Tag Archives for Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council

Senior Agenda Coalition of RI pushes wealth tax to fund programs for older residents

Published in RINewsToday on June 2, 2025

With the recent passage of the House Republican budget—which cuts some programs and services for seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and families with children—Sulma Arias, Executive Director of Chicago-based People’s Action (PA), is calling on billionaires and large corporations to finally pay their fair share of taxes.

Senator Bernie Sanders has echoed similar sentiments on the national stage, urging lawmakers to ensure that ultra-wealthy individuals and powerful corporations contribute more equitably to the nation’s economic well-being, rather than shifting the burden to everyday Americans by cutting essential services.

In Rhode Island, Democratic lawmakers are advancing legislation this session that would increase taxes on the state’s highest earners to generate vital revenue for public programs and services.

Proposed Legislation Targets Top Earners

HB 5473, introduced on February 12, 2025, by Rep. Karen Alzate (D-Dist. 60, Pawtucket, Central Falls), was referred to the House Finance Committee. The bill proposes a 3% surtax on taxable income above $625,000—on top of the existing 5.99% rate—targeting the top 1% of Rhode Island tax filers. The surtax is projected to raise approximately $190 million annually and would affect about 5,700 of the state’s more than 500,000 filers. If enacted, the tax would apply to income earned in tax years beginning in 2026 and would not be retroactive.

As of the May 6 House Finance Committee hearing, about 140 pieces of written testimony had been submitted on HB 5473. The committee held the bill for further study, with no additional action yet taken. The proposal remains under consideration as part of ongoing budget negotiations.

A companion bill, S. 329, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Melissa Murray (D-Dist. 24, Woonsocket, North Smithfield) and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. A hearing on the measure was held last Thursday, and the bill was also held for further study.

As the volume of testimony indicates, the battle lines are clearly drawn. Progressive groups and unions support the legislation, while businesses and business organizations, such as the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce and the Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce, have voiced strong opposition. Governor Dan McKee has not yet taken a public position on the bills.

The Pros and Cons

Supporters argue that with Rhode Island facing a $220 million budget deficit, HB 5473 and S. 329 could raise nearly $190 million annually to fund critical services, including: K-12 and higher education; health care; housing; public transportation; affordable child care; infrastructure, and programs for older adults

They contend that the proposals would bolster the state’s safety net, particularly in light of uncertain federal funding. A more progressive tax structure, they argue, would make the system fairer by reducing the burden on middle- and lower-income residents. Currently, the top 1% of Rhode Island taxpayers control a disproportionate share of the state’s wealth but, when accounting for sales and property taxes, pay a smaller share of their income than lower-income households.

Opponents, however, warn of unintended consequences. They claim the bills would drive wealthy residents and businesses out of the state, eroding the tax base.Supporters dispute this, pointing to IRS and Stanford University studies indicating that wealthy individuals typically relocate for family or climate-related reasons—not for tax considerations. States like California and New Jersey, they note, have implemented similar surtaxes without experiencing significant outmigration.

Morally, proponents argue, those with more resources have a responsibility to help those with less—especially in a post-COVID era when many low-income families continue to struggle.

Yet critics, including the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC) along with the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce and businesses, warn that such a tax could signal to entrepreneurs and investors that Rhode Island is “business unfriendly.” They contend that higher income taxes might discourage business investment and hiring, harming the state’s long-term economic prospects.

Some opponents cite Connecticut’s experience in the early 2010s, when a handful of wealthy taxpayers reportedly relocated after tax hikes, resulting in noticeable revenue loss. Given that a small number of high earners contribute a significant share of state income tax revenue, even limited outmigration could have an outsized fiscal impact, critics argue.

Skeptics also question whether new revenue will be reliably dedicated to education, infrastructure, and social programs. They point out that in the past, even funds placed in restricted accounts were sometimes redirected to fill budget shortfalls.

Aging Programs and Services at a Crossroads

“Rhode Island stands at a crossroads,” warns Carol Anne Costa, Executive Director of the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island (SACRI). With a projected $220 million deficit and potential federal cuts to programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and services provided by the Office of Healthy Aging, Costa insists that passing HB 5473 and S. 329 is essential to preserve and expand supports for older adults and people with disabilities.

“Most of our state’s older residents are not wealthy,” Costa notes, citing Census data showing that one in four older households earns less than $25,000 annually, and 45% earn less than $50,000. Only about 8% of older households earn more than $200,000.

In FY 2023, 27,535 Rhode Islanders aged 65 and older were enrolled in Medicaid, which funds the majority of long-term services not covered by Medicare. In addition, 14% of older adults in the state relied on SNAP benefits to help cover food costs.

Costa argues that revenue from the proposed surtax could ensure continued funding for these essential programs and expand the Medicare Savings Program. Such an expansion could save low-income seniors and adults with disabilities up to $185 per month in Medicare Part B premiums—money they need for food, housing, and transportation.

While critics warn of wealthy residents fleeing Rhode Island if taxes increase, Costa cites a comprehensive report by the Economic Progress Institute refuting this claim. “In fact, the data suggests the opposite,” she says. “Higher-income tax filers are moving into Rhode Island more than they are leaving.”

Costa also points to Massachusetts as a real-world example. After voters approved a 4% surtax on income over $1 million in 2022, the number of Massachusetts residents with a net worth over $1 million increased from 441,610 to 612,109 by 2024, according to an April report from the Institute for Policy Studies and the State Revenue Alliance.

Business Community Pushes Back

At the House Finance Committee hearing, Laurie White, President of the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, voiced strong opposition to the proposed tax.

“Our views reflect those of thousands of local businesses statewide,” she said. “Rhode Island is already in fierce competition with neighboring states to attract and retain businesses, residents, and talent.”

White warned that the surtax would send the wrong message, particularly as Rhode Island invests in high-wage sectors like life sciences and technology. “Tax burden is a key factor in business decisions, and an increase in personal income tax would significantly reduce Rhode Island’s appeal,” she stated.

House GOP Minority Leader Michael W. Chippendale (R-Dist. 40, Coventry, Foster, Gloucester) echoed White’s sentiments: “Taxing people who have worked hard and become prosperous is an insult to the American dream. We shouldn’t be punishing success—we should be creating an economic environment where everyone can thrive. Driving away high-income residents with more taxes is backward thinking.”

Chief of Staff Sue Stenhouse confirmed that the entire 10-member House Republican caucus stands united in opposition to the surtax.

The Washington, DC-based Tax Foundation also weighed in. In written testimony on S. 329, Senior Policy & Research Manager Katherine Loughead stated that if the surtax were enacted, Rhode Island would move from having the 14th-highest to the 8th-highest top marginal state income tax rate in the nation—excluding the District of Columbia. She warned that this could make Rhode Island less attractive to high-income earners than even Massachusetts.

So What’s Next?

Costa maintains that taxing the wealthiest residents may be both a necessary and viable solution to protect the state’s safety net amid budget shortfalls and looming federal cuts.

However, with HB 5473 and S. 329 still being held for further study, it remains unclear whether they will be included in the final state budget.

“As we approach the final weeks of the session, there is no shortage of meritorious proposals that affect state resources,” said House Speaker Joseph Shekarchi (D-Dist. 23, Warwick). “The uncertainty of the federal funding picture and the numerous holes in the Governor’s proposed budget complicate both balancing this year’s budget and planning for the unknown. I continue to keep many options on the table for this challenging task.”

Stay tuned—SACRI and other aging advocacy groups are watching closely to see what options will be considered by the House Speaker when he releases FY 2026 state budget to address funding for programs and services that support Rhode Island’s growing older population in this difficult fiscal year.

To read submitted emails and testimony on S. 329, go to https://www.rilegislature.gov/senators/SenateComDocs/Pages/Finance%202025.aspx.

To read written testimony submitted on HB 5473, go to https://www.rilegislature.gov/Special/comdoc/Pages/House%20Finance%202025.aspx.

Rhode Island Lawmakers Poised to Give Retirees Financial Tax Relief

Published in Woonsocket Call on May 31, 2015

During the 2014 legislation session, Rep. Robert E. Craven, (District 32) introduced and successfully pushed for passage in the General Assembly. This legislative proposal would ultimately being signed into law by the Governor. Little did the North Kingston law maker realize that door knocking to get reelected in last November’s election would give him an issue to tackle on Smith Hill this year.

At hundreds of homes, he heard the same issue from his older constituents. One such comment was etched sharply in Craven’s memory: “You’re a nice guy, buy I am not going to vote for you because I am leaving the state, the older voter told him. The puzzled lawmaker asked “why?” The response, “We decided the state is so expensive to live in because of taxes we’re going to sell our house and move to Florida. Wanting the specifics, Craven asked, what specific tax bothers you? “We are only of a few states that tax social security benefits, that’s the straw that broke the camel’s back,” said the older voter.

Craven’s legislative proposal, H 5000, was heard Wednesday night before the House Finance Committee. Strongly supported by House leadership, he says, the legislation would ease the tax burdens on Rhode Island retirees by exempting them from paying state income tax all Social Security benefits as well as income received from federal, state and local government retirement plans, disability benefits, military pensions and private pension plans and deferred-compensation plans.

Among its more than 40 co-sponsors are Rep. Stephen M. Casey (D-Dist. 50, Woonsocket), Rep. Michael A. Morin (D-Dist. 49, Woonsocket), Rep. Samuel A. Azzinaro (D-Dist. 37, Westerly) and Rep. Cale P. Keable (D-Dist. 47, Burrillville, Glocester).

