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

The U.S. Surgeon General has declared a public health crisis of loneliness and social isolation.

New research from Colorado State University suggested Americans are pretty happy with the number of friends they have, they just want to spend more time with them.

Natalie Pennington, communication studies researcher at Colorado State University and co-leader of the American Friendship Project, said she was eager to learn more about how interactions across a person's social network -- from Facebook acquaintances to forever besties -- can affect people's lives.

"Understanding how, over time, how changes in our relationships might affect our well-being," Pennington outlined. "Things like life satisfaction, loneliness, stress, connection, disconnection."

Researchers looked at three different surveys conducted by the American Friendship Project starting in 2022, and found 98% of respondents said they had at least one friend. Three in four American adults said they are satisfied with their number of friends but just half said they're satisfied with the time spent together. Four in 10 said they want deeper connections with the friends they have.

Pennington pointed out people did lose some friends during the pandemic, a time of prolonged social isolation, especially relationships with weaker bonds. But she added many friendships grew closer.

"Your closest friends, you actually kind of strengthen those because now, suddenly you can't see each other," Pennington explained. "We have this need to belong to each other. We're reaching out and deepening a few connections, even though we might lose some as well."

Maintaining connections with friends, especially those who now live far away, can be challenging. Pennington emphasized there are ways to remain close if you do not have the time or resources to meet up in person.

"In the absence of that, knowing that there are little ways we can connect, sending emails, sending a text message, phone call, voice memo, those are ways that we can sustain that relationship," Pennington concluded.

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.