New Hampshire has the 18th most regressive state and local tax system in the country, according to a new report.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found the bottom 20% of earners pay three times more in taxes than the top 1%.

Carl Davis, research director for the institute, said the state's reliance on property taxes to fund government means some families are paying more to keep a roof over their heads.

"It can make it more difficult to put food on the table, to keep the lights, all these basic expenses," Davis pointed out. "It really can create financial stress in the household."

Davis noted for those making less than $35,000 a year, nearly 9% of their income goes to state and local taxes while those earning more than $700,000 dollars pay less than 3%.

Polls nationwide show Americans believe those who make more, should pay more.

Support has grown for the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax, which would require the wealthiest households to pay a minimum of 20% on all their income. Reports show many currently pay zero income tax.

Davis argued states' regressive tax systems are driving a wedge between the haves and have-nots.

"They reserve their lowest tax rates for people who already have the most, and the result is even more inequality than where we started," Davis contended

Davis emphasized tax systems are a policy choice, and it is up to the public and their elected officials to decide whether to continue the status quo. He added New Hampshire could look to its neighbors, Vermont and Maine, which not only offer refundable tax credits but reserve their lowest overall tax rates for low-income families.

Critics of such types of plans said they are a form of wealth redistribution and punish the wealthy.


get more stories like this via email

More Americans are learning about the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation this election season, but its influence has been decades in the making.

Its controversial Project 2025 to reshape the federal government includes standard conservative ideas like slashing regulations, along with more extreme plans to restrict abortion and certain contraceptives.

Zachary Albert, assistant professor of politics at Brandeis University, said the think tank has played a key role in pushing Republicans toward more conservative policies.

"They are policy demanders, who have strong opinions about the direction they want government to go and the research is the first step in pushing for that type of policy change," Albert explained.

Albert pointed out a growing share of think tanks, including the more liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, are engaged in direct political advocacy. The President of the Heritage Foundation has described its role as "institutionalizing Trumpism."

It is also spending money to influence elections and lobby politicians through its 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, Heritage Action for America. It spent more than $13 million in the 2022 midterms through its Super PAC, Sentinel Action Fund.

Albert noted it has earned Heritage and similar groups the label of "do tanks" rather than think tanks.

"By forming these other 501(c)(4)s and even Super PACs, these think tanks are allowed to engage in aggressive, direct political advocacy to force their ideas into the political system, rather than hoping that they trickle in," Albert emphasized.

Ideas presented in Project 2025 may already be ingrained. Nearly two-thirds of the authors behind the plan served in former President Donald Trump's administration.

Albert added the fact it has gained such widespread attention ahead of the November elections is a telling indication of its expected influence.


get more stories like this via email

The regularity of news stories with individuals being misled or even radicalized by social media brought two Colorado State University researchers to compare social media algorithms to villains in classic tragedies such as Shakespeare's "Othello."

In a paper published last fall, researchers examine how algorithms can transform a person's view of reality in ways leading to detrimental actions. Platforms track user engagement with content and then feed users more of what they like.

Hamed Qahri-Saremi, assistant professor of computer information systems at Colorado State University and co-author of the paper, said even if you are following a news website such as CNN or Fox, you will not see every post by the outlets, only what the feeding algorithm thinks will maximize your engagement.

"It's not about the source, even," Qahri-Saremi explained. "It's about what these feeding algorithms are showing to you. So if you just go onto social media to get your news, most likely you're going to be very polarized. You see the world differently, because a big part of the picture, the true picture of the world, is going to be eliminated, is going to be masked from you because that's the job of the feeding algorithms."

The authors compare algorithms to the Shakespearean character Iago, who uses lies and manipulation to mislead Othello into murdering his wife.

The paper illustrated how platforms learn about users directly by observing their behavior, including which posts they spend time with and like, and learn about users indirectly by identifying and verifying the most similar platform users. The authors refer to it as a "matching mechanism" and users can see its effects with platform suggestions of who users should follow or connect with.

When offering content to users, platforms use social signaling to drive engagement by showing them which friends liked or commented on a post. Qahri-Saremi noted when misinformation is presented, social signals increase the likelihood users will engage.

"The person who sees that misinformation on social media is not just any random person, it's a person that the algorithm has selected and probably have added some social signals to it," Qahri-Saremi pointed out. "This significantly increases the power of this misinformation content."

Platform algorithms have the ability to select from the many millions of pieces of content floating around on social media, and choose the ones driving individual user engagement the most. With social media platforms primarily in the business of selling advertising, Qahri-Saremi emphasized the kind of granular data algorithms can learn about users makes them some of the most profitable companies around.

"These are some of the best algorithms," Qahri-Saremi stressed. "That's why social media companies are so wealthy. They can sell ads like nobody else; they can customize ads like nobody else. So now the same machine is being used to disseminate misinformation."

The paper suggested methods to combat misinformation, among them using an "endorsing accuracy" prompt such as "I think this news is accurate" and connecting it to the sharing function.

In just six years, the U.S. has pivoted from a complete ban on sports betting to a place where it is legal in most states, and young men could be paying a heavy price.

Joshua B. Grubbs, associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico, found in his research risky types of drinking -- both heavy and binge drinking -- often go hand in hand with sports wagering.

Grubbs analyzed data from more than 4,000 adults across the country who shared their drinking and betting habits. He said excessive drinking can lead to problematic betting behaviors.

"With sports gambling in particular, it tends to appeal to young men -- and we already know from past research that watching sporting events is associated with drinking more -- it's the common American hobby of, you watch the game, toss back a few beers with your friends," Grubbs noted.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for states to adopt sports betting, although it is still illegal in 12 states, including the two most populous, California and Texas. New Mexico does not allow online betting, but does allow "in person" betting at a handful of tribal casinos.

Grubbs pointed out on average, gamblers report more frequent binge drinking episodes than the general public but episodes among sports gamblers are considerably higher than either group. Because people drawn to such activities are typically younger, they are also more impulsive, which he said makes it important to set a "loss limit," a firm amount of money they are willing to lose.

"If you go into gambling saying, 'I'm going tonight with my friends to the casino, I have a $100 I can lose and I'm willing to lose $100 to have fun with my friends.' If that mentality is something you stick to, you're very unlikely to have a problem," Grubbs contended.

Grubbs added while there are designated federal research funds for drug use or alcohol misuse, they have not been used for treating gambling addiction, despite clear links between gambling and substance use problems. The research, funded by the International Center for Responsible Gaming, was published on the JAMA Network Open.