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

By Herb Weiss, contributing writer on aging issues

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

House Bill 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:

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.

___

To read more articles by Herb Weiss, go to: https://rinewstoday.com/herb-weiss/

Herb Weiss, LRI ‘12, is a Pawtucket-based writer who has covered aging, healthcare, and medical issues for over 45 years. To purchase his books, Taking Charge: Collected Stories on Aging Boldly and its two sequels, visit herbweiss.com.