Blog

California Has Highest Personal Income Tax Rate, 8 States Have None…

Where you live can make a major difference in the state income tax rate applied to your earnings, with systems ranging from no individual income tax to top marginal rates above 10%.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Gabriel Cohen, compares U.S. states based on their top marginal individual income tax rate in 2026 using Tax Foundation data. Both local and federal income tax rates are excluded.

Which States Have No Individual Income Tax?

Eight states levy no individual income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

New Hampshire is a relatively recent addition to the list, having repealed its tax on interest and dividends in 2025.

The table below lists all U.S. states and Washington, D.C., alongside their top marginal income tax rate and tax system.

Keep reading

U.S. Beekeepers Sue USDA, Alleging Imported “Organic” Honey Misleads Consumers and Violates Federal Law

Four major U.S. commercial beekeeping operations have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), alleging the agency allows imported honey to carry the USDA organic seal through certification pathways unavailable to American producers [1].

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington by operations based in Washington, South Dakota, and Texas, according to the plaintiffs [1].

The lawsuit claims the practice misleads consumers, undermines domestic beekeepers, and violates federal organic law by creating a double standard for organic honey certification [1]. The beekeepers are seeking a court order to halt the alleged false labeling rather than monetary damages, according to the complaint [1].

Allegations of Certification Double Standard

The suit alleges that USDA organic standards require bees to forage within a 1.8-mile radius of certified organic land, a rule that makes large-scale organic honey production nearly impossible for most U.S. beekeepers [1]. Consequently, only four certified organic honey operations exist in the United States, all located in Hawaii, according to the plaintiffs [1].

This regulatory burden stands in contrast to the situation abroad, where foreign producers, particularly in Brazil, operate under less stringent rules that allow them to bypass USDA standards, the lawsuit alleges [1].

Experts note that the vast majority of apiary locations within the United States are not able to comply with organic regulations as currently written, and most locations that do conform tend to be in areas where bee forage is extremely limited [2]. As a result, little certified organic honey is currently being produced within the continental U.S., according to those familiar with the industry [2].

Imported Honey Dominates Market

Approximately 80% of honey sold in the U.S. is imported, according to OrganicEye, a nonprofit organization that monitors the organic industry [1]. U.S. beekeepers sold 116 million pounds of honey in 2025, down 14% from the prior year, while organic imports exceeded 78 million pounds during the same period, according to the lawsuit [1].

The complaint further states that roughly 60 million pounds of domestic honey remained unsold, with some producers holding up to three years’ worth of inventory [1].

This market imbalance has created significant financial strain for domestic producers, who report difficulty competing with cheaper imported products [1]. The situation mirrors broader trends in the food industry, where imported products can be labeled in ways that obscure their origin and undermine domestic producers [3].

Loopholes in Certification Process

The lawsuit highlights specific loopholes in the certification process that allegedly allow foreign honey to bear the USDA organic seal. One such pathway is group certification, which permits large agricultural organizations to certify multiple producers without individual site visits [1].

This option is used abroad but is not available to U.S. beekeepers, according to the complaint [1].

Additionally, the U.S.-Canada Organic Equivalency Arrangement permits Canadian-certified honey to bear the USDA seal, despite differing standards on pesticide exposure and forage requirements between the two countries [1].

These pathways create a hidden certification route that lets foreign producers label honey as USDA organic without meeting the same standards applied to domestic producers, the lawsuit alleges [1]. The concern over inconsistent certification standards is not new; observers of the organic industry have previously documented cases where the USDA organic label was applied to products that did not meet expected standards [4].

Keep reading

Why Even A Temporary Diesel Export Ban Is A Bad Idea

Energy analysts spent much of the past week laying out all the reasons why a presidential ban on exports of diesel fuel is a no good, terrible, very bad idea. As the Institute for Energy Research detailed on Thursday, such a ban would not only fail to lower diesel pump prices for any appreciable amount of time, it would also inevitably result in higher gasoline prices and supply shortages as refiners are forced to cut back runs because they have no outlet for the diesel volumes currently being exported to the global market. 

Late in the week, we saw the emergence of an alternative proposal from politicians and industry critics: A temporary ban of “only” 90 days. This, they claim, would have the benefit of helping Republican candidates in their mid-term election campaigns while also allowing refiners to see a clear light at the end of the tunnel.

As a siren song it all sounds lovely. But in the real world, it’s also nonsense.

