LINCOLN, Neb. -- During the first year of the Trump administration's new tax law, 91 Fortune 500 companies didn't pay a dime in federal income tax, according to a new study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Report co-author and Policy Analyst at the Institute Lorena Roque says using legal loopholes, corporations avoided paying $74 billion into the nation's coffers in 2018 alone.

"When we get our paychecks every two weeks, we see how much is deducted in taxes," says Roque. "And so when we hear news that corporations are paying zero, we kind of question, 'Why am I being taxed more than these companies that are worth millions of dollars?' "

Roque points out corporate tax cuts and loopholes have been enacted by Congresses and presidents of both major parties for the past two decades.

Champions of the new tax code argued that lowering corporate rates would lead to increased investments and higher wages, and would increase federal revenues by removing tax shelters.

Roque says outside of a few one-time bonuses, wages for most workers have not gone up, and most companies used the extra cash to buy back stocks, not open new factories. She says if corporate tax avoidance continues, there could be across-the-board cuts in public investments in highways and public transportation, health care and education.

"Ultimately when corporations don't pay their fair share, middle-class Americans have to pay more," says Roque. "And that's either in increase in taxes or a lower amount of public services, and a lower quality of public services."

The new tax law lowered the corporate rate from 35% to 21%, but researchers found the average tax rate actually paid by companies was just 11%.

Tax rates for 56 companies were between zero and 5% in 2018. Corporate tax revenues are near historic lows as a share of the nation's GDP, at just 1%.


get more stories like this via email

Missouri residents are gaining new insights into the powerful role of food in health care as experts and organizations advocate for a shift toward food-as-medicine initiatives.

Kelsey Gardiner, assistant professor of nursing and health studies at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, emphasized the critical link between access to healthy food and improved health outcomes. She noted individuals facing food insecurity often experience higher rates of chronic diseases, highlighting the urgent need for systemic changes to enhance food access.

"There are things we can do and there are certain shifts nationally that are happening, whether that be through policy or through infrastructure changes," Gardiner pointed out. "We can be doing more in the state of Missouri in order to help increase access to healthy food that can directly tie into better health outcomes."

Gardiner underscored the potential of food-as-medicine interventions in preventing chronic conditions and reducing health care costs. She said recent studies show such interventions can lead to $13.6 billion over one year in cost savings and several improved health outcomes, making them a valuable addition to health care strategies.

Kael Martin, people impact strategist for the Health Forward Foundation, said focusing on communities affected by structural racism, socioeconomic challenges and limited health care access is paramount. Food as medicine is seen as a strategic approach to promote health equity, particularly in areas where systemic barriers hinder optimal health.

"We know that eating healthy can prevent chronic disease, but it can be a treatment option as well," Martin stressed. "To have that connection within our health care system, to really integrate these interventions, can be really impactful for many patients."

While progress is underway nationally and in other states such as Massachusetts, California and North Carolina, Missouri is still developing its approach to integrate food as medicine into health care systems and policies. Efforts to push for legislation supporting these initiatives are in progress, with some federal legislation around medically tailored meals garnering support.

As many Wyomingites await their 2023 federal income tax refunds, a new National Priorities Project report breaks down how the money they won't get back is being spent.

Co-author Lindsay Koshgarian, program director for the National Priorities Project, said this year's Tax Receipt shows that - while many school districts in Wyoming and across the U.S. are facing major budget cuts - the average taxpayer is contributing thousands of dollars to military contractors, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon.

"So whereas the average Wyoming taxpayer was giving almost $2,300 to corporate pentagon contractors," said Koshgarian, "they were giving only $455 for public education in our K-12 schools."

The average American household paid over $5,000 for militarism and support systems, but invested just $110 in the Child Tax Credit - which cut child poverty in half during pandemic era changes.

The Pentagon has failed to account for money spent in audits for the past six years. But its defenders argue tax dollars create jobs and maintain global security in the face of competitors, including China.

Koshgarian said corporate contractors can create jobs, especially in key Congressional districts.

She pointed to Brown University research showing that $1 billion in military spending adds roughly 11,000 jobs.

By comparison, $1 billion would add nearly 27,000 education, and 17,000 healthcare jobs.

"But if we put that same money into other things like education or infrastructure or healthcare," said Koshgarian, "we could actually create more good jobs with the same amount of money."

The U.S. Department of Defense has known about the existential threat of climate change for decades, and wildfires now cost upward of $394 billion in damages each year.

But the average taxpayer invested just $14 in wildfire management.

Koshgarian said she believes concerns about protecting international security, which largely serve corporate interests, are overblown.

"The U.S. is already the top military spender in the world by far," said Koshgarian. "We spend more than the next 10 militaries combined. We have the most capable military by far in the world, and no one disputes that."




get more stories like this via email

A New Mexico resident will attend President Joe Biden's State of the Union address tonight as legislation is pending to expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

The measure was passed in 1990, with money going to residents of the Southwest who were harmed, either from uranium mining or atomic tests in 1945. The original legislation included "downwinders" in Arizona, Utah and Nevada. But New Mexico was left out, despite the state being home to the world's first atomic bomb testing and explosion.

Tina Cordova, co-founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, has made it her life's work to get New Mexico families compensated.

"I've been working for 19 years to bring attention to the negative health effects the people of New Mexico suffered," Cordova explained. "The Trinity bomb was detonated in the middle of our state and adjacent to a bunch of towns where 13,000 people lived in a 50-mile radius."

Cordova was invited to the annual Presidential address by Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M. In the coming days, the Senate is scheduled to vote on legislation to reauthorize the act, now scheduled to end in June.

Cordova pointed out the more than 30-year-old compensation program was an admission of guilt on the part of the government but left out many of those harmed. She knows families who have lost relatives to cancer, some within 10 years of the nuclear bomb testing.

"I just hope that people who know I'm present, realize that we will never give up the fight," Cordova asserted. "We will work very hard to get the RECA amendments passed this year, but if by some chance that doesn't happen, we will continue to fight this fight for justice as long as it takes."

This Sunday, the Hollywood blockbuster, Oppenheimer, about the creation of the atomic bomb, is a favorite to win best picture at the 2024 Academy Awards. The film did not address effects to those downwind of the bombing site.


get more stories like this via email