glennjersey t1_j84zlet wrote
Reply to comment by beerspeaks in Push to boost RI minimum wage loses steam as public's interest is pulled to housing crisis by cowperthwaite
Dont worry, our esteemed state legislature will manage to raise taxes and further restrict gun rights in the state before the session is over, but do nothing about minimum wage or the housing crisis.
Though I think I saw a GOP proposal to drop the sales tax a bit at least, so there's that.
[deleted] t1_j856o1h wrote
[removed]
glennjersey t1_j85ojf0 wrote
We wouldn't have to be of the legislature could go a single session without trying to attack gun rights.
I've already read all the proposed legislation in that area so far, but haven't seen anything to attack the housing crisis. Is it wrong of me to make note of that to the rest of the taxpayers and voters ITT so they k ow what they're wasting time on instead?
whatifionlydo1 t1_j857i1g wrote
Go move to NH, you hate taxes so much.
lestermagnum t1_j85hz0e wrote
The Democratic Governor proposed lowing the sales tax.
cowperthwaite OP t1_j85j8bh wrote
There was a bit of a kerfuffle over the proposal, after the numbers that households are supposed to save were found to be flubbed.
Story requires a subscription.
>Gov. Dan McKee sparked the debate by proposing to cut the 7% sales tax to 6.85%, which would reduce the tax bite on a $1,000 item from the current $70 down to $68.50, and on a $100 item from the current $7 to $6.85.
Kerfuffle:
>Citing the average of $77 in annual savings that McKee's budget team originally projected for each state household were his proposal to pass, de la Cruz said a household would have to purchase $51,500 in taxable items to see a savings of that magnitude.
>Asked for comment on the minority leader's comments, a spokesman for the Department of Administration acknowledged an error in the numbers originally provided to the media.
>He said the proposed reduction in the sales tax rate from 7% to 6.85% would, on an annual basis, result in approximately $39 in savings, on average per household and business. He said the original calculation neglected to take into account the fact that roughly half the svaings goes to households, and the other half to businesses.
deathsythe t1_j86lkpm wrote
This comment seems insincere, or why else would you deliberately be leaving out the fact that de la Cruz's response bill/proposal was to lower it even further to 5%. Seems like pertinent information, no?
lestermagnum t1_j86qrg5 wrote
Because I had no idea that de la Cruz had a proposal. A minority leader’s position isn’t as news worthy as the Governor’s, and I hadn’t heard about it.
deathsythe t1_j88yr4s wrote
You're not a journalist covering this, nor was this comment directed at you.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j8afy0w wrote
The detail you’re angry about being omitted is literally in the story. This is like getting mad at a waiter who won’t pre chew your food for you.
BigApple2247 t1_j86rgs0 wrote
I wonder how much is spent a year on average, $1.50 saved per $1K spent feels like changing pretty much nothing for the vast majority of people.
More of a move to say you changed something while really not changing it
glennjersey t1_j85o5sx wrote
To add to what OP cited below, de la Cruz's proposal was to lower it to 5% fwiw.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments