tax

Brits are being warned to check before travelling to the likes of France, Italy, Spain and more to avoid being surprised by a common extra cost when they check-in at their hotel

Brits planning their summer holidays are being warned to check for additional costs before they head off to their destination.

That’s because there are plenty of hotspots in the likes of France, Spain and Italy charge a tourist tax, often for every day of your stay. While this isn’t usually more than a few euros each day, it’s worth noting that it’s rarely included in the original cost of your holiday, but rather is paid when you check-in to your hotel.

However, a survey from Quotezone revealed that 45% of Brits don’t plan for additional expenses on holiday – and so can be caught off-guard when they’re asked to pay at reception.

Greg Wilson, CEO and travel insurance expert at Quotezone.co.uk said: “If you’re planning a trip to any city in Europe this year, you must be aware of the potential additional costs to your holiday such as tourist tax – often these extras are not obvious beforehand and normally due for payment when you check out of your accommodation. Tourism taxes range anywhere between less than €1 to almost €15 per night and can be charged per person.”

READ MORE: Three very unlikely Austrian towns hoping to host Eurovision next year

Although tourist taxes aren’t new, they’ve been an increasing source of tension in recent years as holiday destinations look to combat overtourism. Just recently, Jet2’s CEO Steve Heapy raised concerns that tourist taxes might increase as a result of the over tourism demonstrations in Spain.

It comes following protests in hotspots such as Barcelona and the Canary Islands, with locals calling for more restrictions. The Mayor of Salou Pere Granados had previously championed a charge of 84p per day for tourists, explaining at a round table: “The tourists pay tax in the same way as the residents pay taxes. If I come to London, I generate waste.”

However, Benidorm’s mayor Antonio Perez said he was against the tourist tax “because it’s stigmatising the visitors as the ones who are preventing me from having a better city or better services”.

Meanwhile in Italy, in recent years Venice has introduced a tourism tax for ‘day trippers’, in a bid to combat the crowds that descend upon the city, including during peak cruise holiday seasons. Just last year city officials confirmed they would be increasing the tax for 2025, and even doubling the fee for last-minute holidaymakers.

The experts at Quotezone warned: “When budgeting for your trip, it is important to take additional fees and tax into consideration. Recently many countries have actually raised their fees for tourists. Visitors in Paris may find themselves paying up to €14.95 a night – while Venice has introduced a trial for visitors to pay a €5 entry fee to the city during daytime hours, including additional costs for anyone staying in the city overnight. While planning your trip, make sure to research tourist tax in that area so you can be prepared for the additional costs.”

Do you think a tourism tax is a good idea? Let us know in the comments below.

Donald Trump made a rare trip to Capitol Hill to try and convince Republican members of Congress to approve his “big, beautiful bill” that would cut programmes for the poor and lower taxes while raising the US’ national debt.

Washington, DC – A measure known as the “nonprofit killer” has been removed from an enormous tax bill being advanced in the United States Congress, according to the bill posted online by the House of Representatives.

The provision, which no longer appeared on the President Donald Trump-backed “One Big, Beautiful Bill” on Monday, would have given the executive branch the authority to strip the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that it deems supportive of “terrorism”.

Advocates have warned that the legislative effort – which failed to pass as a stand-alone bill last year – could be abused to crack down on groups that the administration does not agree with, particularly nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) that support Palestinian rights.

Israel has given little indication that it is relenting after more than 19 months into its war on Gaza. The past week has seen an intensification of violence across the besieged Palestinian territory, which has killed hundreds of people.

The reason for the disappearance of the NGO provision remains unclear, and experts warned it may yet reappear in the bill before the final vote in the House, expected later in the week.

The office of Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

With a razor-thin majority in the House, Republicans need every vote to pass the tax bill, which Trump has put at the top of his agenda in Congress.

Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the section may have been removed to avoid putting the must-pass bill at risk, especially because the House parliamentarian, a nonpartisan office that oversees procedures, may have rejected it for violating the rules.

“It’s possible that this is a hiccup that they didn’t want, given that it wasn’t even likely to go through,” Hamadanchy told Al Jazeera.

“I can’t tell you that is the reason for sure. What I can tell you is that we continue to be very vigilant in case it comes back, either later this week or in the future.”

For weeks, Trump has been calling on Congress to pass the bill, which extends his 2017 tax cuts, a key component of his economic plans.

But the proposal has faced some opposition from conservative budget hawks, who have argued it does not cut spending enough and would add to the nation’s $36.2 trillion debt. So Republicans can ill-afford unnecessary issues that could derail the passage of the legislation.

‘Chill free speech’

Rights groups have been rallying against the “nonprofit killer”, saying it violates free speech and the right to due process.

The proposal would have granted the secretary of state power to unilaterally declare an NGO “terrorist supporting” and make it ineligible for tax exemptions.

It also said the government would not have to reveal the reason behind the designation if “disclosure of such description would be inconsistent with national security or law enforcement interests”.

Under the current rules, organisations certified to be nonprofits by the government get breaks on their federal income taxes. The status also makes donations to such groups tax deductible for donors.

While the withdrawn measure would have allowed a targeted NGO to challenge the secretary of state’s decision in court, losing the tax exempt status, even if temporarily, could have proven costly for nonprofits, especially smaller organisations.

Hamadanchy said being accused of supporting terrorism could also have prompted banks to close down the accounts of the groups.

“And then you have legal costs fighting off the designation because even if you might win in court, it’s going to take time to get there, and it’s going to cause a lot of damage to your organisation through that process,” he said.

“And that’s sort of the point because they want to chill speech.”

Hamadanchy noted that existing laws already make material support for a designated “terrorist” group a criminal offence with severe penalties.

The legislative push coincided with the Trump administration’s crackdown on Palestinian rights supporters, especially on college campuses.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has revoked the student visas of several Palestine advocates – who have not been charged with a criminal offence – over allegations of “support for terrorism”.

