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


The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump
Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for suggesting the unrest in Los Angeles is a consequence of federal involvement in state and local law enforcement efforts. 'Gavin Newsom says he didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Vance wrote in a post on X, attaching two photos that he said were taken before Trump ordered the National Guard to protect border patrol agents in California. One depicted rioters appearing to attack a 'border patrol' van, and another depicted a car set ablaze. The Hill was not able to verify the authenticity of the photos. 'Does this look like 'no problem'?' Vance asked. Vance suggested Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass 'fomented and encouraged the riots,' with the goal of promoting mass migration into the U.S., adding, 'It is their reason for being.' 'If you want to know why illegal aliens flocked to your state, stop accusing Donald Trump. Look in the mirror,' Vance said. 'If you want to know why border patrol fear for their lives over enforcing the law, look in the mirror.' Vance pointed to California's Medicaid expansion last year to low-income undocumented immigrants as an example of a policy that has 'encouraged mass migration into California.' Newsom has since proposed ending new Medicaid enrollment for undocumented adults, but his proposal faces resistance from the state legislature. 'Your policies that protected those migrants from common sense law enforcement. Your policies that offered massive welfare benefits to reward illegal immigrants. Your policies that allowed those illegal migrants (and their sympathizers) to assault our law enforcement. Your policies that allowed Los Angeles to turn into a war zone,' Vance continued. 'You sure as hell had a problem before President Trump came along. The problem is YOU,' Vance added. Vance's post is the latest in a back-and-forth between the administration and Newsom, who has resisted Trump's extraordinary steps to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops to the area and mobilize 700 active-duty marines. Newsom has insisted that the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. He accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' After Trump suggested his border czar arrest Newsom, the California governor responded by saying, 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.' 'I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom added Monday afternoon. Vance then replied to Newsom, saying, 'Do your job. That's all we're asking.' 'Do YOUR job. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. Rescind the order. Return control to California,' Newsom responded, prompting Vance's latest response.


Axios
12 minutes ago
- Axios
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."


Axios
12 minutes ago
- Axios
Impeachment wars
Rep. Jasmine Crockett's mere mention of a possible impeachment inquiry into President Trump has touched off negative reactions from some colleagues. "I think she's going to turn off a lot more people than gain," a House Democrat told us. Why it matters: House Democratic leaders are staying neutral. But many Democrats are allergic to the word after they impeached Trump twice only for him to return to power with full control of the government. Crockett (D-Texas), asked in a local news interview if she would pursue impeachment if Democrats retook the House in 2026 and she became Oversight Committee chair, said she would "absolutely at least do an inquiry." The other three candidates for the ranking member job on Oversight, Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), told us they wouldn't go that far. 👿 "Turning this ranker race into a proxy for impeachment is unhelpful and unfair to her colleagues," said a House Democrat who predicted Republicans will "try to motivate their base by saying that a Democratic majority will inevitably lead to impeachment." Crockett told us the term "impeachment inquiry" would stress to the public the "next level of gravity" of the subject matter — such as Trump's pardons for big money allies and the Qatari jet scandal. "A lot of times we as Democrats can overthink stuff," Crockett said. "A lot of people ... felt like [Oversight Committee chair] James Comer was an embarrassment. But at the end of the day, who won the House?" The bottom line: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries deferred to House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), whose panel, he said, "has jurisdiction over impeachment."