Writing in a weekend post on Truth Social, Trump argued that tariff revenues could be redistributed directly to individuals in the form of annual payments, with “high income people” excluded from the payouts. The idea, pitched as a way both to reward taxpayers and possibly reduce the national debt, bears a strong resemblance to the structure of the COVID-era Economic Impact Payments, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).​

“If tariff dividends are paid annually, deficits would increase by $6 trillion over ten years,” the CRFB writes, “roughly twice as much as President Trump’s tariffs are estimated to raise over the same time period.” This means not only that the revenue from tariffs would fail to cover dividend payouts, but also that the policy would exacerbate America’s long-term fiscal challenges.​

To put the numbers in perspective, if dividends were paid out on a “revenue neutral” basis—matching payouts to actual tariff revenue—the analysis estimates that payments could be made only every other year, starting in early 2027. Should the Supreme Court uphold current lower court rulings that have deemed some of Trump’s tariffs illegal, remaining tariffs would only cover the dividend payments once every seven years.​

Beyond blowing past the revenue generated, diverting all tariff proceeds to pay these dividends would restrict the government’s ability to use tariff income for reducing deficits or paying down debt, as some administration officials have proposed. The CRFB warns that using all tariff revenue for rebates would push federal debt to 127% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2035, compared to 120% under current law. If $2,000 dividends were paid annually, that figure could jump further, reaching 134% of GDP over the same period.​

Such projections come at a time when annual budget deficits are nearing $2 trillion and national debt is quickly approaching an all-time high, making fiscal discipline a top concern for watchdogs and policy analysts.​

Trump’s proposal draws inspiration from pandemic-era Economic Impact Payments (EIPs), but those measures were carefully income-tested to phase out payments for individuals earning over $75,000 and joint filers over $150,000. The CRFB said its analysis used similar eligibility parameters for its cost estimate, suggesting that without strict limits, the fiscal hit could be even higher.​

​For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

The Dublin, Ohio-based chain said during a conference call with investors Friday that it planned to begin closing restaurants in the fourth quarter of this year. The company said it expected a “mid-single-digit percentage” of its U.S. stores to be affected, but it didn’t give any more details.

Wendy’s ended the third quarter with 6,011 U.S. restaurants. If 5% of those locations were impacted, it would mean 300 store closures.

The new round of closures comes on top of the closure of 240 U.S. Wendy’s locations in 2024. At the time, Wendy’s said that many of the 55-year-old chain’s restaurants are simply out of date.

Ken Cook, Wendy’s interim CEO, said Friday the company believes closing locations that are underperforming – whether it’s from a financial or customer service perspective – will help improve traffic and profitability at its remaining U.S. restaurants.

Cook became Wendy’s CEO in July after the company’s previous CEO, Kirk Tanner, left to become the president and CEO of Hershey Co.

“When we look at the system today, we have some restaurants that do not elevate the brand and are a drag from a franchisee financial performance perspective. The goal is to address and fix those restaurants,” Cook said during a conference call with investors.

Cook said in some cases, Wendy’s will make improvements to struggling stores, including adding technology or equipment. In other cases, it will transfer ownership to a different operator or close the restaurant altogether.

U.S. fast food chains have been struggling to attract lower-income U.S. consumers in the past few years as inflation has raised prices. In the July-September period, Wendy’s said its U.S. same-store sales, or sales at locations open at least a year, fell 5% compared to the same period last year.

Cook said $5 and $8 meal deals — which have been matched by McDonald’s — have helped bring some traffic back to its U.S. stores. But Wendy’s isn’t doing a good job of bringing in new customers, Cook said, so the company plans to shift its marketing to emphasize its value and the freshness of its ingredients.

Wendy’s shares dropped 7% Friday. On Monday, they were down 6% in afternoon trading.

In his annual shareholder letter—the last one he will pen as CEO before Berkshire vice chair Greg Abel takes over on Jan. 1—Buffett suggested chief executives are driven by greed and selfishness to drive up their own pay after seeing competitors ratchet up their own remunerations.

“What often bothers very wealthy CEOs—they are human, after all—is that other CEOs are getting even richer,” he said. “Envy and greed walk hand in hand. And what consultant ever recommended a serious cut in CEO compensation or board payments?”

Buffett’s remarks come on the heels of Tesla investors approving CEO Elon Musk’s record-breaking $1 trillion pay package on Thursday. The compensation package, contingent on the EV company reaching an $8.5 trillion market capitalization, would make the already-world’s-richest-man into the first trillionaire. Musk’s net worth is currently about $449 billion.

The next day, EV competitor Rivian announced a $4.6 billion compensation package for CEO RJ Scaringe over the next decade, modeled after Musk’s plan. The package, which would double Scaringe’s base salary of $2 billion, is also dependent on the automaker reaching certain operating income and cash flow targets over the next seven years.

Tesla and Rivian did not immediately respond to Fortune’s requests for comment.

Buffett, reflecting on 60 years of leading his multi-industry conglomerate, said in his letter that companies’ disclosures of CEO pay was in part an effort to make executives at least a little self-conscious about the amount of money they were earning. However, what was intended as a gesture to humble instead became a contest of superiority.

“During my lifetime, reformers sought to embarrass CEOs by requiring the disclosure of the compensation of the boss compared to what was being paid to the average employee,” Buffett said. “Proxy statements promptly ballooned to 100-plus pages compared to 20 or less earlier. But the good intentions didn’t work; instead they backfired.” 

“Based on the majority of my observations—the CEO of company ‘A’ looked at his competitor at company ‘B’ and subtly conveyed to his board that he should be worth more. Of course, he also boosted the pay of directors and was careful who he placed on the compensation committee,” he added. “The new rules produced envy, not moderation.”

Indeed, compensation packages have swelled extravagantly, climbing 34.7% among the U.S.’s 100 largest low-wage employers from 2019 to 2024, according to an August report from the Institute for Policy Studies. The CEO-to-worker pay ratio similarly ballooned, growing from 560:1 in 2019 to 632:1 last year. Inordinate pay packages have helped make the country’s wealthiest billionaires $698 billion richer this year, per an Oxfam report published this month. Buffett, in contrast, has an annual salary of $100,000 (though his net worth sits at around $150 billion thanks to his investments, making him the 11th richest person on earth).

Other financial giants have spoken out against exorbitant pay packages, Musk’s in particular. Norges Investment Management, the entity behind Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund and a 1.14% stakeholder in Tesla, voted against Musk’s compensation plan.

“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role,” the group said in a statement last week, “we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk—consistent with our views on executive compensation.”