Some advocacy groups have portrayed the “nonprofit killer” as part of a broader push to muzzle voices critical of Israel.

“This bill is designed to silence dissent, especially from Muslim, Palestinian and civil rights organizations that speak out against injustice and genocide,” the Council on American Islamic Relations said in a statement last week.

“It threatens every nonprofit that engages in advocacy, educates the public, or challenges government policy.”

The apparent setback for the nonprofit provision came nearly two weeks after House leaders cancelled a vote on a bill to restrict boycotts of Israel after a backlash from right-wing legislators who voiced opposition to the measure on free speech grounds.

Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, said it would be “interesting” to see how Republican leaders would deal with staunchly pro-Israel measures like the “nonprofit killer” going forward.

“They on the one hand likely see this as a fun opportunity to embarrass Democrats – whose opposition will be framed as anti-Israel or enabling terror and antisemitism – and on the other hand they have to worry about principled opposition from within their own ranks,” Friedman told Al Jazeera in a statement.

WASHINGTON — House Republican leadership is pressing ahead toward a vote on landmark legislation that would codify President Trump’s agenda this week, the first major push to pass Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” since he resumed office.

The bill would overhaul the tax code and extend many of the tax cuts passed during Trump’s first term, while increasing spending on defense and border security — costly policies that would be offset by new work requirements and conditions on Medicaid, cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and the phasing out of green energy tax credits.

Success is far from guaranteed for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who is navigating negotiations with fiscal conservatives and coastal moderates within his caucus to secure enough votes within his razor-thin majority. But the bill did take one procedural step forward Sunday night, clearing the bill through the House Budget Committee in a rare weekend vote.

Four members of that committee voted “present,” and have not committed to ultimately vote in favor of the bill. Those four alone — Freedom Caucus members Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma and Ralph Norman of South Carolina — are enough to sink the bill in a final floor vote.

More moderate Republican lawmakers from states like California, New York and New Jersey, where residents face higher state and local taxes than in much of the rest of the country, are pushing for an increase in the state and local tax deduction cap, known as SALT, to be included in the bill — a provision that is opposed by the Freedom Caucus. They also are pushing back against efforts to wind down green energy tax credits that are popular with their constituents.

The Congressional Budget Office issued a preliminary estimate that new conditions to Medicaid coverage built into the bill would result in at least 7.6 million people losing health insurance by 2034. The CBO has yet to release a full assessment of the bill’s effect on the debt and deficit.

Johnson has said that the bill will go to the House Rules Committee on Tuesday or Wednesday. He then aims to put the bill to a vote on the House floor on Thursday.

The White House has been involved in the negotiations in recent days.

“Passing this bill is what voters sent Republicans to Washington to accomplish,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Monday. “That’s why it’s essential that every Republican in the House and Senate unites behind President Trump to pass this popular and transformative legislative package.”

Even if Johnson succeeds in passing the legislation, the bill will then move to a Senate filled with Republicans who have expressed skepticism of the House legislation.

“Not only myself, but a number of us in the Senate have been very clear: We have to reduce the deficit,” Republican Sen. John Curtis of Utah said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he wants serious changes to the House bill, Curtis said, “Yes.”

Earlier in the week, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said the House bill represented “real Medicaid benefit cuts” that he would not vote for.

“I can’t support that,” Hawley said. “No Republican should support that. We’re the party of the working class. We need to act like it.”

In a statement on social media Monday, Johnson called the bill a “once in a generation opportunity to help restore our economy to greatness.”

“The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will bring the historic relief and prosperity President Trump and Congressional Republicans promised the American people,” he said.

Nonpartisan analysts say bill would add $3-5tn to the nation’s $36.2tn debt over the next decade.

United States President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax-cut bill has won approval from a key congressional committee to advance towards possible passage in the House of Representatives later this week.

The rare Sunday night vote marks a big win for Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, after hardline Republican conservatives on Friday blocked the bill from clearing the House Budget Committee over a dispute involving spending cuts to the Medicaid healthcare programme for lower-income Americans and the repeal of green energy tax credits.

Four hardline members of the committee’s 21 Republicans allowed the legislation to advance by voting “present”. The bill passed in a 17-16 vote, with all Democrats voting against it.

The hardliners had spent much of the day in closed-door negotiations with House Republican leaders and White House officials.

Johnson met with Republican lawmakers shortly before the meeting, telling reporters that the changes agreed to were “just some minor modifications. Not a huge thing.”

Republican House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington said he expects deliberations to continue on into the week, “right up until the time we put this big, beautiful bill before the House”.

Nonpartisan analysts say the bill, which would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump’s signature first-term legislative win, would add $3 trillion to $5 trillion to the $36.2 trillion national debt over the next decade.

Credit ratings agency Moody’s cited the rising debt, which it said was on track to reach 134 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035, for its decision on Friday to downgrade the US’s credit rating.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview with CNN on Sunday that the bill would spur economic growth sufficient to offset any growth in the debt, adding that he did not put much credence in Moody’s downgrade.

Economic experts have warned that the downgrade – following previous downgrades by Fitch Ratings and S&P – is a clear sign that the US has too much debt and lawmakers need to either increase revenues or spend less.

Trump’s Republicans hold a 220-213 majority in the House, and are divided over how deeply to slash spending to offset the cost of the tax cuts.

Hardliners want cuts to Medicaid, which some Republican senators have pushed back against, saying it would hurt the very voters who elected Trump in November, and whose support they will need in 2026 when control of Congress is again up for grabs.

The bill’s cuts would kick 8.6 million people off Medicaid.

It also aims to eliminate taxes on tips and some overtime income – both Trump campaign promises – while boosting defence spending and providing more funds for Trump’s border crackdown.

Democratic US Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut said the credit rating cut spelled trouble for Americans.

“That is a big deal. That means that we are likely headed for a recession,” Murphy told NBC’s Meet the Press.

