Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Rising fortunes among the ultra‑rich under the Trump administration have ignited a wave of tax‑reform campaigns across the United States. In California, volunteers like Karen Sanchez are gathering signatures for a one‑time 5% wealth tax targeting the state’s 200‑plus billionaires to offset federal cuts to hospitals, education and food‑assistance programs.At least ten states are exploring similar measures. Washington recently enacted its first income‑tax aimed at roughly 20,000 millionaire households, while Massachusetts and Minnesota already channel wealth‑tax proceeds into preschool, K‑12 meals and transportation infrastructure.On the federal front, Senators Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna have introduced the “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act,” proposing an annual 5% levy on billionaire net worth. Khanna argues that the ultra‑wealthy fund private health insurers, defense contractors and political campaigns, creating a stark fairness gap.Data from Oxfam shows that in the twelve months after Trump’s re‑election, billionaire fortunes grew at a rate three times faster than the average annual growth of the previous five years. Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage has remained stagnant at $7.25 for fifteen years, underscoring the widening economic divide.A Data for Progress poll released last fall found that 70% of Americans believe the economic system favours corporations and the wealthy. “People are angry and want change,” says Amy Hanauer of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), noting that activists are leveraging every level of government to seek relief.The movement draws on a two‑decade history of class‑based activism, from the Occupy Wall Street protests to Senator Sanders’ 2016 campaign that foregrounded wealth‑tax proposals. Yet inequality has deepened: CEOs of the five largest U.S. firms now earn, on average, **$52 million** annually—over a thousand times the typical worker’s salary.Political spending by billionaires has also exploded. A recent New York Times analysis reveals that billionaire contributions rose from **0.3% of campaign funds in 2008** to **19% in 2024**, amounting to more than **$3 billion** from roughly 300 ultra‑rich donors, many of whom supported candidates opposing wealth taxes, including former President Donald Trump.The war in Iran has further inflamed resentment, with the United States spending **$11.3 billion** in the first week of bombardment—far exceeding the annual budgets of agencies such as the CDC, EPA and the National Cancer Institute.Local victories are feeding the momentum. New York City’s mayoral race saw Zohran Mamdani win on a platform that includes taxing the rich to fund affordable housing, groceries and transit. Councilmember Chi Ossé led a 1,500‑person march to the state capitol, urging Governor Kathy Hochul to permit a city‑level millionaire tax, a move that now has backing from some state Democrats.Beyond New York, states like Rhode Island, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois and New Mexico are debating various wealth‑tax mechanisms, including the popular “mansion tax” on high‑value home sales. Currently, **17 localities** have adopted such taxes, most passed between 2018 and 2023.California’s gubernatorial race has become a flashpoint. Billionaire‑backed candidates Matt Mahan and Tom Steyer are vying to replace Governor Gavin Newsom, with the tech elite—such as Sergey Brin and Joe Lonsdale—pouring money into campaigns opposing the billionaire tax. Of the 30 billionaires who have contributed to the race, **25 supported Mahan**, who has positioned himself as a staunch anti‑tax candidate.For Sanchez, the stakes are personal. The proposed tax seeks to replace **$100 billion** in federal health‑care funding cut by Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which threatens hospital closures and layoffs in the nation’s fourth‑largest economy. She aims to collect **875,000 signatures** by late June to secure the initiative on the November ballot.“It’s creating a network of groups all working toward a common good,” Sanchez says, reflecting a broader sentiment that collective action could finally translate the public’s demand for fiscal fairness into concrete policy.

In a bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve public health, thousands of New Yorkers are making the switch from gas stoves to induction stoves. A recent project in the Washington Heights area of Manhattan has installed induction stoves in 15 co-op apartments, providing residents with a cleaner and healthier way to cook.The project, supported by state and city governments, as well as non-profit groups, aims to reduce the risks associated with gas stoves, including nitrogen dioxide emissions and climate change. According to a study, people who replaced their gas stoves with electric alternatives were exposed to less than half the amount of nitrogen dioxide emissions.Residents, such as Marcos Ramos, are excited about the change. “It makes sense”, he said. “If you’re minimizing risk with the gas, the fire, then environmentally, health-wise, it makes sense. It’s logical.”The induction stoves, supplied by Copper, use magnetic fields to heat cookware directly, making them more efficient and environmentally friendly. The project is part of a larger effort to promote clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New York City.Advocates claim that induction stoves are a viable alternative to gas, which has jumped in price amid the Iran war and poses health risks to residents. The city is also working on a $32m pilot to replace gas stoves in 10,000 apartments across the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) system.While some states, including New York, California, and Hawaii, are stepping up to promote induction stoves through rebate programs, others are facing resistance from the gas industry and Republican politicians.

Marine archaeologists from Denmark’s Viking Ship Museum announced the discovery of the Dannebroge, the Danish flagship that was destroyed by Admiral Horatio Nelson during the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801. The wreck lies 15 metres (49 feet) below the surface of Copenhagen harbour, buried in thick silt that offers almost zero visibility.Divers working in the murky conditions described the operation as a “race against time” because the site will soon be covered by Lynetteholm, a massive housing development slated for completion by 2070. The excavation, which began late last year, targets the exact spot where historical records place the Dannebroge’s final moments.Among the artefacts recovered are two cannons, period uniforms, insignia, shoes, bottles, and a fragment of a sailor’s lower jaw – possibly belonging to one of the 19 crew members still unaccounted for. “When a cannonball hits a ship, the splinters are the real danger, like grenade debris,” explained marine archaeologist Morten Johansen, underscoring the brutal conditions aboard wooden warships.The 48‑metre (157‑foot) vessel was Nelson’s primary target. Intense cannon fire ripped through its upper deck, and incendiary shells ignited a devastating fire that eventually caused the ship to explode, producing a roar heard across Copenhagen.Experts confirmed the wreck’s identity through dendrochronological dating, which matched the wood’s tree‑ring pattern to the year the Dannebroge was built. The size and shape of the recovered timbers also correspond with contemporary ship plans.Historical context: the 1801 battle was part of Britain’s effort to force Denmark out of a northern alliance with Russia, Prussia and Sweden. After a fierce exchange, Nelson offered a truce, and a cease‑fire was negotiated with Denmark’s Crown Prince Frederik.Marine archaeologist Marie Jonsson described the challenging dive conditions: “Sometimes you can’t see anything; you have to feel your way and rely on your fingers rather than your eyes.” The site remains littered with cannonballs, posing additional hazards for divers navigating the silt‑filled waters.The find not only enriches Denmark’s national narrative—often depicted in paintings and literature—but also provides a rare, tangible link to a pivotal moment in European naval history, just as modern development threatens to erase the physical remnants of that past.

Ministers are rewriting planning rules to make it easier to approve intensive livestock farms, despite ongoing concerns about water pollution, air quality and local opposition.Freedom of Information documents obtained by the Guardian reveal that proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) have been discussed in response to lobbying by the country’s leading chicken producers for at least two years.The British Poultry Council (BPC) told farming minister Angela Eagle last autumn that “access to more growing space is the number one priority for the poultry meat sector.”In a submission to the government’s farm profitability review, the BPC argued that the need for a solution—whether through planning reform or land‑use policy—“dwarfs all other issues currently facing us.”Ahead of a January round‑table with Eagle, the BPC urged the government to “develop national planning direction and oversight for food production … to safeguard the UK’s long‑term food security.”Eagle responded that the government has “announced proposals to reform the planning system to more quickly unlock food and farming infrastructure,” emphasizing that “planning should enable ambition, not stifle it.”Her briefing notes directly linked the proposed changes to industry lobbying, describing planning reform as one of the sector’s “biggest asks” and noting that the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are working to “find solutions to planning barriers to poultry sheds and other infrastructure necessary for food production.”The draft NPPF includes several measures that could ease approval of new intensive livestock developments: a higher threshold for refusing applications on environmental grounds, reduced scope for local authorities to adopt tougher rules, greater weight given to “domestic food production,” and a new emphasis on “better accommodation for livestock.”The industry says it needs extra space to house chickens because of voluntary commitments to lower stocking density. Critics point out that these welfare commitments are not legally binding and that planning conditions do not guarantee long‑term compliance. Recent withdrawals by restaurant chains from the Better Chicken Commitment underscore the controversy.Richard Griffiths, chief executive of the BPC, said the reforms are needed to accommodate welfare improvements rather than to expand production, noting a voluntary reduction in stocking density from 38 kg to 30 kg per square metre.Griffiths warned that failing to support domestic production could increase imports, and the BPC has called for food production to be classified as “critical national infrastructure.”Prof. Paul Behrens of the University of Oxford countered that the food‑security case for intensive poultry is “illusory” because the sector depends on imported feed and vitamins and is vulnerable to disease outbreaks such as avian flu.Opposition to poultry megafarms is organised, with local residents raising concerns over water pollution, air quality and the climate crisis. The Environment Agency estimates agriculture accounts for roughly 70 % of nitrate and 25‑30 % of phosphorus pollution in UK waterways, and runoff from intensive poultry units contributes to that burden.Last year, Norfolk councillors rejected Cranswick’s plan for a 900,000‑bird chicken farm after the company failed to demonstrate that the development would not cause “significant adverse effects on protected sites.”The BPC has also urged early intervention by the Planning Inspectorate to minimise delays, arguing that centralised oversight would bring objectivity to a system where “naysayers, particularly via social media, have a disproportionate sway in the decision‑making process.”Campaign group Communities Against Factory Farming warned that the proposed regime “risks embedding decades of industrial livestock land use in rural and green‑belt locations without adequate scrutiny,” giving “substantial weight” to the economic benefits of intensification.A government spokesperson rejected claims that the NPPF proposals are driven by lobbying, stating that they have been carefully considered to balance sector support with broader priorities such as food security and environmental protection.

India has launched the world's largest census, a monumental task that involves surveying over 1.4 billion people across the country's 28 states and eight union territories. The $1.24 billion exercise, which began on Wednesday, will take place over the next year, with more than three million officials collecting data on household composition, living conditions, and access to basic amenities.The census will be conducted in two phases. The first phase, known as the House Listing and Housing Census, will focus on gathering information on household characteristics, while the second phase will involve population enumeration and socioeconomic details, including caste enumeration for the first time since 1931.The inclusion of caste enumeration has sparked controversy, with some arguing that it will help address social and economic disparities, while others fear it will exacerbate existing divisions. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government had initially resisted including caste questions, citing concerns about creating further social divisions.The census is crucial for policy planning and resource allocation, as it provides insights into demographic trends, housing conditions, and welfare amenities. However, experts have raised concerns about the delay in conducting the census, which has left significant data gaps and may impact the accuracy of surveys and policy decisions.There are also worries about how the census data will be used, particularly in light of the government's plans to implement a National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which have been criticized for potentially targeting Muslims and other marginalized groups.Despite these concerns, experts argue that the census is essential for understanding India's complex social dynamics and addressing the needs of its diverse population. Dipa Sinha, a development economist, emphasized that the census data will help governments plan policies and citizens claim their rights.The census is expected to conclude by March 31 next year, with the government facing pressure to ensure transparency and credibility in the data collection process.

India has initiated the world's largest national population count, a yearlong process involving over three million officials. This census, delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, commenced on Wednesday and is set to conclude by March 31 next year. The data collected will be crucial in reshaping welfare programs and political representation across the country.Census workers will spend about a month collecting information from homes, documenting housing stock and living conditions. Information will be gathered through in-person surveys and online, allowing residents to use a smartphone application.A second phase of the counting will begin in September, during which more detailed information on people's social and economic characteristics, including religion and caste, will be surveyed. The caste system, an ancient social hierarchy in India, has been a contentious issue, with successive governments resisting a full caste count due to potential social tensions.The population data collected will underpin the distribution of government welfare programs and inform public policies. It may also lead to a redrawing of India's political map, with potential increases in seats in the lower house of parliament and state legislatures to reflect population growth. A 2023 law reserves one-third of legislative seats for women, so any expansion would raise the number of seats set aside for female representatives.The last detailed caste information was gathered in 1931 during British colonial rule. Since India's first census in 1951, only Dalits and Adivasis, members of marginalized groups, have been counted. The previous census in 2011 recorded a population of 1.21 billion, which has now grown to over 1.4 billion, making India the world's most populous nation, surpassing China in 2023.

The UK's declining birthrate has been a growing concern in recent years, with long-term fiscal pressures expected to arise from supporting an ageing population. A new report by the Resolution Foundation thinktank, titled 'Bye Bye Baby', suggests that politicians should prioritize tackling housing affordability to encourage young people to have more children.The report highlights a significant shift in the proportion of women who are not yet mothers by age 30, rising from 48% for those born in the late 1980s to 58% for those born in the early 1990s. This trend is most pronounced among non-graduate women aged 25-29, with more than half (54%) having no children by 2023, up from one in three in 2011.The analysis attributes this shift to falling partnership rates and a major shift away from home ownership towards costly private renting and living with parents, making it harder for young people to start a family. The share of non-graduates in their late 20s in private rented accommodation has doubled to 33% in 2023-24, while home ownership has halved over the same period.The thinktank's research suggests that financial constraints play a significant role in young people's decisions to have children. Among 32-year-olds who are not yet parents, twice the proportion of those in the lowest quarter of earners said they intended to remain permanently childless, compared with those in the top quarter of earners.Politicians have proposed various policies to encourage young people to have children, including expanding free childcare and introducing married tax allowances. However, the Resolution Foundation's research suggests that focusing on housing struggles may be a more successful approach.“Deciding whether to have children is a deeply personal choice, but it’s clear that financial constraints are at play too,” said Charlie McCurdy, senior economist at the thinktank. “Policymakers should look to address the financial barriers that are hindering young people’s ability to start a family – such as increasing housing affordability and opportunities to get on the housing ladder – to make parenthood more achievable for those who want it.”

America faces an unprecedented concentration of wealth: the richest 1% now control more assets than the bottom 93% of households, and a single individual, Elon Musk, with a net worth of $805 billion, holds more wealth than the lower‑half of the population combined.Recent tax policies have amplified this gap. In the year following the largest tax cut in U.S. history, 938 billionaires added $1.5 trillion to their fortunes, while President Trump and his family saw a modest increase of $4 billion. Four Wall Street giants—BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity and State Street—own stakes in more than 95 % of publicly traded companies, cementing corporate dominance across the economy.Political influence mirrors financial power: by the 2026 midterms, just 50 billionaires had poured over $433 million into campaign activities, shaping policy to protect their interests.Meanwhile, the average American worker is earning roughly $20 per week less than in 1973 after inflation adjustment, despite decades of productivity gains. The Rand Corporation estimates that $79 trillion has shifted from the bottom 90 % to