Money, in brief

The US Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service published the final rules for the car loan interest deduction today, 21 September 2026. [1][2]

A person can take up to $10,000 a year of interest paid on a car loan off the income they are taxed on. [1]

It works without itemising, so it comes off on top of the standard deduction, which was $15,750 for a single filer and $31,500 for a married couple in 2025. [1][3]

The break covers only loans taken out after 31 December 2024, and only the tax years 2025 to 2028. [1]

The car has to be for personal use, new to the buyer, secured by a first claim on the vehicle, and rated to weigh under 6,350kg fully loaded. [1]

It also has to have been finally assembled in the United States. A car built elsewhere carries no deduction, whoever bought it. [1]

The amount falls by $200 for every $1,000 of income above $100,000, or above $200,000 for a married couple filing jointly. [1]

The same rules create a new duty. Any business that takes $600 or more of interest in a year on one of these loans must file a return to the tax office. [1]

It must also send the borrower a written statement with the interest paid, the loan's start date, the balance at the start of the year and the car's make, model and identification number. [1]

A lender that files late, or files wrong figures, can be fined under two separate penalty sections of the tax code. [1]

Writing the rules took fourteen months. The law passed on 4 July 2025, drafts came on 2 January 2026, a hearing was held on 24 February and 63 people wrote in. [1]

For 2025 alone the tax office let lenders off the full form: making the year's interest total available to the borrower counts as done. [1]

The final rules take effect on 9 November 2026. [1]

Why it matters. The test is the 2026 forms. It is the first year a lender must file the return itself rather than just hand over a total, and whether those statements reach borrowers before the filing season is what decides how many people claim.

Every household in Northern Ireland will have 63 pounds taken off an electricity bill in October, with no application needed. [4] Bank-transfer customers see the bill fall; pay-as-you-go customers get 63 pounds of credit at their next top-up. [4] The money comes from the UK government, which is also taking VAT off electricity bills in Great Britain from October. [4][5] The economy minister, Caoimhe Archibald, said the UK government had not originally meant the support to reach Northern Ireland, and a separate scheme had to be designed. [4]

Why it matters. It lands on every household in one part of the UK, and it took a Budget announcement, a separate scheme and a row between two governments to get there.

Britain's Warm Home Discount takes 150 pounds off this winter's electricity bill for about six million households on housing benefit, pension credit or universal credit. [6] It is applied automatically, but only where the supplier has more than 1,000 customers and the claimant's own name is on the bill. [6] Someone who recently moved house, or whose prepayment key is registered to somebody else, drops out. [6] The regulator Ofgem says suppliers paid 3.41 million rebates in the year to March 2025, and 6.7% of them arrived late. [7]

Why it matters. The rule reaches people through their electricity account, so a household qualifies on paper and still gets nothing when the paperwork points at the wrong person.

Nadine Fallone was awarded nearly 65,000 pounds by a British employment tribunal after she was dismissed, having reported staff taking drugs at the bar she managed. [8] More than a year later she has received none of it; her employer, Peckham Levels Ltd, went into administration weeks after the judgment. [8] A BBC and Bureau of Investigative Journalism investigation published in October 2025 found that of the 7,000 people who used the British government's penalty and naming scheme for unpaid awards, three quarters had still not been paid. [8] The scheme has named no employers. [8]

Why it matters. A tribunal decides what a worker is owed and then has nothing to do with whether it arrives, which is why the award and the money are separate things.

More than 20 former staff of Swallowtail Print in Drayton, near Norwich, won a tribunal claim that they were dismissed without adequate consultation. [9] The firm employed 44 people when it went into administration in 2025, and British law requires an employer planning 20 or more redundancies in 90 days to consult representatives of the staff. [9] The tribunal ordered 90 days' pay. [9] Because Swallowtail is insolvent, the money will come from the Insolvency Service, part of the UK government's business department. [9]

Why it matters. When the employer has no money, the payment only happens because a public body stands behind it, and that is a different route from the one the tribunal ordered.

Courts in England and Wales issued 10,853 mortgage repossession orders in 2024-25, the most in five years. [10] Jose Da Costa Diogo, 65, lost his home in Thetford, Norfolk, after a ten-minute county court hearing. [10] He had paid into it for 25 years; his interest-only mortgage still owed 80,000 pounds, and his ex-wife remained on the deeds so he could not sell. [10] A BBC day in the repossession courts in November 2025 saw one woman lose a house with 87,000 pounds of arrears, and case workers described themselves as overrun. [11][12]

Why it matters. An interest-only mortgage falls due as one lump sum decades after it is signed, and it is the people whose plan for that sum failed who arrive in these courts.

Britain's Financial Conduct Authority says mortgage holders in difficulty are being misled by online groups claiming a borrower is not legally bound by a mortgage, using arguments drawn from Magna Carta. [13] Some paid fees to have such claims taken to court to stop a repossession. The regulator says none has ever succeeded. [13] Others sent lenders promissory notes, claiming a trust would pay instead. [13] People have lost their homes and their remaining equity, and can owe tens of thousands in legal costs. [13]

Why it matters. The people paying these fees are already facing repossession, so the cost lands on households with the least room to absorb it.

