Connect with us

Rhode Island

Hasbro HQ vs. RIPTA funding: What’s at stake under a potential tax on R.I.’s top earners • Rhode Island Current

Published

on

Hasbro HQ vs. RIPTA funding: What’s at stake under a potential tax on R.I.’s top earners • Rhode Island Current


While Gov. Dan McKee pledged to not raise taxes during his 2025 State of the State address, a crowd of progressive advocates gathered a floor below him rallied for higher taxes on the state’s top earners.

The perennial push to bring a millionaire’s tax to Rhode Island got off to an earlier and more fiery beginning than usual this year. Not surprising, given what’s at stake on both sides of the debate.

To proponents, the tax policy offers a crucial way to boost state revenues, staving off cuts to social services, public transit and health care amid projections of a $223 million structural deficit for the fiscal year that starts July 1. Legislation proposing an extra tax on the top 1% of state earners is slated to be introduced in both chambers this week.

Equally stalwart in their opposition, naysayers insist the tax will cause employers and wealthy residents to seek tax-friendlier pastures.

Advertisement

Including Hasbro Inc. The Pawtucket-based toy and gaming empire is considering a move to Massachusetts, citing the stronger talent pool and access to amenities that Rhode Island lacks.

The absence of a millionaire’s tax, though, is one way the Ocean State can still compete against its northern neighbor, which began a 4% surtax on income over $1 million in 2023.

“It’s a competitive advantage,” House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi said, speaking to reporters after Gov. Dan McKee’s State of the State address on Jan. 14. “I think the governor is using that to keep Hasbro and the Hasbro workers in Rhode Island.”

Hasbro did not return multiple inquiries for comment. Company executives have never mentioned state income taxes in publicly released emails or investors’ calls regarding potential relocation plans.

But it’s clear to Laurie White that the company’s calculus on whether to stay or go hinges on costs associated with doing business — including income taxes.

Advertisement

“It’s about two things: access to talent and the cost structure,” White, president of the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, said in an interview. “We can’t compete 1-to-1 with Massachusetts on the talent basis. But on taxes, that’s a consideration.”

A sign directing residents to where they can pay tax bills is seen within Providence City Hall. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current)

Rhode Island lacks the appeal of states like New Hampshire or Florida, which don’t tax personal income at all. But it managed to edge out Massachusetts for the first time in a decade last year, in a ranking of state business tax climates by the Tax Foundation.

Rhode Island ranked 41st among states with the most business-friendly tax policies, while Massachusetts fell to 46th. The report cited Massachusetts’ millionaire’s tax as a key reason for its lower ranking compared with past years.

“We do not want to lose that momentum,” Olivia DaRocha, a spokesperson for McKee, said in an email. She also raised an oft-cited argument among opponents of wealth taxes: that states that raise taxes see their top-earners move elsewhere.

A separate Jan. 7 analysis by the Tax Foundation linked lower state income taxes to where people moved within the United States in fiscal year 2024.

Advertisement

The Commonwealth saw the sixth-largest net loss in residents in fiscal 2024, losing .39% of its population, based on an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Rhode Island’s population shrank ever-so-slightly, down .03%, according to the report.

“Rhode Island should learn a lesson from its neighbor to the north about targeting residents’ incomes,” Katherine Loughead, senior policy analyst and research manager for the Tax Foundation, said in an interview. “Rhode Island is already trending in the wrong direction. Outbound migration could be expected to get considerably worse if Rhode Island was to adopt a significant tax increase.”

Not so, according to Alan Krinsky, director of research and fiscal policy for The Economic Progress Institute, which has supported a Rhode Island millionaire’s tax. Ahead of a forthcoming Institute research paper on the “tax migration myth,” Krinsky poked holes in the Tax Foundation’s analysis.

For one thing, Massachusetts was already losing residents at a similar clip even before voters approved the millionaire’s tax. Also noteworthy to Krinsky are the sizes of population swings, which range from .65% loss in Hawaii to 1.26% gain in South Carolina.

“That’s hardly a mass exodus,” Krinsky said.

Advertisement
A new Tax Foundation analysis linked state income tax rates to where people moved in fiscal year 2024. (Courtesy of the Tax Foundation)

Meanwhile, other studies suggest taxes hold little sway over where people move. New York saw the number of millionaire households increase by 17,500 from 2020 to 2022, despite imposing a higher tax on income over $1.1 million during that time period, according to a December 2023 report by the Fiscal Policy Institute. Residents who earned over $850,000 a year were less likely to move out of state than people in lower-income brackets, the report found.

Loughead acknowledged that taxes are just one factor in a complex decision of where to move: cost-of-living, particularly housing costs, also plays an important role. New England overall has seen its population decline because of a higher median age and migration to southern states.