the top 1 % over the past half‑century.Economic hardship is widespread: 60 % of households live paycheck to paycheck, nearly half of older workers lack retirement savings, and over 20 % of seniors survive on less than $15,000 annually. Health‑care insecurity affects 85 million Americans, with more than 500,000 filing for bankruptcy each year due to medical debt.At the heart of the problem is a tax code engineered by the affluent. Billionaires now pay lower effective rates than typical workers. For example, Musk’s tax rate sits below 3.3 % compared with an 8.4 % rate for a truck driver; Jeff Bezos paid under 1 % versus 8.7 % for a firefighter; Michael Bloomberg’s rate was 1.3 % against 13.3 % for a registered nurse; and Warren Buffett’s rate was a mere 0.1 % while a schoolteacher paid nearly 10 %.Corporate tax avoidance compounds the issue. After a $900 billion corporate tax break, major firms such as Tesla, SpaceX, Palantir, Ticketmaster and the parent of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC reported zero federal income tax despite generating over $17 billion in profit.Public sentiment is shifting. In California, voters favor a billionaire tax by a two‑to‑one margin, and in New York City, 62 % back a 2 % surtax on the ultra‑wealthy. Nationwide, more than six in ten Americans believe the wealthy and large corporations pay too little.In response, Senator Sanders introduced legislation to impose a 5 % wealth tax on the 938 billionaires whose combined net worth exceeds $8.2 trillion. Over a decade, the measure would generate roughly $4.4 trillion.The first‑year rollout would deliver a $3,000 direct payment to every household earning $150,000 or less—equating to $12,000 for a typical family of four. Additional provisions include constructing 7 million affordable housing units, expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing, providing universal childcare, raising the minimum teacher salary to $60,000, and guaranteeing Medicaid‑funded home health care for seniors and people with disabilities.Crucially, the plan would reverse recent health‑care cuts that stripped coverage from 15 million Americans, ensuring no additional loss of insurance.Even if the tax were applied retroactively, the impact on the ultra‑rich would be modest relative to their fortunes: Elon Musk would owe an extra $42 billion, Mark Zuckerberg an additional $11 billion, and Jeff Bezos another $11 billion—figures that would barely dent their net worths.As Justice Louis Brandeis warned in 1933, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” Senator Sanders argues the choice is clear: a democratic economy that serves the many, not a plutocratic system that serves the 1 %.The wealthiest Americans must begin contributing their fair share.

Berkeley, one of Britain’s largest housebuilders, said it will cease buying new land and impose a hiring freeze as it confronts the impact of the Iran war and broader geopolitical volatility on the UK property market.The FTSE 100 company warned that a reduced likelihood of further interest‑rate cuts and soaring regulatory costs could weigh heavily on its business, prompting cost‑cutting measures that also include using fewer subcontractors.In a significant outlook revision, Berkeley now expects to generate more than £1.4 billion in pre‑tax profit between 2027 and 2030, a stark increase from the roughly £450 million it had forecast for the current year and 2027.Market reaction was swift: the company’s shares plunged up to 18 % on Wednesday morning, later recovering to sit about 13 % lower, making Berkeley the worst performer on the FTSE 100 that day.Berkeley’s statement noted that early‑2026 sales showed modest recovery, but “recent geopolitical events and the macro‑economic consequences, including reduced potential for further rate cuts, could reduce confidence in a near‑term market recovery.”The firm cited “unprecedented” increases in costs and regulation, alongside weak buyer demand, as reasons for halting land purchases, arguing it can no longer achieve a sufficient rate of return on new sites due to a continuous rise in tax and regulatory burdens.These challenges arrive as the UK government pushes to meet ambitious new‑home building targets, while the sector grapples with higher taxation, new building‑safety rules, and longer planning timelines—Berkeley estimates approvals now take about 12 months longer than before.The ongoing war in Iran has amplified inflation fears, lifted mortgage rates above 5 % and heightened mortgage‑cost pressures for consumers, according to Moneyfacts data.Competitors such as Barratt, Redrow and Persimmon have also suffered, each losing more than 20 % of their market value, underscoring the broader stress across the housing‑construction industry.Berkeley, headquartered in Surrey, employs over 2,500 people and focuses on brownfield regeneration projects. It holds land sufficient for 50,000 homes with an additional pipeline for 10,000 homes in London and the south‑east, but will slow construction on existing sites to match market demand and regulator approvals.