From 6 April 2026 paternity leave and unpaid parental leave in Britain became rights from a worker's first day. [14] That ended the service periods which had excluded people in new or insecure jobs. [14] Bereaved parents who lose a partner in the child's first year gained up to 52 weeks of unpaid leave, under an Act that began with one father's conversation with his MP. [14][15] Statutory paternity pay still needs 26 weeks of service, so many new starters take the leave unpaid. [14]

Why it matters. The leave and the pay were separated: a father can now take the time from day one and still get nothing for it.

A mother on the Isle of Man said a gap in employment law means the global company she works for does not have to give her any maternity pay, leaving her on government support while expecting a second child. [16] The island writes its own employment law and is not covered by the British rules. [16] She asked to remain anonymous and said she was disappointed. [16] The island's parliament has separately agreed to introduce shared parental leave. [16]

Why it matters. Employment rights stop at a border that most employees never think about, and a large employer can sit on both sides of it.

South Africa's Constitutional Court ruled in October 2025 that the country's long-standing split of parental leave reflected outdated ideas about who cares for a baby. [17] All parents there now share a total of four months and ten days, which they can divide between them. [17] The court suspended its declaration that the old law was invalid for three years, to give parliament time to amend it, and an interim reading has applied since October 2025. [17]

Why it matters. A court can strike down a law and then leave it standing for three years while parliament writes the replacement.

Deloitte and Zoom reduced paid parental leave for their US staff in April 2026. [18] The US is the only developed country with no guaranteed paid parental leave. [18] The other 37 members of the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, all offer some paid maternity leave, usually funded by employers, workers and governments together. [18] Austria gives 16 fully paid weeks and Denmark 22 weeks at an average of 48% of pay. [18] Thirteen US states and Washington DC run their own systems. [18]

Why it matters. Where there is no national scheme the benefit is an employer's choice, so it can be withdrawn in a budget round.

An appeals court in Hangzhou, a city in eastern China and a centre of the country's artificial intelligence industry, ruled that a senior technology worker's dismissal was unlawful after his employer replaced his job with AI. The decision was reported in May 2026. [19] Legal scholars called the decision a reassuring signal for labour rights at a time when China's leadership is pushing industries to adopt the technology. [19]

Why it matters. It is one of the first rulings anywhere on whether being replaced by software counts as a lawful reason to sack somebody.

More than four million people stopped receiving US food aid between July 2025 and April 2026, many of them children. [20] The programme, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is the country's largest food assistance scheme and is usually called SNAP or food stamps. [20] Participation has fallen steadily since the month a sweeping law changed the rules, and the deepest changes have not taken effect yet. [20]

Why it matters. The fall began before the main cuts did, which points at the new paperwork rather than at people no longer needing the help.

Universal credit carries an extra payment for people assessed as too unwell to work. [21] From April 2026 it halves to 50 pounds a week for new claimants and is frozen, unless the condition is terminal or judged severe and lifelong. [21] Charities told the Guardian that multiple sclerosis, bipolar disorder, Parkinson's, ME and long Covid may fail that test even where someone cannot work. [21] British government data estimates 730,000 future claimants will miss the higher rate by 2029-30. [21] Nobody already getting it is affected. [22]

Why it matters. The cut runs on a date rather than on a person, so two people with the same illness get different money depending on when they claimed.

The US Justice Department released a memo in June 2026 from its Office of Legal Counsel, arguing that states do not have to provide in-home or community-based care to disabled people who need support. [23] Those services are what allow many disabled Americans to live, work and study at home rather than in an institution. [23] Alison Barkoff, a health law professor at George Washington University who ran disability policy under two previous presidents, said it is now the US government's position that disabled people have no right to be part of their communities. [23]

Why it matters. A legal opinion changes no payment on its own, and it is the document a state would point at if it wanted to stop funding home care.

The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is paying compensation to borrowers in its case against Navient, a student loan servicer. [24] The bureau alleged that Navient steered borrowers into forbearance - pausing payments while interest builds - instead of repayment plans based on income, and that one of its companies gave credit reporting firms wrong information about discharged loans. [24] Payments began on 13 February 2026 and are still going out. [24] They do not reduce anyone's loan. [24]

Why it matters. The money arrives years after the harm, through an administrator, and it does not undo the extra interest the borrowers paid.

The US Treasury and tax office said on 7 August 2026 that they intend to propose rules for the Saver's Match, a federal payment into the retirement accounts of low- and moderate-income workers that begins in 2027. [25] The notice describes the expected rules and asks the public for comments before the proposal is written. [25] It also starts work on an executive order setting up a government website for retirement savings. [25]

Why it matters. The scheme starts in 2027 and the rules that make it work are still at the comment stage, which is how long the path from a law to a payment usually runs.