“These guys are running the economy recklessly.”

United States House Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill”, a wide-ranging tax and spending legislation, is at a crucial moment.

The nearly 400-page legislation proposes sweeping changes which include extending the 2017 tax cuts, slashing taxes for businesses and individuals, and enacting deep cuts to social programmes like Medicaid and SNAP.

While Republicans tout the bill as a boon for economic growth and middle-class relief, nonpartisan analysts warn it could add trillions to the national debt and strip millions of Americans of medical and food assistance.

The bill will be voted on by the House Budget Committee today and, if passed, will be voted on the floor next week.

The most substantive part of the bill is an extension of the 2017 tax cuts. The tax bill would add at least an additional $2.5 trillion to the national deficit over the next 10 years and decrease federal tax revenue by roughly $4 trillion by 2034.

Passing the legislation will also raise the debt ceiling, which sets the amount of money the government can borrow to pay for existing expenditures, by $4 trillion, a sticking point for hardline Republicans who want deeper cuts.

Here are some of the key measures in the proposed bill in its current form.

Changes for households

The bill increases standard deductions for all Americans. Individual deductions will increase by $1,000, $1,500 for heads of households, and $2,000 for married couples.

The bill extends the child tax credit of $2,000, which would otherwise have ended with the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts at year’s end.

It bumps up the child tax credit by $500 per child for this tax year and runs through the end of 2028. It also includes a $1,000 savings account for children born between December 31, 2024 and January 1, 2029. The legislation would also allow families to annually contribute $5,000 tax-free.

There is a new tax deduction for Americans 65 and older. The new bill would give a $4,000 annual deduction starting this year for people making a gross income of $75,000 for a single person and $150,000 for a married couple. If passed, the rule would take effect for the current tax year and run until the end of 2028.

“It will just make tax paying more complicated and more uncertain when a lot of these things ultimately expire,” Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the right-leaning Cato Institute, told Al Jazeera.

Another provision in the bill modifies state and local tax (SALT) deductions. It allows filers to be able to write off some of what they paid in local and state taxes from their federal filings.

Under the 2017 tax act, that was capped at $10,000, but the new legislation would raise that to $30,000. Some Republicans, particularly those in states with higher taxes like New York and California, have been pushing to raise the cap or abolish it altogether. However, they have faced fiscal hawks and those who see the increases as relief for those already wealthy.

The bill includes an increased benefit for small businesses that allows them to deduct 23 percent of their qualified business income from their taxes, up from the current 20 percent.

There is also a call for no taxes on overtime pay for select individuals. It would not apply to people who are non-citizens, those who are considered “highly compensated employees,” and those who earn a tipped wage.

The bill, however, also eliminates taxes on tips, a critical campaign promise by both Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Kamala Harris. The bill would allow people who work in sectors like food service, as well as hair care, nail care, aesthetics, and body and spa treatments, to specifically deduct the amount of tipped income they receive.

At the federal level, employers will still not be required to pay tipped workers more than the subminimum wage of $2.13 hourly. The intention is that workers will be able to make up the difference in tipping the receipt from customers.

Cuts to the social safety net

The legislation calls to make $880bn in cuts to key government programmes with a focus mostly on Medicaid and food stamps.

The CBO found that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid access and 7.6 million could lose access to health insurance completely by 2034 under the current plan.

Even far-right Republicans have called out the Medicaid cuts. In an op-ed in The New York Times this week, Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri said the cuts are “morally wrong and politically suicidal”.

According to a new report from One Fair Wage shared with Al Jazeera, tipped workers could be hit especially hard, as 1.2 million restaurant and tipped workers could lose access to Medicaid.

“A no tax on tips proposal, which is like a minuscule percentage of their income and doesn’t affect two-thirds of tips workers because they don’t earn enough to pay federal income tax, is just nowhere near enough to compensate for the fact that we’re going to have millions of these workers lose the ability to take care of themselves, in some cases go into medical debt, in many cases just not take care of themselves,” Saru Jayaraman, president of One Fair Wage, an advocacy group for restaurant workers, told Al Jazeera.

The bill also introduces work requirements to receive benefits, saying that recipients must prove they work, volunteer or are enrolled in school for at least 80 hours each month.

At the same time, the bill also shortens the open enrolment period by a month for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare. This means people who have employer-funded healthcare and lose their job might lose eligibility to buy a private plan on the healthcare exchange.

“It’s taking folks like 11 to 12 weeks to find a new job. The worse the labour market gets, that number will tick up. If you’re unemployed for three months, you get kicked off Medicaid,” Liz Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collective, told Al Jazeera.

“Then, if you try to go buy a plan on the ACA marketplace, you are no longer eligible for subsidies … which I think is really cruel.”

Other major proposed cuts will hit programmes like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme or SNAP, which helps 42 million low-income individuals afford groceries and comes at a time when food costs are still 2 percent higher than a year ago. The CBO found that 3 million people could lose SNAP access under the new plan.

The bill would also force states to take up more responsibility in funding the programmes. States would be required to cover 75 percent of the administrative costs, and all states would have to pay at least 5 percent of the benefits — 28 states would need to pay 25 percent.

“States are now going to be on the hook for billions of dollars in funding for these two vital programmes. They have a tough choice. One is, do they cut funding from others like K-12 education, roads, veteran services, etc, to cover this gap, or do they raise taxes so that they can raise more revenue to cover this gap,” Pancotti added.

Under the current law, the federal government is solely responsible for shouldering the cost of benefits. The proposed cuts would save $300bn for the federal government but hit state budgets hard.

Bill fuels Trump administration priorities

The bill would also cut the $7,500 tax credit for new electric vehicle purchases and $4,000 for a used EV, a move which could hurt several major US automakers that are already reeling from the administration’s tariffs on automobiles.

General Motors pumped billions into domestic EV production in the last year, which has included a $900m investment to retrofit an existing plant to build electric vehicles in Michigan and alongside Samsung, the carmaker invested $3.5bn in EV battery manufacturing in the US.

In February, Ford CEO Jim Farley said that revoking the EV tax credit could put factory jobs on the chopping block. The carmaker invested in three EV battery plants in Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The federal government under the administration of former President Joe Biden paid out more than $2bn in EV tax credits in 2024.

The proposed legislation would also give the Trump administration authority to revoke the tax exempt status of nonprofit organisations that it deems as a “terrorist supporting organisation”. It would give the secretary of the treasury the ability to accuse any nonprofit of supporting “terrorism”, revoke their tax exempt status without allowing them due process to prove otherwise, which has raised serious concerns amongst critics.

“This measure’s real intent lurks behind its hyperbolic and unsubstantiated anti-terrorist rhetoric: It would allow the Treasury Department to explicitly target, harass and investigate thousands of U.S. organizations that make up civil society, including nonprofit newsrooms,” Jenna Ruddock, advocacy director of Free Press Action, said in a statement.

“The bill’s language lacks any meaningful safeguards against abuse. Instead it puts the burden of proof on organizations rather than on the government. It’s not hard to imagine how the Trump administration would use it to exact revenge on groups that have raised questions about or simply angered the president and other officials in his orbit.”

The bill would introduce new taxes on colleges, including a varying tax rate based on the size of a university’s endowment per student with the highest at 14 percent for universities with a per student endowment of more than $1.25m but less than $2m and 21 percent for those of $2m or more.

This comes amid the Trump administration’s increased tensions with higher education. In the last week, the Trump administration pulled $450m in grants to Harvard on top of the $2.2bn it pulled in April — a move which will hinder research into cancer and heart disease, among other areas. Harvard has an endowment of $53.2bn, making it one of the richest schools in the country.

The legislation would also increase funding for a border wall between the US and Mexico, which the administration has argued will help curb undocumented immigration. However, there is no evidence that such a wall has deterred border crossings.

A 2018 analysis from Stanford University found that a border wall would only curb migration by 0.6 percent, yet the bill would give more than $50bn to finish the border wall and maritime crossings. The bill would also provide $45bn for building and maintaining detention facilities and another $14bn for transport.

Republicans have proposed the remittance tax as part of a broader push to crack down on undocumented immigration.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has denounced a provision in a tax bill being considered in the United States Congress that would impose duties on remittances — a term used to describe the money people send abroad for non-commercial reasons, often as gifts to family and loved ones.

On Thursday, during her morning news conference, Sheinbaum addressed the tax bill directly, calling the remittances proposal “a measure that is unacceptable”.

“It would result in double taxation, since Mexicans living in the United States already pay taxes,” she said.

She added that her government was reaching out to other countries with large immigrant populations to voice concern about the US proposition.

“This will not just affect Mexico,” she said. “It will also affect many other countries and many other Latin American countries.”

According to World Bank data from 2024, India is the top recipient of international remittances, with $129bn coming from abroad, followed by Mexico with more than $68bn.

In Mexico, in particular, experts estimate that remittances make up close to 4 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

But a far-reaching tax bill championed by US President Donald Trump includes language that would impose a 5-percent excise tax on remittances sent specifically by non-citizens, including visa holders and permanent residents.

That bill would affect nearly 40 million people living in the country. US citizens, however, would be exempt from the remittance tax.

Trump has led a campaign to discourage immigration to the US and promote “mass deportation” during his second term in office, as part of his “America First” agenda.

Proponents of that platform say taxing remittances would serve as clear deterrence to immigrants who come to the US looking for better economic opportunities for themselves and any loved ones they hope to support back home.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration think tank, told The Associated Press news agency that he believes barriers to remittances can help curb undocumented immigration to the US.

“One of the main reasons people come here is to work and send money home,” Krikorian said. “If that’s much more difficult to do, it becomes less appealing to come here.”

Under the bill being weighed in the House of Representatives, the 5-percent tax would be paid by the sender and collected by “remittance transfer providers”, who would then send that money to the US Treasury.

But President Sheinbaum and other leaders have called on Republicans in Congress to reconsider that provision, given the unintended consequences it could create. Sheinbaum even suggested that the tax could be seen as unconstitutional in the US.

“This is an injustice, apart from being unconstitutional,” she said on Thursday. “But in addition, it is the tax on those who have the least. They should charge taxes to those at the top, not those at the bottom.”

Critics of the measure point out that remittances can help stabilise impoverished areas abroad, thereby limiting the likelihood of undocumented migration from those areas.

Additional barriers to sending remittances could create economic setbacks for those communities, not to mention make the process more difficult for US citizens who are exempted from the proposed tax.

Still, even if the tax bill is defeated or the provision on remittances removed, the Trump administration has signalled it plans to move forward with other measures designed to discourage migrants from sending funds abroad.

On April 25, Trump posted on his media platform, Truth Social, a list of “weekly policy achievements”.

On the final page, the top bullet point under “international relations” was “finalizing a Presidential Memorandum to shut down remittances sent by illegal aliens outside the United States”. Trump called the document a “MUST READ”.

Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, will have to start raising prices later this month due to the high cost of tariffs, executives have warned in a clear signal that United States President Donald Trump’s trade war is filtering through to the US economy.

As a bellwether of US consumer health, Walmart’s explicit statement on Thursday is also a signpost for how the trade war is affecting companies as Walmart is noted for its ability to manage costs more aggressively than other companies to keep prices low.

Walmart’s shares fell 2.3 percent in morning trading after it also declined to provide a profit forecast for the second quarter, even as the company’s US comparable sales surpassed expectations in the first quarter.

Net sales rose 2.5 percent to $165.6bn, a hair shy of estimates, while same-store sales were up 4.5 percent. Walmart’s quarterly adjusted profit was 61 cents per share, ahead of the analyst consensus for 58 cents per share.

Many US companies have either slashed or pulled their full-year expectations in the wake of the trade war, as consumers stretch their budgets to buy everything from groceries to essentials at cheaper prices. But Walmart’s statement will resonate nationwide, as roughly 255 million people shop in its stores and online weekly around the world, and 90 percent of the US population lives within 10 miles of a Walmart.

US shoppers will start to see prices rise at the end of May and certainly in June, Walmart’s Chief Financial Officer John David Rainey said in a CNBC interview. On a post-earnings call with analysts, he said the retailer would also have to cut back on orders as it considers price elasticity.

As the largest importer of container goods in the US, Walmart is heavily exposed to tariffs, and even though the US and China reached a truce that lowered levies for imports on Chinese goods to 30 percent, that’s still a high cost to bear, executives said.

“We’re very pleased and appreciative of the progress that has been made by the administration to bring tariffs down … but let me emphasise we still think that’s too high,” Rainey said on the call, referring to the tariff cuts negotiated over the weekend.

“There are certain items, certain categories of merchandise that we’re dependent upon to import from other countries and the prices of those things are likely going to go up, and that’s not good for consumers,” he added.

Other retailers also said they would be boosting prices. German sandal maker Birkenstock on Thursday said it plans to raise prices globally to fully offset the impact of the US tariff of 10 percent on European Union-made goods.

US consumer sentiment ebbed for a fourth straight month in April, signaling watchful purchasing, while the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) contracted for the first time in three years during the first quarter, fanning worries of a recession.

Narrow margins

Walmart’s CEO Doug McMillon said the retailer would not be able to absorb all the tariffs’ costs because of narrow retail margins, but was committed to ensuring that tariff-related costs on general merchandise – which primarily come from China – do not drive food prices higher.

To mitigate the impact, Walmart is working with suppliers to substitute tariff-affected components, such as replacing aluminium with fibreglass, which is not subject to tariffs.

Despite these efforts, McMillon noted that adjusting costs is more challenging in cases where Walmart imports food items like bananas, avocados, coffee, and roses from countries such as Costa Rica, Peru, and Colombia.

Analysts said Walmart was better positioned than rivals, as its scale enables it to lean on its suppliers and squeeze out efficiencies to shield customers from tariffs, but only so much.

“There will likely be some demand destruction from tariffs; a complete wreck is unlikely,” said Brian Jacobsen, chief economist at Annex Wealth Management.

Walmart on Thursday kept its annual sales and profit forecast intact for fiscal 2026, but withheld second-quarter operating income growth and earnings per share forecasts, citing a “fluid operating environment … [which] makes the very near term exceedingly difficult to forecast at the level and speed at which tariffs could go up”.

Brussels is drawing up plans to use trade tariffs and capital controls to maintain financial pressure on Russia, even if Hungary decides to use its veto to block an extension of the European Union’s sanctions regime, which lapses in July of this year.

The European Commission has told ministers that a large part of the EU’s sanctions, which included freezing 200 billion euros ($224bn) of Russian assets, could be adapted to a new legal framework to bypass Budapest’s veto, according to the United Kingdom’s Financial Times newspaper.

Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, has repeatedly held up EU boycotts on Moscow as the central European country gets 85 percent of its natural gas from Russia. Orban’s nationalist government is also one of the most friendly to Moscow in all of Europe.

In any event, the EU’s recent proposals have emerged as Moscow and Kyiv hold their first direct peace talks since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Ukrainian and Russian representatives are convening today in Istanbul, Turkiye. However, Vladimir Putin will not travel to Istanbul for face-to-face talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Last weekend, European leaders held talks in Ukraine to put pressure on Russia to agree to a 30-day ceasefire in the run-up to the Istanbul talks. Ukraine agreed to it. Russia did not.

What sanctions does the EU currently have in place against Russia?

The EU adopted its 17th sanctions package against Moscow, designed to stifle Russia’s economy and force President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine, on Wednesday. This package has been signed off by Budapest and will be formally ratified by the European Commission next week.

Brussels has progressively expanded sanctions against Moscow since 2022, introducing import bans on Russian oil, a price cap on Russian fuel and the freezing of Russian central bank assets held in European financial institutions.

Vast swaths of Russia’s economy – from media organisations to aviation and telecommunications – are now under EU restrictions, in addition to trade bans and measures targeting oligarchs and politicians.

Under the 17th package, some 200 “shadow fleet” tankers have been sanctioned. These are ships with opaque ownership and no Western ties in terms of finance or insurance, allowing them to bypass financial sanctions.

The latest sanctions will also target Chinese and Turkish entities that the EU says are helping Russia to evade embargoes. New restrictions will be imposed on 30 companies involved in the trade of dual-use goods – products with potential military applications.

“Russia has found ways to circumvent the blockage imposed by Europe and the United States, so closing the tap would grab Russia by the throat,” France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noel Barrot, told BFM TV.

How effective are sanctions?

Alongside military support for Kyiv, sanctions have been the EU’s main response to Russia’s war on Ukraine. But sanctions have so far failed to stop the war. What’s more, due to high oil prices and elevated military spending, Russia’s economy has outperformed expectations since the start of 2022.

Barrot acknowledged on Wednesday that the impact of sanctions has been insufficient. “We will need to go further because the sanctions so far have not dissuaded Vladimir Putin from continuing his war of aggression … we must prepare to expand devastating sanctions that could suffocate, once and for all, Russia’s economy,” said Barrot.

What new measures are being proposed?

While the 17th round of sanctions was only agreed on Wednesday, EU ministers are already considering what more might be done to undermine Putin’s political clout if the war in Ukraine persists.

Capital controls, which would be aimed at restricting money flowing in and out of Russia, and trade measures such as tariffs, are two options that have been mentioned by the European Commission in recent weeks. Capital controls can take a variety of forms, including restrictions on foreign investment, limiting currency exchange or imposing taxes on the movement of capital.

The commission also aims to share proposals next month that would allow Brussels to implement a ban on new Russian gas spot market contracts – deals for immediate delivery and payment – with European companies in 2025, and a total phase-out by 2027.

Despite oil export restrictions, Russia still earns billions of euros from natural gas sales into the EU through liquefied natural gas (LNG) and TurkStream (a pipeline connecting Russia to southeastern Europe via the Black Sea). Banning spot market contracts would lower Moscow’s revenue from these sources.

Brussels may also propose tariffs on enriched uranium as part of its effort to cut EU reliance on Russian fuels.

According to The Financial Times, the EU insists that these measures would not amount to sanctions and therefore would not need the unanimous backing of all 27 EU countries, which is normally required to extend sanctions.

“I think the EU cooked up these potential punishments to try and get Russia to agree to the 30-day ceasefire … it was the stick they were brandishing,” said an analyst familiar with the matter who asked not to be named.

Will the US impose more sanctions?

It may. On May 1, Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said he had the commitment of 72 colleagues for a bill that would enact “bone-crushing” sanctions on Russia.

Graham, a close ally of President Donald Trump, is spearheading a draft bill that seeks to impose a 500 percent tariff on imports from countries that buy Russian oil and fossil fuels.

Trump himself, who seemingly welcomes the possibility of a rapprochement with Russia, said in March that he was “considering” imposing sanctions and tariffs on Russia until a peace agreement is reached with Ukraine.

Could such measures force Putin to the negotiating table?

“Most Russian people want life to return to normal and business owners are getting tired of war-related costs,” the anonymous analyst told Al Jazeera. “There is a growing sense of unease.”

She said she doubted whether the EU’s touted measures would bring Putin any closer to signing a peace agreement, however. “Only because sanctions haven’t been able to do that,” she said, “and there’s already a maze of them.”

According to Castellum.AI, a global risk platform, Russia has been slapped with 21,692 sanctions since the start of the war – the majority of them against individuals.

“On past performance, it’s hard to see how even more sanctions and additional punishments will stop the fighting,” the analyst said.

She estimated a 60 percent chance that Russia and Ukraine would still be at war by the end of this year.

Authors: Andi Mohammad Ilham and Andi Mohammad Johan*

In the midst of global trade confusion, especially following Trump’s machinery tariff back to the global stage, Asian countries have been compelled to reassess their positions, even in the post-tariff war era. Although Trump’s tariff list prominently targeted both well-established and emerging Asian economies, they still chose to not retaliate against Trump’s tariff, in particular ASEAN. Moreover, Asian emerging economies are fundamentally aware and strategically minded amidst the era of economic security and geopolitical shifts. Therefore, many economists believe that rebalancing growth, meaning growth away from exports to strengthening domestic and regional demand with diversification, is a key for Asia’s bargaining power in the global trade regime.

According to the McKinsey Global Institute data, from 2015 to 2021, the Asian region reached its shared number for 57% of global GDP growth. Additionally, this evidence demonstrates that Asian countries host 49 of the world’s 80 largest trade routes. Facing this reality, Asia will be joining “the world’s new majority” through five pillars. It consists of capitalization, resources & energy, demographic composition, technology forces, and world order. In other words, Asia’s power penetration, in these metrics, makes a potential synergy and energy between them to endure in the age of economic security. One spectacular finding in this report, conducted in collaboration with the Asia Business Council, reveals that nearly 80 percent of surveyed Asian business leaders expressed optimism about the new era while still emphasizing a need for profound transformation.

In terms of regional transformation, the Asian region must pay close attention, beyond investment and trade, but equally vital for rebalancing growth, to the collaboration for fiscal and tax policy. As noted in the IMF Asia-Pacific Department’s commentary, recently after the emergence of tariff war 2.0, Asia is one of the regions facing the highest US tariffs. Simultaneously, the IMF’s Asia-Pacific Department also voices the importance of a balancing act for policies, especially for fiscal and tax policy. Given this situation, Asia is essential to not only strengthen tax reform at home for all emerging markets and developing countries but also undertake the consolidation of credible strategies in long-term fiscal and tax sustainability cooperation. 

In recent years, the politics of global tax governance has culminated in the geo-economic consideration due to the implementation of two pillars of the OECD-led multilateral tax regime and the emerging initiative of the UN-led multilateral tax regime. Indeed, both frameworks have already introduced a necessary agenda for regional tax governance, but the latter grants a bold political decision to regions in contemporary global tax governance. Unfortunately, Asia’s position on the contemporary politics of global tax governance is widely different depending on each country’s geo-economic interest. This diversity is not a new analytical observation, as the foundation of Asia’s economic development has long centered on complementary comparative advantages.

In line with this development, the rationale for regional collaboration is not novel, as it has long been a theme in Asia’s international political economy discourse. However, regional collaboration in tax, which is markedly different from other incentives for regional cooperation, is crucial as the dynamics of global tax governance now touch upon intensified regional political coordination.

Based on functional characteristics, there are only two distinctions, which are tax policy and tax collection. One finding highlights three key prospects for why regional tax governance is needed, including concerning tax capacity building or technical assistance, regional political coordination, and regional engagement with international institutions. From the function of tax capacity building, it is about promoting regional cooperation concerning national tax administration and ensuring its technical assistance maintains productive relationships among members in the region. Meanwhile, both political coordination and regional engagement with global institutions relate more to the spheres of tax policy. 

Furthermore, the EU is frequently referenced as a well-established model of regional tax governance, through its EU Tax Policy. But, on the global stage, the EU still remains as a rule-taker because the position for rule-makers is handed over to the OECD. In contrast, the ATAF, African Tax Administration Forum, has progressively positioned itself as a rule-shaper due to its influential role not only in regional but also in global tax order. Subsequently, the emergence of the UN Tax Framework Convention further justified its position as a rule-shaper in contemporary global tax governance. 

Responding to these dynamics, Asia—as home to major economic powerhouses—must conceptualize its strategic position in the area of regional tax governance. Indeed, in 2021, the Asian Development Bank launched ADB’s initiative for regional tax governance, the Asia Pacific Tax Hub. Using a regional development bank model, this platform was expected to stimulate reflection debates to consolidate Asia’s economic strength in global tax governance. Despite the presence of the regional development bank model, the room for regional tax governance in Asia remains largely untapped and must be strategically leveraged by all Asian stakeholders. 

In essence, this finding also indicated that Asia’s corridor in regional tax governance still leaves room for development. Aligned with the broader objectives for Asia’s sustainable growth in the age of economic security and global trade uncertainty, it is imperative to ensure Asia’s regional tax governance framework appropriately fits in with the region’s expanding economic influence.

*Andi Mohammad Johan holds a Master’s in Fiscal Administrative Science at the University of Indonesia. He is a Partner at MMStax Consulting, Indonesia. He is also a member of the Indonesian Tax Consultants Association (ITCA).

May 14 (UPI) — The House Ways and Means Committee approved the Republican tax package Wednesday, which followed an all-night hearing during which GOP members rejected attempts by Democrats to alter the plan.

The bill was approved on 26-19 party line, which will next move to the chamber’s Budget Committee, where it will be blended with legislation from other committees and presented as part of what President Donald Trump has dubbed the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill.”

“We are in hour 14 of a markup where Democrats are fighting tooth and nail,” posted Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R- Mo. to X at 4:29 a.m. EDT Wednesday,” which followed previous update posts at 2:37 a.m. EDT Wednesday and 11:56 p.m. EDT Tuesday. The hearing began at 2:30 p.m. EDT Tuesday.

Democrats saw all their proposed amendments, which covered items like the expansion of health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act, and green energy, turned down, while also having stumped against the current tax plan, which it called a giveaway to the wealthy.

Democrats also put forth amendments that would have impacted Trump’s tariffs, blocked tax cuts for high earners and expanded child-care incentives among other suggestions, but none were adopted.

The entire package is projected to cost $3.8 trillion, but could still address state and local tax, or SALT, deductions. The Joint Committee on Taxation reported Tuesday that average earners would see their tax bills decrease by double-digit percentages in 2027 under the plan as it stands.

Democrats have also pointed out that under the plan, taxpayers who earn over $500,000 would see a cumulative tax cut of around $170 billion in 2027, while those who will earn between $30,000 and $80,000 that year would only see a collective $59 billion.

The bill is targeted to pass through the enter chamber by Memorial Day, then on to the Senate which is expected to combine the tax laws with the rest of Trump’s “Beautiful” bill, which together would both extend the life of previously set tax cuts and enable Trump’s financial requests.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans proposed sweeping tax breaks Monday in President Trump’s big priority bill, tallying at least $4.9 trillion in costs so far, partly paid for with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs used by millions of Americans.

The House Ways and Means Committee named its package “THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL” in all capital letters, a nod to Trump himself. It seeks to extend the tax breaks approved during Trump’s first term — and boost the standard deduction, child tax credit and estate tax exemption — while adding new tax breaks on tipped wages, overtime pay, Social Security benefits and auto loans that Trump promised during his campaign for the White House.

There’s also a tripling of the state and local tax deduction, called SALT, from $10,000 up to $30,000 for couples, which certain high-tax state GOP lawmakers from New York and California already rejected as too meager. Private universities would be hit with a hefty new tax on their endowments, as much as 21%, as the Trump administration goes after the Ivy League and other campuses. And one unusual provision would terminate the tax-exempt status of groups the State Department says support “terrorists,” which civil society advocates warn is a way to potentially punish those at odds with the Trump administration.

Overall, the package is touching off the biggest political debate over taxes, spending and the nation’s priorities in nearly a decade. Not since 2017 has Congress wrestled with legislation as this, when Republicans approved the Trump tax cuts but also failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The cost assessments are only preliminary, and expected to soar.

“Republicans need to UNIFY,” Trump posted on social media before departing for a trip to the Middle East.

Trump said when he returns to Washington, “we will work together on any and all outstanding issues, but there shouldn’t be many — The Bill is GREAT. We have no alternative, WE MUST WIN!”

But one key Republican, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, implored his party not to impair Medicaid, arguing that cutting healthcare to pay for tax breaks is both “morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

“If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people,” Hawley wrote in the New York Times.

Late Monday, the House Agriculture Committee released its proposals — cutting $290 billion from federal nutrition programs, in part by shifting costs to the states and requiring able-bodied adults without dependents to fulfill work requirements until they are 64 years old, rather than 54, to qualify for food aid.

Round-the-clock work ahead

As Republicans race toward House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Memorial Day deadline to pass Trump’s big bill, they are preparing to flood the zone with round-the-clock public hearings starting Tuesday and stitch the various sections together in what will become a massive package.

The politics ahead are uncertain. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said Monday that tax breaks would reduce revenue by $4.9 trillion over the decade — and that was before Trump’s new tax breaks were included.

Texas Rep. Chip Roy, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, warned the price tag could climb to $20 trillion, piling onto the deficits and debt.

“I sure hope House & Senate leadership are coming up with a backup plan,” Roy posted on social media, “…. because I’m not here to rack up an additional $20 trillion in debt over 10 years.”

House Republicans have been huddling behind closed doors, working out final provisions in the 389-page tax portion of the package.

The legislation proposes to boost the standard deduction many Americans use by $2,000, to $32,000 per household, and increase the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,500 for four years. It adds a new requirement focused on preventing undocumented immigrants from benefiting from the credit even if the children are U.S. citizens, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, estimates would affect 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens or lawful residents.

It would also increase the estate tax exemption, which is now $14 million, to $15 million and index future increases to inflation.

As for the president’s promises, the legislation includes Trump’s “no taxes on tips” pledge, providing a deduction for those workers in service industry and other jobs that have traditionally relied on tips. It directs the Treasury secretary to issue guidance to avoid businesses gaming the system.

The package also provides tax relief for automobile shoppers with a temporary deduction of up to $10,000 on car loan interest, applying the benefit only for those vehicles where the final assembly occurred in the United States. The tax break would expire at the end of Trump’s term.

For seniors, there would be a bolstered $4,000 deduction on Social Security wages for those with adjusted incomes no higher than $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.

But one hard-fought provision, the deduction for state and local taxes known as SALT, appears to be a work in progress. The legislation proposes lifting the cap to $15,000 for single filers and $30,000 for couples, but with a reduction at higher incomes — about $200,000 for singles and $400,000 for couples.

“Still a hell no,” wrote Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) on social media.

Battle over Medicaid, food aid

Meanwhile, dozens of House Republicans have told Johnson and GOP leaders they will not support cuts to Medicaid, which provides some 70 million Americans with healthcare, nor to green energy tax breaks that businesses back home have been relying on to invest in new wind, solar and renewable projects.

All told, 11 committees in the House have been compiling their sections of the package as Republicans seek at least $1.5 trillion in savings to help cover the cost of preserving the 2017 tax breaks, which are expiring at the end of the year.

The final section from the Agriculture Committee proposed cutting the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program, known as SNAP, by expanding work requirements, limiting future expansions of the program and forcing states to shoulder more of the cost.

Along with new work requirements for older Americans, it would also require some parents of children older than 7 to work to qualify, down from 18 years old. Only areas with unemployment rates over 10% would be eligible for waivers.

Some Republicans have already balked at the increased costs to the states, which would be required to contribute at least 5% of the cost of SNAP allotments beginning in 2028.

At the same time, the legislation would invest $60 billion in new money for agriculture programs, sending aid to farmers.

On Sunday, House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled the cost-saving centerpiece of the package, with at least $880 billion in cuts largely to Medicaid to help cover the cost of the tax breaks.

While Republicans insist they are simply rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse” to generate savings with new work and eligibility requirements, Democrats warn that millions of Americans will lose coverage. In the 15 years since Obamacare became law, Medicaid has only expanded as most states have tapped into federal funds.

A preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the proposals would reduce the number of people with healthcare by 8.6 million.

To be eligible for Medicaid, there would be new “community engagement requirements” of at least 80 hours per month of work, education or service for able-bodied adults without dependents. People would also have to verify their eligibility to be in the program twice a year, rather than just once.

There are substantial cuts proposed for green energy programs and tax breaks, rolling back climate-change strategies from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Amanda Seitz, Leah Askarinam and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

So-called Hollywood ambassadors Jon Voight and Sylvester Stallone joined with a coalition of entertainment industry groups for a letter delivered this week to President Trump urging him to support tax measures and a federal tax incentive that would help bring film and TV production back to the U.S.

The letter is signed by Voight, Stallone, all the major Hollywood unions and trade groups such as the Motion Picture Assn., the Producers Guild of America and the Independent Film & Television Alliance, indicating widespread support from the entertainment industry.

“Returning more production to the United States will require a national approach and broad-based policy solutions … as well as longer term initiatives such as implementing a federal film and television tax incentive,” the letter states.

In the letter, which was obtained by The Times, the groups say they support Trump’s proposal to create a new 15% corporate tax rate for domestic manufacturing activities that would use a provision from the old Section 199 of the federal tax code as a model.

Under the previous Section 199, which expired in 2017, film and TV productions that were made in the U.S. qualified as domestic manufacturing and were eligible for that tax deduction, the letter states.

The letter also asks Trump to extend Section 181 of the federal tax code and increase the caps on tax-deductible qualified film and TV production expenditures, as well as reinstating the ability to carry back losses, which the groups say would give production companies more financial stability.

The tax measures — particularly Sections 199 and 181 — are issues the entertainment industry has long advocated for, according to two people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly. The letter itself came together over the weekend, they said. It was intended to present different measures that shared the same goal of increasing domestic production, one person said.

“Everything we can do to help producers mange their budgets is important,” said Susan Sprung, chief executive of the Producers Guild of America. “In an ideal world, we’d want a federal tax incentive, in addition to these tax provisions, but we want to advocate to make it as easy as possible to produce in the United States and make it as cost-effective as possible.”

Last week, Trump threw the entertainment industry into chaos after initially suggesting a 100% tariff on films made in other countries. Then, California Gov. Gavin Newsom jumped into the mix, calling for a $7.5-billion federal tax incentive to keep more productions in the U.S.

The proposals on the federal level come as states are upping their own film and TV tax credits to better compete against each other and other countries. Late last week, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the state’s budget, which increased the cap for its film tax credit to $800 million a year, up from $700 million.

The expanded tax incentive program allocates $100 million for independent studios and gives additional incentives to companies that produce two or more projects in New York and commit to at least $100 million in qualified spending.

The program was also extended through 2036, which could help attract TV producers, who often want to know that their filming location is committed if they’re embarking on a series.

Production in New York has been slow, and the state needed this boost, said Michael Hackman, chief executive of Hackman Capital Partners, which owns two film and TV studio properties in the state, as well as several facilities in California. The increase from New York could also push California to increase its own film and TV tax credit program.

Last year, Newsom called to increase the annual amount allocated to California‘s film and TV tax credit program from $330 million to $750 million.

Two bills are currently going through the state legislature that would expand California’s incentive, including increasing the tax credit to cover up to 35% of qualified expenditures (or 40% in areas outside the Greater Los Angeles region), as well as expanding the types of productions that would be eligible for an incentive.

“We have the best infrastructure, the best talent, we have everything going for us,” Hackman said. “So if our state legislature can get more competitive with our tax credits, I think more productions will stay. But if they don’t, this will result in more productions continuing to leave the state and going to New York and to other locations.”