Fiscal and policy experts largely agree it’s too early to draw conclusions from Massachusetts’ tax on millionaires. Initial state estimates predicted a $2.2 billion revenue boost from the surtax in fiscal 2024. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue projected $2.4 billion revenue from the tax in fiscal 2026 budget projections, according to news reports.

Less abstract than future forecasts about revenue and population are the financial woes facing the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, hospitals, and social services. All the more reason, Krinsky said, to consider a surtax on top earners.

Rep. Karen Alzate, a Pawtucket Democrat, plans to introduce legislation this week calling for a 3% surtax on the top 1% of state earners. Preliminary number-crunching suggests that, if approved, the tax would bring in $190 million in revenue per year, affecting residents with net taxable income of $650,000 or more.

Alzate, who introduced similar, though not identical legislation last year, hoped the looming budget deficit might make previous critics take a fresh look at her proposal.

Advertisement

“This is the year to do it,” she said. “We are facing a real deficit and we cannot afford to cut social services and education.”

McKee’s initial fiscal 2026 spending plan did not include higher taxes on top earners. Senate President Dominick Ruggerio has already signaled his opposition. Shekarchi pledged to remain open to all ideas.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

Advertisement



Source link

Advertisement

Rhode Island

Medical school at URI won’t ensure primary care docs for RI | Opinion

Published

on

Medical school at URI won’t ensure primary care docs for RI | Opinion


play

Advertisement
  • Rhode Island is currently experiencing a significant shortage of primary care physicians.
  • Opening a new medical school at URI is not seen as a timely or effective solution to the crisis.
  • Even with more medical school graduates, there is no guarantee they will choose primary care or stay in the state.
  • Better solutions include increasing pay, offering loan repayment, and reducing administrative burdens for doctors.

The doctor is not in, and there’s not one on the way either. Many Rhode Islanders are well aware that the state is facing a harrowing shortage of primary care physicians. As native Rhode Islanders and physicians invested in quality accessible primary care for our community, we are dedicated to working towards policies to support our state.

A medical school at the University of Rhode Island is not the solution to solve the primary care crisis. A medical school at URI would not provide a timely solution, would likely not achieve the target outcome of increasing the number of primary care physicians in the state, and would likely not address the underlying issue of getting doctors to stay. Instead, resources should be allocated now to supporting primary care in ways that would make sustainable change.

Lack of access to primary care is hurting patients now. A medical school at URI would not be a short- or long-term solution. In addition to the time needed to engineer an accredited medical school, it takes seven years to produce an inexperienced primary care physician. Once trained, there still must be an incentive to stay in Rhode Island. Patients do not have access to necessary care for acute and chronic conditions. The burden on our health care system, impacting ER wait times and hospital capacity, impacts everyone. We cannot afford to wait another decade for a solution.

More physicians does not equal more physicians in primary care or in Rhode Island. If the aim is to produce more physicians from URI’s medical school, this will certainly occur, but we should not delude ourselves into believing it will fix primary care. It’s not due to lack of opportunities. In 2019, the National Resident Matching Program offered a record number of primary care positions, yet the percentage filled by students graduating from MD-granting medical schools in the United States was a new low. Of 8,116 internal medical positions that were offered, just 41.5% were filled by U.S. students; most residency spots went to foreign-trained and U.S.-trained osteopathic physicians.

As medical schools across the country look to debt reduction as a means of encouraging students to enter primary care specialties, their goals have fallen far short. In 2018, The New York University School of Medicine offered full-tuition scholarships to every medical student, regardless of merit or need. In 2024, only 14% of NYU’s graduating seniors entered primary care, lower than the national average of 30%.

Advertisement

There must be an incentive to stay in Rhode Island (or at least not a disadvantage). Our efforts must shift to recruiting and maintaining physicians in primary care. Inequitable reimbursement from commercial insurers between Rhode Island and neighboring states (leading to significantly lower salaries than if you lived here and traveled to Attleboro to care for patients), the lack of loan repayment(average medical student debt is $250,000, forcing the choice between meaning and money), and the ongoing administrative burdens are amongst the drivers away from primary care. Rhode Island needs to get on par with surrounding states to prevent physicians from going elsewhere.

The motivations behind opening a medical school are well intended in terms of wanting to increase the number of primary care providers by enabling local talent to train close to home. Training more people in Rhode Island will not keep them here; it will invest significant resources without addressing the root of the issue. Until there are comparable salaries between Rhode Island and our neighbors, until loan repayment is improved and the administrative burdens are reduced, primary care in the state will forever be fighting an uphill battle. Both providers and patients suffer the consequences.