If enacted, Rhode Island would join 27 other states – including Massachusetts and Maine – and the District of Columbia that specifically exempt Social Security income from taxation. (Although Rhode Island does not specifically tax Social Security benefits, that income is identified on federal tax returns. Since Rhode Island’s income tax is based on the federal adjusted gross income of federal tax form filers, the end result is that Rhode Island generates a portion of its income tax collections from Social Security benefits.)

According to Craven, his legislative proposal would financially benefit Rhode Island seniors who receive retirement benefits. ”After paying into the Social Security system their entire working lives, or putting a little money away into private pension plans, or working at jobs that provide them with a pension, it doesn’t seem right that retirees are having taxes eat away at benefits they depend on for their very livelihood,” he says.

“Retirees living on a fixed income are probably more severely impacted by taxes and tax increases than other population groups,” observes Craven. “If we are committed to helping retirees have a safe and secure life in their later years, and if we want to help seniors afford to stay in Rhode Island rather than moving to more tax-friendly locations, we need to ease their financial burdens. Exempting retirement income from the state income tax is one step we should take,” he adds.

Tax Exemption in House Budget

Weaving its way through the legislative process Craven ultimately expects his legislative proposal to be modified to not give older tax payers a complete exemption on paying taxes for their social security income. Specifically, the revised language would say, “If your house hold income is under $100,000 or less than your Social Security is tax exempt from state income taxation.”

While a Senate companion measure has been introduced by Senator Walter S. Felag, Jr., representing Bristol, Tiverton and Warren, an amended H 5000 will be placed in the House Budget because of its cost, says Craven.

The price tag could be between $30 and $35 million, Craven says, noting that better than expected revenues enable it to be funded. “It’s a priority to the state’s economic recovery, he says.

Older retirees, making from $35,000 to $100,000, from Social security and their pensions, will just put their dollars in the local economy, adds Craven. “It’s a good investment and we owe it to them. These retirees have been here all their lives, he says, noting that they ask very little for benefits from municipalities. “They have a lot of time on their hands to volunteer [in their communities] and are very philanthropically included in offering money and services to charities.”

Says House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, “Representative Craven’s bill to exempt the state tax on Social Security will be included as part of the budget that the House Finance Committee will be considering within the next few weeks. Governor Raimondo included this exemption for low-wage earners in her original budget proposal, but the House will be broadening it to assist the middle-class retirees as well. The House budget exempts retirees, age 65 and over, who have income thresholds of up to $80,000 for individuals and $100,000 for joint tax filers.”

“We believe that by incorporating Rep. Craven’s bill into the budget, this will begin to stop the exodus of retirees leaving Rhode Island for many other states where there is no state tax on Social Security benefits,” adds Mattiello.

Gov. Gina M. Raimondo sees Social Security is a key source of income for older Rhode Islanders, noting that her submitted March budget proposal eliminates state taxes on Social Security benefits for low and middle income seniors “to help them make ends meet and stimulate our economy.”
With Rhode Island unions hit hard by the state’s recent pension reform, Craven’s proposal has received thumbs up from some.

James Parisi, field representative and lobbyist for the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals, says his union supports Craven’s legislative proposal. “Unlike some other tax cut proposals introduced this session, his bill includes state and local government pension benefits. About half of the state’s teachers were never eligible to participate in social security so any tax cut proposal that is limited exclusively to social security benefits would be unfair to thousands of retired public school teachers,” he says.

Jim Cenerini, a lobbyist for Council 94, AFSCME also says his union is squarely behind H 5000. “Council 94 believes that legislation deserves careful consideration and support because: many other states provide some type of income tax exemption to retirement benefits/Social Security; in 2014 Kiplinger ranked Rhode Island as one the least tax friendly states for retirees; and since a significant majority of public employees remain in Rhode Island, and contribute to our local economy by spending on goods and services, it’s important to provide an incentive to remain in-state.”

A Final Note…
Other legislation proposals have also been thrown into the legislative hopper this session to protect older taxpayers. H 5446, introduced by Woonsocket law maker Rep. Stephen M. Casey, would protect the pocket books of retired teachers who are receiving a pension from Massachusetts. “These retirees, whose pension are overseen by Massachusetts Teachers Retirement System, are essentially double taxed because of the state’s tax code,” he says.

On Friday, May 29, the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC) issued a report noting that the state may have significantly more funds available in fiscal 2015 and 2016 than anticipated when Gov. Raimondo submitted her budget in March. Specifically, state revenues are expected to be up by $106.8 million this year and $36.6 million next year, with additional funds available from expenditure reductions.

For this writer, its sound public policy to use some of the anticipated surplus identified in RIPEC’s report to enact H 5000 and H 5446 to lessen the tax burdens of Rhode Island’s retirees. As mentioned earlier, older taxpayers pull less resources from their cities and towns. But, most important, these retirees have greatly contributed to the quality of life in their communities throughout their working years.

Herb Weiss, LRI ’12, is a Pawtucket-based writer covering aging, health care and medical issues. He can be reached at hweissri@aol.com.