Whether we like it or not, capital does not care if some farmers in Iowa, Nebraska and Texas might go under because diesel prices are too high. Capital does care about two hard factors: The anticipated rate of return on its investment, and the consistent application of U.S. laws and regulations. 

A 90-day pause might as well be a permanent ban where capital deployment is concerned. It would send the signal to investors that the government, even in a Republican presidency, might step in at any time to do major damage to your rates of return. 

Former President Joe Biden’s killing of the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office in 2021 did enormous harm to that second key factor. Biden and his autopen cancelled that long-term multi-billion-dollar project which was already under construction without siting a single violation of U.S. law or regulation. The developer — Trans-Canada, now TC Energy — had moved forward with its federal permits fully secured with the faith that no future administration would intervene to cancel the billions of dollars it had already invested by January 20, 2021. 

A Trump intervention into diesel markets would do similar harm. Perhaps even more given that it would send the signal to investors that they now cannot have faith in the consistent application of the law even in a Republican administration. 

The current crisis shines a spotlight on the folly inherent in half a century of federal regulations that have made it near-impossible to build new refineries in the United States. America needs additional refining capacity and fast to be able to restore the country’s level of energy security to pre-Iran Conflict levels. 

But here’s the thing: These are multi-billion-dollar projects which take years, often decades to execute. Convincing investors to consider pouring billions of capital dollars into such projects requires their confidence that U.S. law will be applied fairly and consistently across multiple presidents of both political parties. Biden’s Keystone XL cancellation made doing that much harder. 

Sure, there is a new greenfield refinery under construction at the Port of Brownsville, Texas today— but that project benefits from a big injection of capital by India’s Reliance Industries. A big question remains whether American investors will have the confidence to step up and invest in the series of new refining operations needed to keep more of America’s domestic production at home. 

Any ban on exports for any length of time implemented for transparently political reasons would almost certainly answer that question in the negative. America cannot afford for that to happen.

Keep reading

How Many Ministries Of Truth Does One Country Need

How many Ministries of Truth does one country need? With Andy Burnham announcing yet another, Prof Michael Rainsborough points out that Britain’s “narratives of decline” arise because the country is, in fact, declining…

In previous essays I have sought to describe the political condition into which Britain and other Western democracies have been drifting by offering various analogies.

At first, I tried being serious. My initial forays drew comparisons with the post-totalitarian societies of late communist Eastern Europe, where the widening distance between official propaganda and observable reality produced an ever-greater institutional effort to enforce the official world view. Later essays pursued the analogy more directly, asking whether Britain was becoming increasingly Sovietised, with some of the same characteristics of a political order in severe decline becoming recognisable. With the supply of serious comparisons running low, and the ironies apparently passing unnoticed, there seemed little left to do except laugh.

Once the absurdities become difficult to describe with a straight face, parody is the logical next step. The difficulty now has been making the exaggeration last until publication. Institutions and bureaucratic inventions for comic effect have acquired real-world counterparts before the joke has had time to land.

WISDOM escapes into the wild

A few weeks back my satirical turn took the form of ‘The Spy Who Came in From the Consensus‘, a John le Carré spoof in which the machinery of the contemporary British state deployed its formidable powers of information gathering to confirm what it already believed. At the centre of the story was WISDOM, the Whole-of-Institution Strategic Data and Outcomes Management system. Created to defend Britain against foreign disinformation, it soon graduated to monitoring “harmful narratives”, “problematic nostalgia”, declining trust and negative sentiment about immigration. A genuine photograph of migrants arriving on a beach was flagged for “decontextualised visual framing”. Requests for original sources and factual corrections became possible indicators of hostile interference.

Having begun by investigating Russia, China and Iran, WISDOM eventually discovered that the most troublesome source of misinformation about Britain was British people’s stubborn attachment to feeling British. WISDOM’s final diagnosis of the country’s deteriorating social cohesion was commendably concise: “The problem isn’t the problem, the problem is the people noticing the problem.“

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Andy Burnham stood before the United Nations and announced the creation of a National Centre for Information Defence. Barely had WISDOM escaped onto the page before reality began catching up with the satire.

According to Burnham, NCID will detect, attribute and disrupt hostile-state information attacks. He cited Russian bots masquerading as British citizens, fake websites, fabricated reports, forged newspaper branding and covert interference. Most insidious of all, naturally, was the amplification of “far Right narratives“. Russia, Burnham said, was creating a narrative of British decline. Britain, he claimed, had surrendered too much ground to those promoting such an account.

