Rhode Island should not follow Massachusetts' tax mistakes
Eight ducklings follow their mother in Nancy Schön's 'Make Way for Ducklings' statues in Boston Common. Rhode Island would be wise not to follow Massachusetts when it comes to taxing high earner, according to the Tax Foundation. (Photo by Kyle Klein/Meet Boston)
Rhode Island lawmakers are debating raising the state's top income tax rate. Though billed as a tax hike on high earners, the consequences would manifest across the state's entire economy — creating a risk that Rhode Island will tax its way into uncompetitiveness.
The two identical bills — H5473, sponsored by Rep. Karen Alzate, a Pawtucket Democrat, in the House and S329, sponsored by Sen. Melissa Murray, a Woonsocket Democrat, in the Senate — would raise the state's top marginal individual income tax rate from 5.99% to 8.99% on income above approximately $625,000 (in 2025 dollars), adjusted for inflation.
Though structured as a surtax, this proposal effectively creates a fourth income tax bracket, and one that doubles down on the marriage penalty that already puts married couples at a disadvantage compared to single filers. It erodes whatever tax advantage Rhode Island currently has against higher-tax peers elsewhere in New England. If enacted, Rhode Island would have the eighth highest top marginal state individual income tax rate in the country (excluding the District of Columbia), up from the 14th highest currently.
Millionaire's tax proposal is getting a warm reception from new R.I. Senate leadership
Had these changes been in effect last year, Rhode Island would have clocked in on Tax Foundation's 2025 State Tax Competitiveness Index at 43rd overall, down from its current rank of 39th.
But a poor ranking shouldn't be the only deterrent to lawmakers who are on the fence about this proposal.
Small businesses would be among the biggest losers under this tax increase. In 2022, over half of Rhode Island individual income tax filers with adjusted gross income exceeding $500,000 had income or losses from a pass-through business. Such businesses are often small stores or family operations that fuel their communities' Main Streets. This tax hike would make it more difficult for businesses to stay afloat, forcing many to raise prices, lay off employees, or move out of state to escape an increasingly punitive tax climate.
New investment, likewise, would be more difficult to attract since Rhode Island would no longer be a relatively tax-friendly beacon in the Northeast. Currently, Rhode Island outcompetes Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Vermont in tax structure, and Massachusetts' recent tax increase gives Rhode Island another opportunity to position itself as a superior competitor. Instead, proponents of this tax increase seem eager to imitate their neighbor's mistake.
Massachusetts, in 2023, abandoned the state's previously enviable flat income tax by imposing a similar surtax. The impacts didn't take long to manifest. According to recent Census data, Massachusetts saw among the highest rates of net outbound migration in the country in fiscal years 2023 and 2024. And at a time when uncertainty stemming from White House orders is putting additional strain on businesses, millionaire's taxes are a strong deterrent to entrepreneurs and businesses with slim profit margins.
Still, some try to say tax hikes don't matter or that this data is overblown. Some believe Massachusetts has been impervious to the adverse economic consequences states like California, New York, and Washington experienced when they raised taxes on high earners, pointing to higher-than-expected revenues from the state's new tax on high earners. But Massachusetts is not defying gravity. Years of stock market gains have boosted income for high earners across the country, and those income increases are more than enough to obscure the outmigration and reduced investment caused by the higher tax. When, inevitably, those gains subside, Massachusetts will face the realities created by its high taxes.
Similarly, a report from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), for example, claims Massachusetts has 'seen tremendous growth in the number of people with more than $1 million in total wealth since raising taxes on higher earners.'
The IPS study, unfortunately, is deeply flawed.
To begin, it only looks at 2018-2022 — a period when inflation surged and incomes grew rapidly across the country (up almost 12% in nominal terms). Not to mention, a time when Massachusetts didn't have a millionaire's tax.
But even conceding that overall wealth grew during that period, IPS gives no context to Massachusetts' performance, which is quite poor compared to the national average. Every state saw an increase in total millionaires after the pandemic, but Massachusetts' 36% increase from 2018-2022 was the fifth lowest in the country. Some states saw triple-digit increases.
This raises the question: Why are Rhode Island lawmakers using this legislative session to try and emulate Massachusetts instead of trying to outcompete them?
Rhode Island should take this opportunity to distinguish itself from the rest of New England by resisting harmful tax increases and instead reinforcing its current position as a more attractive alternative to its ultra-high-tax neighbors.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Federal judge questions constitutionality of Trump sending National Guard to LA riots: ‘President is, of course, limited'
WASHINGTON — A federal judge expressed skepticism Thursday about the constitutionality of President Trump's order to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE riots. Senior San Francisco US District Judge Charles Breyer heard arguments from attorneys for Trump's Justice Department and California Gov. Gavin Newsom after the Democrat had sued the feds over dispatching roughly 4,000 Guard members to protect officers carrying out immigration enforcement operations. 'We're talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is, of course, limited,' Breyer, the younger brother of liberal former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said at one point in the hearing. Advertisement 3 AP 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.' Brett Shumate, the head of the DOJ's Civil Division, disputed Breyer's characterization of the president's order throughout the hour-long hearing, arguing that the commander-in-chief had 'delegated' the federalizing of the Guard through California's adjutant general, as legally required. Advertisement Shumate also claimed that Newsom was merely a 'conduit' for that order as it passed through the chain of command from Trump to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the state Guard. 'There's no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,' he argued. 'There's one commander-in-chief of the armed forces.' The California attorney general's office countered that allowing Trump's action to stand implied there would be 'no guardrails' for further abuse by the executive branch. 3 Clashes have erupted in LA over the last several days sparked by ICE raids. Barbara Davidson/NYPost Advertisement 3 A demonstrator points his finger towards members of the California National Guard during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles. REUTERS 'The president, by fiat, can federalize the National Guard and deploy it,' an attorney for Newsom said, 'whenever there is disobedience to an order.' While Breyer took issue with the deployment of the National Guard, he appeared more inclined to let stand Trump's order sending around 700 US Marines to the Golden State to assist with the federal immigration crackdown. 'I don't understand how I'm supposed to do anything with the Marines, to tell you the truth,' the judge responded, quibbling with Newsom's legal team over whether their involvement violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Advertisement Breyer did not immediately issue a ruling, but said he hoped to put one out 'very soon.' This is a developing story. Please check back for more information.


The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
The post-Trump tax cliff
The Big Story While Republicans push to make expiring provisions in President Trump's 2017 tax law permanent, additional measures geared toward working-class Americans are being slated for expiration at the end of 2028. © The Associated Press 'It means that's going to be an issue in the next presidential race,' House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) said. The major expiring tax breaks in the House-passed version of Trump's 'big beautiful bill' are boosts in the standard deduction, the deduction for seniors, and the child tax credit, along with the cancellation of taxes on tips, overtime pay, and car loan interest. Budget hawks are saying this sets up a tax cliff in the legislation similar to the one Republicans are now trying to surmount, since most of the 2017 Trump tax cuts expire at the end of this year. 'There's a total tax cliff in there. There's about $1.5 trillion worth of taxes that expire in four years, five years, which means what? In five years, they'll just keep them going. This is why we end up with the same problem,' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said last week. 'It is 100 percent a gimmick to have tax cuts that you're putting in place for four or five years,' he added. The legislation is likely to undergo substantial changes in the Senate, including a change in the accounting baseline that will allow trillions of dollars worth of deficit additions coming from the extension of previous tax cuts to be ignored. But senators are sounding open to maintaining the split between making the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) permanent and allowing the additional cuts for workers, families, retirees and consumers to expire. The Hill's Tobias Burns and Aris Folley have more here. Welcome to The Hill's Business & Economy newsletter, I'm Aris Folley — covering the intersection of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads Key business and economic news with implications this week and beyond: Top earners to receive lion's share of income boost from GOP bill: CBO The top one-tenth of the U.S. income spectrum is set to receive the biggest annual boost to its wealth as a result of the House-passed Republican tax cut and spending bill, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), while the bottom three deciles are set to lose wealth and the fourth lowest decile will break even. House GOP approves first batch of DOGE cuts House Republicans voted on Thursday to claw back billions of dollars in federal funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid, locking in the first set of slashes made by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Senate votes to end debate on stablecoin bill, teeing up final vote The Senate voted Thursday to wrap up debate on a stablecoin bill, teeing up a final vote on the legislation that would establish regulatory rules of the road for the dollar-backed cryptocurrencies. Walmart heiress funds anti-Trump ad A billionaire Walmart heiress has again taken aim at President Trump — this time encouraging people to participate in protests against his second presidency while Trump holds a military parade in Washington on Saturday. The Ticker Upcoming news themes and events we're watching: In Other News Branch out with more stories from the day: Wall Street ticks closer to its record after Oracle rallies NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. stock indexes ticked higher on Thursday following another encouraging update … Good to Know Business and economic news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Top stories on The Hill right now: Padilla forcibly removed from Noem press conference, handcuffed Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was forcibly removed and then handcuffed after he interrupted a press conference Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem held in Los Angeles. Read more Republicans lay groundwork for 'total tax cliff' at end of Trump's term Congressional Republicans are laying the groundwork for a tax cliff at the end of President Trump's term in office. Read more What People Think Opinions related to business and economic issues submitted to The Hill: You're all caught up. See you tomorrow! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here


American Press
28 minutes ago
- American Press
Lawmakers approve budget and teacher pay push as session wraps up
Lawmakers approve budget and teacher pay push as session wraps up Published 5:12 pm Thursday, June 12, 2025 By Anna Puleo | LSU Manship School News Service BATON ROUGE — The Louisiana House voted 98-1 Thursday to give final legislative approval to $53.5 billion budget package for the upcoming fiscal year without objecting to any of the major changes that the Senate had made earlier this week. With three hours to go in the session, lawmakers also agreed to ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment in a new attempt to fund permanent salary raises for K-12 public school teachers and support staff. Email newsletter signup Voters had rejected a long and complicated amendment in March that could have provided funding for permanent raises. Under the latest plan, voter approval could lead to salary increases of $2,250 for teachers and $1,225 for staff members. The proposed constitutional amendment would dissolve three state education trust funds and used $2 billion to pay down debt on teacher retirement plans. That would save parishes enough money to provide the raises. While waiting to see if voters approve the amendment, the state will pay stipends of $2,000 to teachers and $1,000 to support staff at K-12 schools for a third year in a row. The state budget and the new teacher pay plan both passed on the final day of a legislative session that also saw significant changes in car insurance regulation designed to lower some of the highest annual premiums in the nation. Other high-profile legislation stalled during the session. A bill to reinforce President Donald Trump's ban on diversity, equity and inclusion programs at public agencies and colleges failed after the Senate declined to take it up, even as similar bans gained traction in other Republican- led states. The bill had narrowly passed the House after a lengthy debate during which Black lawmakers called it 'racially oppressive.' Gov. Jeff Landry's push to more than double funding for his LA GATOR private school voucher program also failed. The House had approved the $93.5 million that Landry sought to sharply increase the number of families that could use public funds to send their children to private schools. During the session, the Senate limited funding on the vouchers to $43.5 million, and the House acquiesced. That funding will allow students already enrolled in private schools under the similar program to stay there, but there will not be any money for new families to join, as Landry had envisioned. Lawmakers approved another national conservative priority — the 'Make America Healthy Again' efforts led by Trump and health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The bill bans ultra-processed ingredients, such as artificial dyes and synthetic additives, in meals served in schools that receive state funding, starting in the 2027-28 school year. All bills that passed now go to Landry for his approval or veto. The budget bill would take effect on July 1. The governor has the power to veto individual items in it. As part of the budget, lawmakers agreed to spend $1.2 billion in one-time money from the state's Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund–which collects corporate and severance taxes — on transportation projects, economic development, water system upgrades, college maintenance and criminal justice infrastructure. They also approved using $1.1 billion in extra cash for short-term needs like infrastructure projects, debt payments and deposits into state savings accounts. That total includes last year's surplus, additional general fund dollars recognized by the state's revenue forecasting panel, and unspent agency money, either because fewer people used certain programs or agencies found other ways to cover costs. The stipends for the K-12 teachers and support workers will cost $199 million. The Senate also restored $30 million for high-dose tutoring programs that had been cut in the House's version. Legislative leaders were reluctant to expand spending in other areas, like for Landry's signature voucher plan to pay for more students to go to private schools. Some lawmakers are concerned that potential cuts in federal Medicaid spending and federal disaster-relief could force the state to absorb hundreds of millions in additional costs. The House approved a resolution on Thursday by Appropriations Chair Jack McFarland, R-Jonesboro, urging Congress not to cut Medicaid funding in a way that would hurt the state. Legislators from rural areas also expressed concern that expanding private school vouchers could eventually cut into support for public school district. Some lawmakers noted that the final level of spending on the LA GATOR program was not a cut but rather keeping funding flat. 'We always use the word cut,' Rep. Eric Tarver, R- Lake Charles, said. 'When really we mean it just isn't an increase.' The Legislature also passed a supplemental spending bill for the current fiscal year with about $130 million, mostly in lawmakers' earmarks for projects in their districts. Taking steps to try to bring down auto insurance rates was another major focus during the session. Landry signed a package aimed at lowering premiums by limiting certain lawsuits and increasing oversight of insurers. However, on Wednesday, he vetoed Senate Bill 111, which would have restricted when policyholders can sue insurers for bad faith. Landry said the bill risked making it easier for companies to deny claims, leaving policyholders with fewer options to challenge delays, especially after major disasters. Landry had said at the start of the session that he was seeking a balanced approach in trying to cut rates. He also persuaded lawmakers to give the insurance commissioner more power to block companies from charging auto insurance rates that appeared excessive. Featured Local Savings