Under guidance called Notice 2026-05, the US Treasury and tax office widened who can pay into a health savings account, which holds money for medical costs free of tax. [26] From 1 January 2026 bronze and catastrophic plans count as compatible with these accounts, whether or not they were bought through a government exchange. [26] People in certain direct primary care arrangements, where a patient pays a doctor a regular fee, can now contribute too and pay those fees from the account. [26] Telehealth cover before a deductible is met was made permanent. [26]

Why it matters. Each of these changes turns on how a plan is classified, so a person's eligibility depends on a label on their insurance rather than on their health.

The US government announced agreements in November 2025 with Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk under which people pay between $245 and $350 a month for obesity drugs including Wegovy and Zepbound. [27] Many drugs in that class cost over $1,000 a month without insurance. [27] About 10% of people on Medicare, the US health scheme for older people, gain access and would pay $50. [27] Eli Lilly said it would also escape tariffs for three years. [27] Eli Lilly has also cut the list price of its Zepbound vials by $50 to $100. [39]

Why it matters. The price falls because two makers are competing and a government negotiated, not because the drug got cheaper to make.

The US government launched TrumpRx.gov in February 2026, a website listing cash discounts on brand-name drugs for people paying without insurance. [28] It opened with 43 drugs from five companies. [28] Experts told the Guardian it is not a solution for many patients, because it lists a limited number of medicines and several of them cost less as generics elsewhere. [29]

Why it matters. A discount only helps the people whose drug is on the list and who were paying cash in the first place.

The US health department named 15 drugs for the second round of Medicare price negotiations, with the agreed prices applying from 2027. [30] Those drugs accounted for nearly $42.5bn of gross Medicare Part D spending in 2024, used by 5.7 million people. [30] Researchers at Brookings, a Washington think tank, published their own estimate of the savings in December 2025, ahead of the official figure. [30]

Why it matters. Part D is the part of Medicare that pays for drugs collected from a pharmacy, so the negotiated price reaches people at the counter.

Researchers at Brookings found that changes to the US postal network threaten prescription deliveries for people who rely on mail-order pharmacies, which matter most for long-term conditions needing a steady supply and longer fills. [31] The report was published in December 2025 and corrected on 17 September 2026 after an error was found in the postal facility location data behind it. [31] The authors say the conclusions did not change. [31]

Why it matters. A decision about sorting offices turns into a decision about whether someone's tablets arrive on time.

About one in five US adults fails to fill a prescription because of the cost at least once a year, according to KFF, a health research organisation. [32] One in three takes some step to cut the cost, such as splitting pills when there is no medical reason to or switching to something sold over the counter instead of the drug they were prescribed. [32] Pharmacy professors writing in December 2025 said out-of-pocket costs for the same prescription vary widely between pharmacies. [32]

Why it matters. These are people who have insurance and still cannot afford the medicine, which is a different problem from being uninsured.

A US attorney's office, the Justice Department's fraud division, the Small Business Administration and its inspector general announced a joint takedown on 15 September 2026. [33] It covers more than $245m of fraud against the business loan programmes set up during the pandemic. [33] The Small Business Administration is the US agency that lent the money. [33] The tax agency's criminal investigation division took part in the case. [33]

Why it matters. Emergency schemes are built to pay fast and check later, and the checking is still running six years after the money went out.

Ofgem, Britain's energy regulator, was appointed in May 2026 to run a Bill Discount Scheme giving households near new electricity transmission lines up to 250 pounds a year off their bills. [34] The energy department planned to lay the regulations in summer 2026, with the first payments due to households in early 2027. [34] A consultation on how eligibility would be decided and how the money would be delivered was to run for six weeks. [34]

Why it matters. The discount was offered to communities being asked to host new power lines, and the households will wait about two years between the offer and the first payment.

The American Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit paid back 30% of the cost of qualifying work on a main home, up to $3,200 a year with no lifetime cap. [35] It can only be claimed for improvements made up to 31 December 2025. [35] The credit was expanded by a 2022 law and had applied to work done from 1 January 2023 onwards. [35]

Why it matters. Households that planned the work around the credit and had it done in 2026 get nothing for it.

In the United States a divorce decree alone does not move money out of a workplace pension. [36] Most plans require a separate document called a qualified domestic relations order, which names the plan, the amounts and the people, and cannot award anything the plan does not already offer. [36] An ex-spouse who receives money under one is taxed on it as if they were the worker in the plan. [36] Where the order pays a child instead, the tax falls on the worker. [36]

Why it matters. Two people can agree everything and sign it, and the pension still does not move until a second, differently worded order reaches the plan.

Under US tax law all income is taxable unless the code exempts it, and money from a lawsuit is no exception. [37] The tax office says the question to ask of any payment is what it was meant to replace. [37] Money standing in for lost wages is treated differently from money for a physical injury. [37] Alimony is deductible by the payer and taxed on the recipient only under divorce agreements signed before 2019. [38] Child support is never deductible and never counted as income. [38]

Why it matters. Two people can win the same sum in court and keep different amounts of it, because the tax follows the reason the money was paid.