Burnham insisted that the “negative” and “corrosive” narrative about life in Britain “bears no resemblance to reality“. A few moments later in the very same speech, Burnham described people struggling with the “cost of living”, lives that were “not improving”, young people outside employment, education or training, widening inequality and a society vulnerable to division. Making life more affordable, he then announced, would lie at the heart of a new “10-year plan” for Britain.

The narrative of decline therefore bears no resemblance to reality, although reality apparently requires a 10-year plan.

Keep reading

The Senate Can and Should Take an Important Step Toward Ending Israeli Impunity

Last week, I was pleased to once again participate in a meeting with one of my US Senators, Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a consistent leader for peace, justice, and human rights in Congress, and especially for ending US support for Israel’s genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing against the people of Palestine.

The subject of the meeting was his bill, with a vote expected early next week, Senate Resolution 852, to hold Israel accountable for its horrific actions against US citizens killed or detained by Israel. The goal of the resolution is very simple: within 30 days of passage, to require a State Department report on Israel’s alleged killings of nine US citizens, and more broadly, on the commission of “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights by Israel.” The resolution cites US law, section 502(B)(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

The resolution reads, in part “…since January 2022, at least nine United States citizens have been killed by violent Israeli settlers or Israeli security forces in the West Bank, including Omar Assad, Shireen Abu Akleh, Tawfic Abdel Jabbar, Mohammad Khdour, Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi, Amer Rabee, Sayfollah Kamel Musallet, Khamis Ayyad, and Nasrallah Abu Siyam” and “…the killings of these Americans in the West Bank have been met by a lack of accountability from the Netanyahu government and an inability to secure justice by the United States Government.”

Asking the Department of State to produce such a report sounds like the absolute minimum we, as taxpayers, deserve from our government, and certainly the families of those killed by Israel, likely with US-provided weapons, deserve that and much more. The resolution is supported by 84% of voters, on a bipartisan basis, in a just-released poll, and has 24 Senate co-sponsors. And as the resolution states, and many supporters note, protecting US citizens abroad is constantly touted as the top priority for US foreign policy, even by the current rogue Trump regime that regularly flouts domestic and international law, with the most egregious example being the illegal US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran.

Peace advocates regularly support much stronger legislation, and will do so repeatedly, until peace, justice, and human rights are the real foundations of US foreign policy, and not just paid cynical lip service. Soon there will likely be a Joint Resolution of Disapproval (JRD) in Congress to stop the proposed shipment of 40,000 one-ton bombs to Israel. The Biden administration, as bad as it was in its support for Israel during the razing of Gaza, had put this sale on hold, but President Donald Trump is now moving it forward. But the relatively modest Van Hollen resolution would be an important step toward ending Israel’s impunity, and if we can’t get justice for American citizens killed by Israel, then Congress is completely derelict in doing its job.

Peace Action and our colleagues have already generated over 57,000 letters to the Senate in favor of Sen. Van Hollen’s resolution, and many groups are pushing to get that figure close to 100,000, if not more.

Keep reading

The Easy Money Fairy Tale Is About To End…Violently

For the better part of the last couple years, I have wondered whether financial markets are permanently broken. Not simply overvalued or temporarily irrational, but actually broken at the mechanical level and permanently distorted. I’ve written about it.

The basic process that is supposed to make capitalism work goes like this. Capital flows toward good ole’ fashioned productive uses (like the George Foreman Grill™) and away from flashy hot-shit stupid ones (like the Apple Vision Pro). Good businesses eventually outperform bad ones. Fraud eventually gets exposed. Making money is the point of a business. Price is a rationing mechanism and is determined by free markets. This system appears to have been dead for the last 10 years, at least.

Nowadays, we function under a derivative of capitalism (hereinafter referred to as “crony capitalism snorting bath salts, operating under policies so disorganized they’d make a Jackson Pollock painting look like the blueprints for a nuclear reactor”) where trillions of dollars can be created overnight, governments and central banks focus obsessively on a handful of key numbers, and preserving the nominal value of stocks and other financial assets has become the priority.

Everything else in the economy is then forced to adjust accordingly, and if you don’t like it, or it causes the price of your Whopper Jr.™ to go to $57, f*ck you…that’s just how money works nowadays.

We’ve spent most of the last 20 years systematically removing consequences from the financial system. Rates went to zero and stayed there for years. The Fed expanded its balance sheet by trillions. Every major crisis was met with an intervention, liquidity facility, bailout or assurance that policymakers stood ready to keep the machine running. Capital was forced to become extraordinarily cheap, and investors eventually became conditioned to believe it would remain that way. We laughed off our country’s credit downgrades. Economists and analysts turned into total pussies and cowards, crumbling into bits every time the market sold off 5%. Financial projections have turned into Hunter Thompson-esque 3AM drug induced astral projections.

