Business
Companies Too Big to Invert Would Take Brunt of Obama Tax Plan
Citigroup Center (AP Photo)
(Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama’s proposal to tax the offshore profits of U.S. corporations could encourage all but the largest companies to follow their cash hoard overseas, according to business leaders and tax lawyers.
The plan would levy a one-time tax of 14 percent on the $2.1 trillion U.S. companies have stockpiled abroad, sidestepping the Internal Revenue Service. It also calls for a 19 percent minimum tax on future foreign earnings. The prospect of those increased taxes could spur some companies to relinquish their U.S. residency altogether — either by merging with a foreign partner in a corporate inversion or finding a foreign buyer, according to J. Richard Harvey, a former senior official for the Treasury Department and the IRS.
Tax lawyers said there could even be a rush to do so to avoid limitations the administration is also proposing on inversions, in which U.S. companies shift their addresses overseas to tax-friendly locations.
“They are already looking to invert under current law, so if you lay over additional taxes, it seems inevitable that there will be even more incentive for them to get out of Dodge,” said Harvey, a tax professor at Villanova School of Law in Pennsylvania.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of July 22 – 28, 2026
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of July 22 – 28, 2026
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Business
Starting This Summer, California Car Buyers Can Get an Instant $3500 Off the Cost of Electric Vehicles
OAKLAND POST — Beginning later this summer, eligible Californians can receive a $3,500 rebate on new zero-emission vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of up to $50,000. Buyers purchasing qualifying used electric vehicles priced at up to $25,000 can receive a $1,750 rebate. The rebate will be applied directly at participating dealerships, allowing buyers to receive the discount immediately instead of waiting for reimbursement.
California residents purchasing their first zero-emission vehicle will soon be eligible for an instant rebate of up to $3,500 under a new state program aimed at making electric vehicles more affordable.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 168 on July 16, creating the MyFirstEV program as part of California’s 2026-27 state budget. The initiative dedicates $135.5 million in state funding for point-of-sale rebates, which participating automakers will match dollar for dollar. State officials said the combined investment will provide $270 million in savings for first-time electric vehicle buyers.
Beginning later this summer, eligible Californians can receive a $3,500 rebate on new zero-emission vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of up to $50,000. Buyers purchasing qualifying used electric vehicles priced at up to $25,000 can receive a $1,750 rebate. The rebate will be applied directly at participating dealerships, allowing buyers to receive the discount immediately instead of waiting for reimbursement.
“With our new instant rebate program for electric vehicles, we’re making it easier for families to drive clean, breathe clean, and keep more money in their pockets,” Newsom said in a statement.
The MyFirstEV program is part of a broader $600 million investment in California’s clean transportation economy included in the state budget. The funding package also provides $150 million for the Community Air Protection Program, $19.8 million for the Clean Cars 4 All program for lower-income residents, $35 million for clean off-road equipment through the Air Quality Improvement Program, $135.5 million for the Clean Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, and $130 million for the Carl Moyer Program to replace older heavy-duty engines with cleaner alternatives.
According to the governor’s office, the transportation investments are funded through Cap-and-Invest revenue and smog-abatement fees while maintaining a balanced state budget.
California continues to expand its zero-emission transportation network. The state surpassed 2.5 million cumulative zero-emission vehicle sales earlier this year, exceeding its original goal of 1.5 million sales by 2025. Officials also reported that California has more than 200,000 public and shared electric vehicle charging plugs statewide, in addition to an estimated 800,000 home charging stations.
Business
Surveillance Pricing Fight: State Senate Debates Bill Banning Retailers from Using AI to Set Prices Based on a Buyer’s Profile
OAKLAND POST — Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space
Surveillance pricing—the algorithmic practice of using personal data to determine individualized costs for goods and services—is widespread in California, according to Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego). He warns that this system is actively impacting consumers across the state, and Black Californians could be specifically targeted.
Ward’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2564, the Surveillance Pricing Act, aims to prohibit businesses from using this practice.
“Surveillance pricing is a growing phenomenon that a lot of people don’t realize is already happening,” Ward told California Black Media (CBM) at the State Capitol on June 29.
On June 22, the bill passed out of the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee with a 5-2 vote and was re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary for consideration. On May 27, the Assembly voted to advance AB 2564 with a 42-21 vote.
Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space.
Justin Brookman, a public-interest lawyer, supports AB 2564. His organization is an official sponsor of the bill. He advocates on behalf of Consumer Reports.
“We found that people shopping for the exact same item at the exact same time, and the exact same store, were getting different prices. In some cases, up to 23% higher,” Brookman said. “So, one person looking at a jar of Skippy peanut butter, it was $2.99. Another person, same exact time, it was $3.69.”
AB 2564 is primarily opposed by a coalition of corporations and technology industry associations. They argue that the bill’s language is overly broad, outlaws common consumer-friendly discounts, and creates costly litigation risks for small businesses.
Chamber of Progress – a tech industry association that lobbies for public policies that expand digital commerce and technological advances – says that banning data-driven personalization would wipe away targeted digital coupons that families count on to prolong their budgets.
In a March 18 written letter to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, Robert Singleton, senior director of Policy and Public Affairs for California and the U.S. West at the Chamber of Progress, urged the body to oppose AB 2564.
“We share the legislature’s concern about affordability,” Singleton wrote. “The cost of living is the top issue facing American families, and we understand the impulse to ensure consumers are getting a fair deal. But this bill risks backfiring on the families it aims to help.
Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City) supported and voted for the bill in the Assembly on May 27, but she still has questions about a “litigation risk” that could be costly.
“Every business or retailer that is spending their time battling courts is spending resources, which drives the cost up for everyone,” said Wilson, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC).
WORK FROM HOME
Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540
Oakland Post: Week of July 22 – 28, 2026
Fed Court to Decide Landmark First Amendment Case
Jordan Walker Leads Call for More Black Youth in Baseball
How Black WNBA Players Became Collateral Damage in the Caitlin Clark Culture War
NAACP Announces $20m Voter Registration Drive at National Convention in Chicago
Starting This Summer, California Car Buyers Can Get an Instant $3500 Off the Cost of Electric Vehicles
Surveillance Pricing Fight: State Senate Debates Bill Banning Retailers from Using AI to Set Prices Based on a Buyer’s Profile
Oakland Children’s Hospital Workers and Patients Rally for Pediatric Medical Care
Opinion: When Politicians Start Sanitizing One Chapter of History, They’re Coming After The Whole Book
Beyond Politics: California Legislators Across Party Lines Celebrate Lori Wilson at 50
NPRC to Meet with California Attorney General’s Office on to Urge Guardianship Reform
Mount Zion MBC, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Partner to Bring 29,000 Meals to Alameda County
Councilmember Houston Helps Deter Trend to Award Contracts to Suburban Companies
Rep. Garamendi, House Democrats Demand Trump Administration Abandon Illegal Plans to Dismantle Civil Rights, Special Ed Offices
Council Gives Approval for $125 Million Oakland Coliseum Sale to AASEG
Oakland Children’s Hospital Workers and Patients Rally for Pediatric Medical Care
Mount Zion MBC, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Partner to Bring 29,000 Meals to Alameda County
Surveillance Pricing Fight: State Senate Debates Bill Banning Retailers from Using AI to Set Prices Based on a Buyer’s Profile
IN MEMORIAM: Oakland Dance Legend Reginald Ray-Savage, 67
Saving Black Mothers Starts Outside the Hospital
Gov. Gavin Newsom Signs Law Streamlining Affordable Housing Rules
Oakland Celebrates $125 Million Coliseum Sale
NPRC Heads to Washington to Elevate Adult Guardianship Reform at National Whistleblower Summit
Starting This Summer, California Car Buyers Can Get an Instant $3500 Off the Cost of Electric Vehicles
Agricultural Engineer Effie Gant Plans Bay Area Farmers Market Initiative
The Part of Buying a Home That No Real Estate Show Ever Prepares You For
Oakland Post: Week of June 17 – 23, 2026
Oakland Post: Week of July 1 – 7, 2026
NCBW-OBAC Champions Black Women Entrepreneurs at Business en Blaque Expo
The Conversation With Al McFarlane 6/23/26
Media Monday 6/22/26
LIVE! ASK ALMA! — TUES. 6.23.26 7PM EST
Car Buying Secrets: 4 Hidden Checks Before You Sign!
Is This 550 HP Charger Worth YOUR Money? AutoNetwork Review
Celebrating Juneteenth – Frederick Douglass on education and resistance
LIVE! — ASK ALMA! — TUES. 6.19.26 7PM EST
Hyundai Ioniq 5 Parking, Safety, and 360 View #shorts
2025 Ioniq 5 New Wiper & Powerful Performance! #shorts
Electric SUV Range: Is 259 Miles Enough? #shorts
EV Charging: How Fast Can You Charge an Electric Vehicle? #shorts
Biometric Cooling… Messaging Seats…Come on! 2025 Infiniti QX80 Autograph 4WD
Charged Up: Witness the Magic of a Fully Electric Car! #shorts
Range Rover Sport PHEV Included…: See What’s Inside This Luxury SUV! #shorts
Invisible Hood View: Perfect Parking with X-Ray Vision! #shorts
-
Business2 days agoOakland Children’s Hospital Workers and Patients Rally for Pediatric Medical Care
-
Business2 days agoMount Zion MBC, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Partner to Bring 29,000 Meals to Alameda County
-
Business1 day agoSurveillance Pricing Fight: State Senate Debates Bill Banning Retailers from Using AI to Set Prices Based on a Buyer’s Profile
-
Black History5 days agoSaving Black Mothers Starts Outside the Hospital
-
Business3 days agoGov. Gavin Newsom Signs Law Streamlining Affordable Housing Rules
-
Black History1 week agoOakland Celebrates $125 Million Coliseum Sale
-
Community1 week agoNPRC Heads to Washington to Elevate Adult Guardianship Reform at National Whistleblower Summit
-
Business1 day agoStarting This Summer, California Car Buyers Can Get an Instant $3500 Off the Cost of Electric Vehicles
Business
Companies Too Big to Invert Would Take Brunt of Obama Tax Plan
Citigroup Center (AP Photo)
(Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama’s proposal to tax the offshore profits of U.S. corporations could encourage all but the largest companies to follow their cash hoard overseas, according to business leaders and tax lawyers.
The plan would levy a one-time tax of 14 percent on the $2.1 trillion U.S. companies have stockpiled abroad, sidestepping the Internal Revenue Service. It also calls for a 19 percent minimum tax on future foreign earnings. The prospect of those increased taxes could spur some companies to relinquish their U.S. residency altogether — either by merging with a foreign partner in a corporate inversion or finding a foreign buyer, according to J. Richard Harvey, a former senior official for the Treasury Department and the IRS.
Tax lawyers said there could even be a rush to do so to avoid limitations the administration is also proposing on inversions, in which U.S. companies shift their addresses overseas to tax-friendly locations.
“They are already looking to invert under current law, so if you lay over additional taxes, it seems inevitable that there will be even more incentive for them to get out of Dodge,” said Harvey, a tax professor at Villanova School of Law in Pennsylvania.
Activism
Oakland Post: Week of July 22 – 28, 2026
The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of July 22 – 28, 2026
To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.
Business
Starting This Summer, California Car Buyers Can Get an Instant $3500 Off the Cost of Electric Vehicles
OAKLAND POST — Beginning later this summer, eligible Californians can receive a $3,500 rebate on new zero-emission vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of up to $50,000. Buyers purchasing qualifying used electric vehicles priced at up to $25,000 can receive a $1,750 rebate. The rebate will be applied directly at participating dealerships, allowing buyers to receive the discount immediately instead of waiting for reimbursement.
California residents purchasing their first zero-emission vehicle will soon be eligible for an instant rebate of up to $3,500 under a new state program aimed at making electric vehicles more affordable.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 168 on July 16, creating the MyFirstEV program as part of California’s 2026-27 state budget. The initiative dedicates $135.5 million in state funding for point-of-sale rebates, which participating automakers will match dollar for dollar. State officials said the combined investment will provide $270 million in savings for first-time electric vehicle buyers.
Beginning later this summer, eligible Californians can receive a $3,500 rebate on new zero-emission vehicles with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of up to $50,000. Buyers purchasing qualifying used electric vehicles priced at up to $25,000 can receive a $1,750 rebate. The rebate will be applied directly at participating dealerships, allowing buyers to receive the discount immediately instead of waiting for reimbursement.
“With our new instant rebate program for electric vehicles, we’re making it easier for families to drive clean, breathe clean, and keep more money in their pockets,” Newsom said in a statement.
The MyFirstEV program is part of a broader $600 million investment in California’s clean transportation economy included in the state budget. The funding package also provides $150 million for the Community Air Protection Program, $19.8 million for the Clean Cars 4 All program for lower-income residents, $35 million for clean off-road equipment through the Air Quality Improvement Program, $135.5 million for the Clean Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, and $130 million for the Carl Moyer Program to replace older heavy-duty engines with cleaner alternatives.
According to the governor’s office, the transportation investments are funded through Cap-and-Invest revenue and smog-abatement fees while maintaining a balanced state budget.
California continues to expand its zero-emission transportation network. The state surpassed 2.5 million cumulative zero-emission vehicle sales earlier this year, exceeding its original goal of 1.5 million sales by 2025. Officials also reported that California has more than 200,000 public and shared electric vehicle charging plugs statewide, in addition to an estimated 800,000 home charging stations.
Business
Surveillance Pricing Fight: State Senate Debates Bill Banning Retailers from Using AI to Set Prices Based on a Buyer’s Profile
OAKLAND POST — Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space
Surveillance pricing—the algorithmic practice of using personal data to determine individualized costs for goods and services—is widespread in California, according to Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego). He warns that this system is actively impacting consumers across the state, and Black Californians could be specifically targeted.
Ward’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2564, the Surveillance Pricing Act, aims to prohibit businesses from using this practice.
“Surveillance pricing is a growing phenomenon that a lot of people don’t realize is already happening,” Ward told California Black Media (CBM) at the State Capitol on June 29.
On June 22, the bill passed out of the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee with a 5-2 vote and was re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary for consideration. On May 27, the Assembly voted to advance AB 2564 with a 42-21 vote.
Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space.
Justin Brookman, a public-interest lawyer, supports AB 2564. His organization is an official sponsor of the bill. He advocates on behalf of Consumer Reports.
“We found that people shopping for the exact same item at the exact same time, and the exact same store, were getting different prices. In some cases, up to 23% higher,” Brookman said. “So, one person looking at a jar of Skippy peanut butter, it was $2.99. Another person, same exact time, it was $3.69.”
AB 2564 is primarily opposed by a coalition of corporations and technology industry associations. They argue that the bill’s language is overly broad, outlaws common consumer-friendly discounts, and creates costly litigation risks for small businesses.
Chamber of Progress – a tech industry association that lobbies for public policies that expand digital commerce and technological advances – says that banning data-driven personalization would wipe away targeted digital coupons that families count on to prolong their budgets.
In a March 18 written letter to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, Robert Singleton, senior director of Policy and Public Affairs for California and the U.S. West at the Chamber of Progress, urged the body to oppose AB 2564.
“We share the legislature’s concern about affordability,” Singleton wrote. “The cost of living is the top issue facing American families, and we understand the impulse to ensure consumers are getting a fair deal. But this bill risks backfiring on the families it aims to help.
Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City) supported and voted for the bill in the Assembly on May 27, but she still has questions about a “litigation risk” that could be costly.
“Every business or retailer that is spending their time battling courts is spending resources, which drives the cost up for everyone,” said Wilson, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC).
-
Business2 days ago
Oakland Children’s Hospital Workers and Patients Rally for Pediatric Medical Care
-
Business2 days ago
Mount Zion MBC, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Partner to Bring 29,000 Meals to Alameda County
-
Business1 day ago
Surveillance Pricing Fight: State Senate Debates Bill Banning Retailers from Using AI to Set Prices Based on a Buyer’s Profile
-
Black History5 days ago
Saving Black Mothers Starts Outside the Hospital
-
Business3 days ago
Gov. Gavin Newsom Signs Law Streamlining Affordable Housing Rules
-
Black History1 week ago
Oakland Celebrates $125 Million Coliseum Sale
-
Community1 week ago
NPRC Heads to Washington to Elevate Adult Guardianship Reform at National Whistleblower Summit
-
Business1 day ago
Starting This Summer, California Car Buyers Can Get an Instant $3500 Off the Cost of Electric Vehicles
Leave a Reply