. “They sent an unprecedented 450,000 letters to the California legislature, making clear the negative impact that SB 122 [the new cap] would have on their livelihoods, their families, and their communities.”

Over the program’s first full year in its expanded $750-million form, the California Film Commission says it delivered $6.6 billion in direct production spending and $4.3 billion in qualified expenditures, supporting nearly 35,000 cast and crew jobs across 6,630 filming days statewide.

The bill cleared the Assembly floor by a vote of 68-2, with the Senate approving its companion measure by a vote of 32 in favor, 8 against the same day. It now awaits Gov. Newsom’s signature.

“It’s a good day that we took steps to strengthen the program and while we have to do more next year, this was a crucial first step,” Zbur said in an interview.

Zbur said he believes everyone in the state’s film and TV tax credit program should have been exempted from the corporate tax credit cap and he plans to look at that within the context of next year’s budget.

“There were budget implications to doing that, so we really did all the things that are viable to do in this legislative session,” Zbur said.

The trend is seeing people certain Brits take extended breaks from work to travel

Certain Brits planning to take a year off work have been warned they could face a £10,000 pension trap if they use their retirement savings to fund a so-called ‘golden gap year’.

The trend is seeing people in their 50s, 60s, and beyond take extended breaks from work to travel, volunteer or simply enjoy more freedom after decades of employment and family commitments. But experts are warning that a dream year in the sun could come with a hefty financial sting if pension rules are overlooked.

The warning comes as many people prepare to make the most of the final bank holiday of the summer – and potentially start thinking about how they want to spend their later years. PensionBee says taking time out later in life is becoming increasingly attractive, particularly after redundancy, burnout or when children have left home.

But unlike a traditional gap year taken at 18, taking a year out at 58 can have consequences for retirement income. One of the biggest issues is the Money Purchase Annual Allowance (MPAA).

Someone aged 55 or over may be able to access a defined contribution pension, but taking taxable income flexibly can trigger the MPAA. This can reduce the amount they can subsequently pay into a pension with tax advantages to £10,000 a year.

That could be particularly important for anyone planning to return to work after their year away and rebuild their retirement savings. The normal annual pension allowance is currently £60,000, although some higher earners and people who have already accessed pensions can face different limits.

Maike Currie, VP personal finance at PensionBee, said: “For years, the words ‘gap year’ conjured up images of backpacks, hostels and young people heading off to see the world before starting their careers. But increasingly, it’s older generations who are taking time out.”

She added: “After decades spent working, raising families, paying mortgages and saving for retirement, it’s understandable that more people want to enjoy some of that freedom while they’re fit and healthy enough to make the most of it.”

But there are several other financial checks people should make before booking flights.

State Pension

Taking unpaid leave can potentially result in gaps in a person’s National Insurance record. People normally need at least 10 qualifying years to receive any new State Pension, while those whose National Insurance record started after April 2016 generally need 35 qualifying years for the full new State Pension.

It is therefore worth checking your State Pension forecast before taking a year away from work. Some missing years can potentially be filled through National Insurance credits or voluntary contributions.

Workplace pension

A sabbatical or period of unpaid leave could also mean that both employee and employer pension contributions stop, depending on the terms of the workplace scheme. That means the true cost of a year away could be considerably greater than the salary sacrificed.

People should check with their employer before leaving work to establish exactly what will happen to their pension.

Keep saving if possible

Even people with little or no relevant UK earnings can generally receive tax relief on pension contributions of up to £3,600 gross a year, subject to eligibility. Under relief-at-source arrangements, this can mean paying £2,880 personally, with £720 added in basic-rate tax relief.

For someone taking a year away, maintaining even modest pension contributions could help limit the damage to their longer-term retirement plans.

Think twice before raiding your pension

Using pension savings to pay for the trip may appear an easy solution, but it can have consequences extending long after the holiday is over.

Taking taxable pension income flexibly can trigger the MPAA and leave someone with much less scope to build up their pension when they return to work.

Don’t blow the lot

Financial experts also warn against spending every penny on the adventure. Anyone taking a long break should retain an emergency fund and continue to budget for unavoidable costs such as rent or mortgage payments, insurance and household bills.

Money should also be set aside for the period after returning home, particularly if there is no job waiting.

Ms Currie said: “A golden gap year is really about buying yourself something incredibly valuable: time. But you don’t want the trip of a lifetime to leave a lasting hole in your retirement. Think of it as planning for two journeys at once. There’s the adventure you want to have now, and the much longer retirement still ahead of you.”

She urged people to check their State Pension, understand what will happen to workplace pension contributions and think carefully before accessing retirement savings.

The idea of taking a ‘golden gap year’ comes as Government research has found that 55% of people aged 40 to 75 who had not yet retired said they would definitely or probably consider a Midlife MOT.

NS&I has just improved the prize draw odds but the personal finance expert has warned over the best place for money

Personal finance expert Martin Lewis has told anyone with Premium Bonds about the ‘£5,000 rule’ and warned about the chances of actually winning anything. The ITV and BBC star has said that unless people have at least £5,000 in there, the statistics suggest they might be wasting their time.

Premium Bonds are a government-backed UK savings product issued by NS&I (National Savings and Investments). Instead of earning regular interest, a person’s money buys unique £1 bond numbers that are entered into a monthly prize draw to win tax-free cash prizes ranging from £25 to £1 million.

Mr Lewis has spoken out about the bonds, and last week, in a new update, NS&I said that there will be an increase to the Premium Bonds prize fund rate and improved odds from the September 2026 draw. There will be an estimated £63 million of extra tax-free prizes in September, compared to August 2026, NS&I said. There is also an immediate interest rate increase for around 428,000 Direct Saver and 222,000 Income Bonds customers.

More than 22 million Premium Bonds holders will see a boost to the prize fund rate to 4.35%, up from 3.80%, for the September 2026 draw. At the same time, holders will have even more chances to win, with the odds shortening to 21,000 to 1 from 22,000 to 1. The Premium Bonds prize fund rate and odds were last improved in July 2026.

However, Mr Lewis has said that people would have a much better return with normal savings – if they don’t put enough money in – because of the odds. He explained that premium bonds are only worth getting if you have a certain amount of money. In particular, he advised that many grandparents would be better off giving grandchildren cash via normal savings accounts.

He said: “For years, many people, especially grandparents, have gifted their children premium bonds. And frankly, in my view, for many they would’ve done better sticking with normal savings. Premium bonds are government-backed savings, where the interest is based on a prize draw. The current prize fund rate is just 3.6 per cent, yet even that overestimates what most people will actually win with typical luck.”

Martin said that premium bonds are typically only worth buying if you have more than £5,000, to give you a chance of winning the prizes. He noted that premium bonds are “best for”: Those with larger savings, say over £5,000, as then you’ve a better chance of earning closer to the published prize fund rate. “With less, the odds are you will win little or nothing”, he said

Those who pay tax on their savings interest, who have used up their ISA allowances, as premium bond winnings are always tax-free

He added: “As most children have small amounts of savings and aren’t taxpayers, premium bonds are particularly unsuitable. Of course, there’s the ludicrously small chance your child will win a million, but they could also toss a coin and it land on its edge.”

“So if you’re thinking of putting £1,000 or less into premium bonds for a child, it’s worth noting that with average luck our premium bonds probability calculator shows they are likely to win nothing over a year (give it a try based on your scenario).”

He has also delivered his assessment of Premium Bonds in general: “Premium Bond prizes aren’t taxed, which means that if you’ve larger savings in cash, and have maxed out your £20,000 a year ISA allowance and earn enough interest to exceed your PSA, Premium Bonds are probably a decent choice… if you can accept the random nature of the ‘interest’.

“For everyone else, cash ISAs – savings accounts you never pay tax on – are still likely to be the better choice. The top easy-access cash ISA rate is currently 4.4% – slightly lower than the standard non-ISA rate, but tax-free and offering a guaranteed return that’s higher than the current Premium Bond prize rate of 3.6% (which you need to be lucky to get).”

He also said the prize rate – 4.35 per cent from September up from 3.80 per cent is the average return. He said: “The smallest prize is £25. So what happens on £100 is a lot of people get nothing and a few get £25.” He said the mena average, which is 4.35 per cent from Sept, but more important: “Is the median average which is zero on £100 in Premium Bonds over a year.

“Median is if you lined everybody up who had £100 in Premium Bonds from those who win the most to those who win the least what would the person exactly halfway along win.

“The first thing to say is someone with typical luck will always win less than the mean average. What affects the amount you win, generally, is the amount you’ve got in. The more you have in the closer you will get to the mean average on typical luck.”

However, the ‘tax-free’ nature of Premium Bonds could offer a benefit, he suggested: “Most people do not pay tax on savings. That’s because, as well as your normal personal allowance up to £12,570 a year you can earn from any source, most people are getting either a £1,000 personal savings allowance – so that’s £1,000 of interest they can earn a year without paying tax on it – or £500 personal savings allowance if you are a higher rate taxpayer.”

If someone has a lot of savings, it could mean they’re paying tax on the interest, and if that’s the case, he said people should consider making sure their ISA allowance is full.

He said: “If you’ve got a cash ISA allowance available, I’d be putting it there. Then, if you’re paying tax on your savings and you’ve filled up your cash ISA allowance, and especially if you’re higher rate taxpayers which means you’re going to be losing 40 per cent off your savings interest on any that you pay tax on, at that point, Premium Bonds even on typical luck at around 3.2 3.3 per cent after tax start to look good value.”

Mr Lewis also urged people to place their savings in high-yield accounts. For those who relish the excitement of potentially winning big, he proposed purchasing a small Lotto ticket: “To all those people who say ‘what about the thrill of winning’, yes there’s the thrill of winning but, you know what, if you put savings account, you’re going to win interest each month and you’ll know exactly how much you’ll be getting and it’ll probably be bigger.

“There is a chance of winning a million, but if you really want to talk about the thrill of winning, then it’s probably far more sensible and more effective for those people who don’t pay tax on savings and who aren’t higher rate taxpayers, to go and put their money in top savings and then take a couple of quid out and put it in the National Lottery and then you get your thrill of winning anyway but you get more return on the underlying savings.”

NS&I responded at the time: “Premium Bonds remain one of the nation’s favourite savings products and are a flexible and fun way to save. They offer the excitement of potentially winning tax-free prizes every month, the safety and security of the 100% government guarantee, and easy access to withdrawals.

“Every Premium Bond has a separate and equal chance of winning a prize each month, however the more Bonds you buy, the better your chances of winning.

“Each month we pay out millions of prizes ranging from £25 to £1 million. In our most recent draw, there were more than 6.1 million prizes worth over £403 million.”