Recent comments in /f/RhodeIsland

degggendorf t1_j4v9ae2 wrote

If it were up to me, I'd add more sales tax tiers.

Unlike us, CT does normally charge sales tax on clothing but has an annual back-to-school season tax-free week, where clothing under $50/item is tax free. I think it would make perfect sense for us to implement something similar. Instead of all clothing being tax-free all the time, only charge sales tax on individual items over $50 or $100 or something. I see no reason why we need to subsidize higher-end clothing.

Similarly, RI charges the same tax rate on all vehicles but CT has a higher bracket for vehicles over $50,000 (7.75% vs their normal 6.35%). Maybe that dollar limit should be bumped up a bit more for 2023, but I like the idea. No reason the $100,000 Mercedes buyer can't pay a bit more tax. I'd be tempted to add another tier for <$30,000 vehicles to pay lower than normal tax too.

Beyond that, we already have the mechanism in the grocery store that defines what foods are SNAP eligible...the foods that are generally good things to eat. Why not tax the non-SNAP "not good" foods too?

7

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j4v975d wrote

Except no? The constitution doesn’t get amended with the intention of it being temporary. The 16th amendment could not be clearer.

And no, taxation is not the largest expense. As someone else pointed out, nearly half the country pays little to income tax. For the bulk of the middle class and even the upper class, it is maybe 25-30% of income.

2

Pleasant-Champion-14 t1_j4v7yxt wrote

Jesse Smith library in Burrillville is a beautiful space overlooking a river, and there is a nearby waterfall and park. They have lots of children's activities too.

2

johnsonutah t1_j4v4nr2 wrote

FL prices have gone up lot in desirable areas. And desirability is no longer dictated solely on proximity to the beach. Miami is a great example of this (Miami is much or than south beach or even brickell, but the entire geographic region is much much more expensive than it was circa 2012)

2

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j4v3yja wrote

Lol, america isn’t even close to one of the most taxed nations on earth and we’ve got the inferiority in quality of life ratings to prove it. There’s no polite way to say this so I won’t dance around it: you don’t know what you’re talking about.

5

wenestvedt t1_j4v3qdw wrote

> Why even bother lowering the sales tax rate? I'm certainly not going to notice saving 0.15%, but the state will feel the hit in aggregate.

I believe there is an expectation that some shoppers went to Mass. for a lower rate, and that those shoppers will come back to RI when the rates match. The tax rate would be lower, but an overall increase in shopping tranactions should ultimately boost the annual total taxes collected.

But that's just my guess. &#42;shrug&#42;

6

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j4v3cjc wrote

I think “we’re going to reduce the litter tax” really misses the mark on just how little revenue that accounted for. Most businesses are paying $100 or less for it.

It seems disingenuous to say “some litter exists, ergo the state does nothing about litter”

2

barsoapguy t1_j4v3ac7 wrote

I mean if you’re going to Live on Aquidneck Island that’s not a terrible location. You can walk to island cinema ,McDonald’s, Walmart . The bridge is just a short drive and most importantly of all, there’s a bus route right on the main road that takes you to the heart of Newport. In tourist season they want 20 dollars to park your car anywhere,not to mention THE HORRIFIC TRAFFIC

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j4v2285 wrote

It’s something that offers no tangible benefit to a person. Even a fairly affluent household that’s spending $100,000 a year on taxable goods and services is saving $150 over the course of a year. And that’s for the super rich, most people don’t spend close to that much.

I’d rather keep the sales tax where it is and let some of the revenue burden by shared by the 25 million or so tourists who come here every year.

14