And we turned into the real life version of Idiocracy for markets.

Keep reading

Stop Mad King Donald’s Iran War: An Open Letter to Members of the US Congress

Dear Members of Congress,

In truly deranged remarks to world leaders at the UN, Donald Trump declared that “I have a big decision to make,” whether to negotiate a deal with Iran or instead to “annihilate the Islamic Republic” and drive Iran “into hell with no chance of survival.”

He posed it as his personal choice. The fact that the American people are dead set against Trump’s war means nothing. And as for the voters, he added that he gives “absolutely no credence” to the coming midterm elections in deciding on his actions and on Iran’s fate.

Nothing binds this President. He is not bound by law, the Constitution, the UN Charter, or public opinion at home and abroad. When asked at the start of the year whether he has any limits on his power, he said “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

Trump opened his speech with the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, hailing America’s freedom. The fact is that Trump’s authoritarianism far outdoes that of King George III, against whom the colonies rebelled. Among the founders’ indictments of Mad King George was that “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.” Yet our own mad king has decided that the survival of a whole civilization is in his hands alone.

Trump is emboldened in his contempt for Congress because the Republican members of Congress have abdicated their constitutional responsibilities, terrified of their own president, and forsaking their constituents for campaign lucre from AIPAC and the military-industrial complex.

The Constitution is unambiguous regarding Congress’s responsibility. Article I, Section 8 assigns Congress, not the President, the sole power to declare war. That is not a choice or an option. The Constitution doesn’t say that Congress can play dead and let the President declare war. The Framers made this choice deliberately, because they were explicitly rejecting the power of a king to take the nation to war.

In Federalist 69, Hamilton assured the public that the President’s war powers would be far less than the British monarch’s. Madison stated the principle plainly in a letter to Jefferson in 1798: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

The founders’ careful design has been overturned because of the unconstitutional subservience of the Republican members of Congress to Trump and to the military-industrial-digital complex. And yes, under Democratic presidents, most Democratic members of Congress also looked the other way when those presidents chose to go to war.

The war with Iran is Trump’s folly but Congress’s disgrace for not stopping it. It is a war without a purpose that has created mass suffering in Iran, tens of billions of dollars of direct outlays, and staggering damage to American military bases in eight countries of the Middle East. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent world and American prices soaring for oil, gas, fertilizers, and more. And the world has duly noted that Iran can hold its own against US aggression, albeit at great sacrifice to the people of Iran and the region.

America’s much vaunted AI battlefield has been exposed in the most horrifying way. On the first day of the war, an American missile struck the girls’ elementary school there, killing more than 150 people, most of them girls aged seven to twelve, and the military’s own inquiry reportedly found that over-reliance on artificial intelligence contributed to the targeting. Trump blamed “Iran or somebody else,” and seven months later the administration has offered no findings, no apology and no compensation to the families.

The President’s threat to annihilate a member state of the United Nations, delivered from the General Assembly podium, disgraced Trump in front of the world. It also violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits even the threat of force against another state. Nearly all the world stands aghast.

Keep reading

Trump asked China’s president if he wants to buy US arms, ambassador says

The U.S. ambassador to China says President Donald Trump asked Chinese President Xi Jinping if he wanted to buy weapons from the United States.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has justified the pending U.S. arms sale to Taiwan to Chinese President Xi Jinping by downplaying it as just one of many sales Washington makes around the world — even asking Xi if he’d be in the market for U.S. arms, Trump’s ambassador to China said on Sunday.

David Perdue said Trump raised the prospect of the arms sales from the U.S. to its ascendant geopolitical rival, an unlikely offer that if consummated would upend generations of U.S. policy toward China and Taiwan and potentially expose U.S. technology to a potential foe. Perdue, speaking to Shannon Bream on “Fox News Sunday” days after Trump hosted Xi for a state visit in Washington, didn’t specify when the offer was made.

Bream had cited concerns from Republican and Democratic lawmakers over delayed aid packages and weapons orders to Taiwan, the self-ruled democracy, to defend itself from China’s threat to invade the island. Bream asked if the U.S. is denying Taiwan to appease the Chinese president, who visited Trump last week.

Perdue pushed back on the suggestion, stating that Trump “is as strong on Taiwan as I’ve ever seen anybody” and has sold it plenty of weapons. Perdue also said Trump and Xi continue to talk about future U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan.

“But President Trump continues to say, ‘Hey, we sell arms to other people around the world,’” Perdue said. “He actually asked President Xi, would he like to buy some, at one point.”

The U.S. is bound by its own laws to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself. While not recognizing Taiwan as a country, the U.S. is the island’s strongest informal backer and arms provider. But multiple U.S. leaders have left ambiguous whether they would commit military force to defend the U.S. ally should China invade.

China has pressed Washington to halt the arms sales, most prominently during a previous summit in May between Trump and Xi in Beijing. After that meeting, the United States paused the sale of a record-breaking $14 billion package — and Trump described arms sales to Taiwan as a “very good negotiating chip” with China.

In their private talks at the White House last week, Xi pressed Trump to oppose Taiwan independence, according to Chinese state media.

Keep reading

TikTok To Pay Alabama At Least $100 Million, Add Teen Limits Before First State Trial

TikTok and its creator ByteDance struck a deal Friday with Alabama that will pay the state at least $100 million and force changes in how teenagers use the app, days before what would have been the first state trial over claims the platform was built to addict minors.

The money is due within 45 days. It can climb to $300 million if certain conditions are met, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office said. Alabama was set to select a jury on Monday.

“This is a great day for Alabama parents,” Marshall said. “Tonight, they can rest easier knowing real protections are in place to shield their children from the dangers of social media addiction. TikTok has agreed to give parents real control over what their kids see and how much time they spend on the app.”

The complaint had accused TikTok of designing addictive features, exposing young users to serious mental harms, and misleading the public about safety.

TikTok did not admit those claims in the papers released Friday.

The company did not immediately return a request for comment.

The deal requires teen accounts in Alabama to have a two-hour daily cap, which parents can further shorten. After 15, 60, and 90 minutes of continuous use, the app must interrupt the session, a feature the office called “productive pauses,” intended to break endless scrolling.

Teen accounts will be unavailable from midnight to 6 a.m. Messaging and push alerts face extra limits overnight and during school hours. In addition, cosmetic filters are banned for teen users.

The default feed for those accounts is to remain non-personalized, and teen accounts are to be harder for adults to find. Parents get notice of suspicious contacts. Parental controls are supposed to be easier to use.

Last month, a multi-state Meta deal was set to bring Alabama $117 million on similar youth-harm allegations. Earlier, Roblox paid the state $12.2 million and agreed to tighter age checks and chat rules.

The Alabama deal arrives as other fights progress.

On Sept. 10, a Travis County, Texas, judge ruled that TikTok violated the state’s consumer protection law by misleading users about tools meant to keep minors from harmful videos. Judge Cory Liu found Restricted Mode did not work as marketed.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the case now goes to trial next month to set penalties.

“TikTok sacrificed the safety and innocence of children for engagement and numbers, and now they are being held accountable,” Paxton said then.

Keep reading

Another Incredible Win Against the Covid Tyrants: New Jersey Jury Delivers Unanimous 8–0 Verdict for Christian Groundskeeper Fired Over a Religious Exemption — Awarded $671,000

A New Jersey jury just delivered a message that the Democrat machine in Essex County did not want to hear.

On Friday, an Essex County jury returned a unanimous 8–0 verdict for Theodore “Teddy” DeBlasio, a longtime groundskeeper at Essex County Hospital Center who was fired after the county denied his religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The panel awarded him more than $670,000 for economic and emotional harm. Attorneys’ fees are still to come. Punitive damages are next.

Attorney John D. Coyle of Coyle Law Group called it New Jersey’s first jury verdict in a COVID-19 religious exemption case.

DeBlasio, raised Catholic and now a Christian, objected to taking a shot tested or developed using aborted fetal cell lines. That is a sincerely held religious belief millions of Americans share. Essex County treated it like a punchline.

According to trial evidence cited by Coyle Law Group, in February 2022 the county denied every religious exemption request submitted by Christian and Catholic employees, and approved every request submitted by Muslim employees.

Coyle put it bluntly on X:

“It was revealed at trial that Essex County denied each and every request from a Christian employee and granted every Muslim exemption. That isn’t an exaggeration.”

“Catholic groundskeeper could not safely test and mask but a Muslim NURSE could test and mask.”

“Essex County determined that Teddy DeBlasio—with the crown of thorns tattooed on his wrist to remind him to think of Jesus with his actions—did not have sincere beliefs but a Muslim employee who photocopied another Muslim’s exemption, did.”

Keep reading