Dr. Kelly McGarry is the director of the General Internal Medicine Residency at Rhode Island Hospital. Dr. Maria Iannotti is a first-year resident, a Rhode Islander intent on practicing primary care in Rhode Island.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Rhode Island

Truckers ordered to pay own legal bills from failed RI toll lawsuit

Published

on

Truckers ordered to pay own legal bills from failed RI toll lawsuit


play

The trucking industry will have to pay its own legal bills for the unsuccessful eight-year-old lawsuit it brought to stop Rhode Island’s truck toll system, a federal judge ruled Friday, March 27.

The American Trucking Associations was seeking $21 million in attorneys fees and other costs from the state, but a decision from U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. says the truckers lost the case and will have to pick up the tab.

Advertisement

The state had previously filed a counterclaim for reimbursement of $9 million in legal bills, but an earlier recommendation from U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan had already thrown cold water on that possibility.

McConnell ordered American Trucking Associations to pay Rhode Island $199,281, a tiny fraction of the amount the state spent defending the network of tolls on tractor trailers.

Settling the lawyer tab may finally bring an end to a court fight that bounced back and forth through the federal judiciary since the toll system launched and the truckers brought suit in 2018.

As it stands, the state’s truck toll network has been mothballed since 2022 when a since-overturned judge’s ruling temporarily ruled it unconstitutional.

Advertisement

The Rhode Island Department of Transportation said it hopes to relaunch the tolls around March 2027.

The court costs fight hinged on which side could claim legal “prevailing party” status as the winner of the lawsuit.

The trucking industry claimed that it had won because the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled an in-state trucker discount mechanism, known as caps, in the original truck toll system was unconstitutional.

But Rhode Island argued that it is the winner because the appeals court had ruled that the larger system and broad concept of truck tolls is constitutional and can relaunch with the discounts stripped out.

“The Court determines that ATA has vastly overstated the benefit, if any, that they have received from the ultimate resolution of their challenge to the RhodeWorks program,” McConnell wrote.

Advertisement

The truckers “failed to obtain any practical benefit from the First Circuit’s severance of the [in-state toll] caps,” he went on. “Specifically, the evidence from this dispute confirmed that the lack of daily caps will result in ATA paying a higher amount in daily tolls and that it does not receive any tangible financial benefit from their elimination.”

In her December analysis of the legal fees question, Sullivan had concluded that the Trucking Associations’ outside counsel had overbilled and overstaffed the case.

But she had recommended that the industry be reimbursed $2.7 million for its bills, while McConnell’s ruling gives it nothing.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Rhode Island

Think you’re middle class in Rhode Island? Here’s the income range

Published

on

Think you’re middle class in Rhode Island? Here’s the income range


play

Your household can earn more than $160,000 a year and still be considered part of the “middle class” in Rhode Island, according to a recent study by SmartAsset.

Rhode Island is the state with the 17th-highest income range for households to be considered middle class, based on SmartAsset’s analysis using 2024 income data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The Pew Research Center defines the middle class as households earning roughly two-thirds to twice the national median household income.

Advertisement

According to a 2022 Gallup survey, about half of U.S. adults consider themselves middle class, with 38% identifying as “middle class” and 14% as “upper-middle class.” Higher-income Americans and college graduates were most likely to identify with the “middle class” or “upper-middle class,” while lower-income Americans and those without a college education generally identified as “working class” or “lower class.”

Here’s how much money your household would need to bring in annually to be considered middle class in Rhode Island.

How much money would you need to make to be considered middle class in RI?

In Rhode Island, households would need to earn between $55,669 and $167,008 annually to be considered middle class, according to SmartAsset. The Ocean State has the 17th-highest income range in the country for middle-class households.

The state’s median household income is $83,504.

Advertisement

How do other New England states compare?

Rhode Island has the fourth-highest income range for middle-class households in New England. Here’s what households would have to earn in neighboring states:

  1. Massachusetts (#1 nationally) – $69,885 to $209,656 annually; median household income of $104,828
  2. New Hampshire (#6 nationally) – $66,521 to $199,564 annually; median household income of $99,782
  3. Connecticut (#10 nationally) – $64,033 to $192,098 annually; median household income of $96,049
  4. Rhode Island (#17 nationally) – $55,669 to $167,008 annually; median household income of $83,504
  5. Vermont (#19 nationally) – $55,153 to $165,460 annually; median household income of $82,730
  6. Maine (#30 nationally) – $50,961 to $152,884 annually; median household income of $76,442

Which state has the highest middle-class income range?

Massachusetts ranks as the state with the highest income range to be considered middle class, according to SmartAsset. Households there would need to earn between $69,900 and $209,656 annually. The state’s median household income is $104,828.

Which state has the lowest middle-class income range?

Mississippi ranks last for the income range needed to be considered middle class, according to SmartAsset. Households there would need to earn between $39,418 and $118,254 annually. The state’s median household income is $59,127.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending