ters,” said Sen. Mike Rodrigues (D-Westport), Chair of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. “The bill also allocates $134 million to the Medical Assistance Trust Fund, with the remaining $189 million to responsible bill-paying obligations across a broad range of state agencies and programs. We’re fortunate that the commonwealth is in strong fi nancial condition to meet these responsibilities, never more important than now in these continuing uncertain times.” “My primary reason for voting no on this supplemental budget is that it includes a policy initiative allowing electric utility providers to increase rates to seemingly expand electric charging stations, and does so without requiring a response from the Department of Public Utility which oversees these rate hikes,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton). “When the fi nal bill is negotiated, I hope this is removed, thus allowing me to support it. Rate payers are being hit every which way, and I simply will not support more cost increases on families for higher electric rates, or subsidies for electric vehicle infrastructure when the market doesn’t support it.” (A “Yes” vote is for the $532 million supplemental budget. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Lydia Edwards Yes UTILITY RATE INCREASES (S 2529) Senate 6-33, rejected an amendment that would strike a section of the supplemental budget that would allow any rate increases proposed by utility companies to take eff ect in 60 days, if the proposed increase is not reviewed and acted upon by the Department of Public Utilities (DPU). Co-sponsor of the amendment to strike the section, Sen. Kelley Dooner (D-Taunton), said it is not good government for rate hikes to take effect without a full review by DPU and that this would undermine regulatory oversight and expose ratepayers once again to even higher increases. She argued that the Senate should be strengthening oversight, not making it easier for utilities to raise their rates behind closed doors. “An increase in utility rates for the purpose of expanding electric charging stations at a time when families in the commonwealth are struggling to pay utility bills at their current rates is detrimental and unnecessary,” said amendment co-sponsor Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) who voted to strike the section. Sen. Mike Barrett (D-LexingTHE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2025 “Massachusetts is an outliPage 17 ton), the chief opponent of the amendment, did not respond to several e-mails from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him why he opposed the amendment. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment that would prohibit the increase from taking effect without DPU approval. A “No” vote is for allowing the rate increase to take eff ect without DPU approval.) Sen. Lydia Edwards No ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL COALITION TO REFORM OUR LEGISLATURE — The Coalition to Reform Our Legislature (CROL) held an event at Church on the Hill across the street from the Statehouse and urged the Legislature to pass two bills the group has fi led. CROL defi nes itself as a bipartisan coalition of citizens working to make the Massachusetts Legislature “more eff ective, accountable and transparent.” The event, billed as “The People’s Hearing,” featured several speakers including the group’s co-founder Jeanne Kempthorne, former Massachusetts Democratic State Rep. and U.S. Congress member Barney Frank, former Democratic State Rep. Jonathan Hecht, the GOP fi nance chair Jennifer Nassour, Sierra Club Director Vickash Mohanka, Republican party chair Amy Carnavale and James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University Danielle Allen. The fi rst proposal (H 3892) would establish an independent Offi ce of Legislative Research and an Offi ce of Fiscal Analysis. The Offi ce of Legislative Research would assist legislators and committees on all matters requiring policy analysis, comparative legal analysis, statistical research and fact-fi nding in connection with legislation or other matters pertaining to the functions of the Legislature as well as assist with bill-drafting upon request by any representative or senator. The Office of Fiscal Analysis would prepare tax revenue and expenditure forecasts and reviews and analyze the fi scal impact of proposed legislation. er,” said Kempthorne. “Nearly all states have nonpartisan research and analysis capacity to encourage better bill drafting, analysis and decision making. The absence of that capacity here helps account for our Legislature’s poor performance.” The second proposal (HD 4303) would make major changes to the current legislative pay stipend system under which all 40 senators and 108 of 160 representatives receive an additional stipend, above their $82,046 base salary, for their positions in the Democratic and Republican leadership, as committee chairs, vice chairs and the ranking Republican on some committees. The current Senate stipends range from $30,207 to $119,631 while the House ones range from $7,776. to $119,631. All of the positions are appointed by either the Senate President, House Speaker, Senate Minority Leader or House Minority Leader. The bill would change the range of the stipends for representatives and senators to a new range of $16,409 to $61,533. It would also reduce the number of legislators who receive stipends. CORL cites other changes it proposes in the stipend system including only providing stipends for positions that involve significant work; condition stipends for committee chairs on their bringing all bills to their full committees for public debate, markup and a public vote; give stipends for leadership and Ways and Means positions only if the committee chairs meet those conditions described above; and provide a new stipend to all committee members for the signifi cant work of participating in public debates and mark-ups. Supporters of the bill say that the current system gives leadership extraordinary control over legislators’ pay. They say that their new bill would replace the current system with a less costly and less leadershipcontrolled stipend system that rewards performance, rather than loyalty. “In no other state are so many legislators dependent on their chamber leader for a large share of their pay,” said BHRC | SEE Page 18 RMD’S FOR 401(K) PLANS W hen must you begin taking Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) from a 401(k) plan? You must begin taking RMDs from a 401(k) plan in the year you reach age 73 if you have retired and simply left the 401(k) plan account open. This is no diff erent than for a Traditional IRA account. You can wait until April 15th following the year in which you turn 73 to take your fi rst RMD distribution. However, if you do that, you will be doubling up on the RMD distribution. In other words, you will have to take two RMD distributions during that calendar year. However, if you are still working and you are an active participant in the employer’s 401(k) plan, you do not have to take any RMDs from that 401(k) plan until you actually retire. Upon retirement, it might then make sense to roll over any and all 401(k) plans or 403(b) plans into a Rollover IRA account in order to simplify the management of these retirement accounts, avoid overlap in portfolio positions and also to reduce the burdensome paperwork. Furthermore, you eliminate the risk of certain restrictions found in the 401(k) plan document regarding distributions to beneficiaries in the event of your death. The RMD is based upon the account value as of December 31st in the year prior to you reaching age 73. You look to the IRA life expectancy table pursuant to IRS publication 590-B in order to determine the number of years to divide the December 31st balance by. If, for example, the balance in your 401(k) plan or Rollover IRA plan on December 31, 2024 was $1,500,000, and you turned 73 in calendar year 2025, you would divide the $1,500,000 by 26.5 years to arrive at an RMD of $56,604 for calendar year 2025. If you were still working and the only existing retirement account was your 401(k) plan at your current employer, no RMD would have to be taken until you retire. You can work until any age and still not be required to take an RMD. If you name a spouse as the beneficiary of your 401(k) plan, he or she can establish a benefi ciary 401(k) account and then roll it over to his or her Rollover IRA account. Your surviving spouse can then withdraw RMDs based upon his or her own life expectancy. When it comes to children beneficiaries, the “stretch” IRA option has been eliminated under the SECURE Act. Children, prior to the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017, could roll the 401(k) monies into a Rollover IRA account and stretch the RMDs over their lifetime. This resulted in tremendous tax effi - ciency and the opportunity to grow the investment account further. Under the SECURE Act, children must now withdraw the account in full by the end of the 10th year following the year of the 401(k) owner’s death. This also applies to Traditional IRA accounts. The tax implications to the children are signifi cant and cannot be overlooked. Joseph D. Cataldo is an Estate Planning/Elder Law Attorney, Certifi ed Public Accountant, Certifi ed Financial Planner, AICPA Personal Financial Specialist and holds a Master’s Degree in Taxation.
18 Publizr Home