2022 State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index


Interactive: Evaluate Your State

Govt Abstract

The Tax Basis’s State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index permits enterprise leaders, authorities policymakers, and taxpayers to gauge how their states’ tax techniques evaluate. Whereas there are lots of methods to point out how a lot is collected in taxes by state governments, the Index is designed to point out how nicely states construction their tax techniques and gives a highway map for enchancment.

The ten finest states on this yr’s Index are:

  1. Wyoming
  2. South Dakota
  3. Alaska
  4. Florida
  5. Montana
  6. New Hampshire
  7. Nevada
  8. Tennessee
  9. Indiana
  10. Utah

The absence of a significant tax is a typical issue amongst most of the prime 10 states. Property taxes and unemployment insurance coverage taxes are levied in each state, however there are a number of states that do with out a number of of the most important taxes: the company earnings tax, the person earnings tax, or the gross sales tax. Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming don’t have any company or particular person earnings tax (although Nevada imposes gross receipts taxes); Alaska has no particular person earnings or state-level gross sales tax; Florida and Tennessee don’t have any particular person earnings tax; and New Hampshire and Montana don’t have any gross sales tax.

This doesn’t imply, nevertheless, {that a} state can’t rank within the prime 10 whereas nonetheless levying all the most important taxes. Indiana and Utah, for instance, levy the entire main tax sorts, however accomplish that with low charges on broad bases.

The ten lowest-ranked, or worst, states on this yr’s Index are:

  1. Hawaii
  2. Louisiana
  3. Vermont
  4. Arkansas
  5. Minnesota
  6. Maryland
  7. Connecticut
  8. California
  9. New York
  10. New Jersey

The states within the backside 10 are inclined to have quite a lot of afflictions in widespread: complicated, nonneutral taxes with comparatively excessive charges. New Jersey, for instance, is hampered by a number of the highest property tax burdens within the nation, has the best company earnings taxes and among the many highest particular person earnings taxes within the nation, has a very aggressive remedy of worldwide earnings, levies an inheritance tax, and maintains a number of the nation’s worst-structured particular person earnings taxes.

Desk 1. 2022 State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index Ranks and Element Tax Ranks
State Total Rank Company Tax Rank Particular person Earnings Tax Rank Gross sales Tax Rank Property Tax Rank Unemployment Insurance coverage Tax Rank
Alabama 39 17 27 50 19 18
Alaska 3 28 1 5 24 43
Arizona 23 23 18 40 11 11
Arkansas 44 30 39 45 27 33
California 48 46 49 47 14 23
Colorado 20 6 14 38 34 41
Connecticut 47 27 47 23 50 22
Delaware 16 50 44 2 4 3
Florida 4 7 1 21 12 2
Georgia 32 8 35 33 25 37
Hawaii 41 19 46 28 30 29
Idaho 17 29 20 9 3 47
Illinois 36 42 13 39 48 40
Indiana 9 11 15 19 1 25
Iowa 38 38 38 15 39 34
Kansas 24 21 22 27 31 16
Kentucky 18 15 17 13 21 49
Louisiana 42 34 34 48 23 5
Maine 33 35 23 8 41 35
Maryland 46 33 45 26 43 46
Massachusetts 34 36 11 12 45 50
Michigan 12 20 12 10 21 7
Minnesota 45 45 43 29 32 30
Mississippi 30 13 25 32 38 6
Missouri 13 3 21 25 8 4
Montana 5 22 24 3 29 19
Nebraska 35 32 29 14 40 13
Nevada 7 25 5 44 5 45
New Hampshire 6 41 9 1 46 44
New Jersey 50 48 48 43 44 32
New Mexico 28 12 36 41 2 8
New York 49 24 50 42 47 36
North Carolina 11 4 16 20 13 12
North Dakota 19 9 26 30 10 9
Ohio 37 40 41 35 6 10
Oklahoma 26 10 30 37 28 1
Oregon 22 49 42 4 17 39
Pennsylvania 29 44 19 17 15 21
Rhode Island 40 37 31 24 42 49
South Carolina 31 5 33 31 36 27
South Dakota 2 1 1 34 18 38
Tennessee 8 26 6 46 33 20
Texas 14 47 7 36 37 14
Utah 10 14 10 22 7 17
Vermont 43 43 40 16 49 15
Virginia 25 16 32 11 26 42
Washington 15 39 7 49 20 24
West Virginia 21 18 28 18 9 26
Wisconsin 27 31 37 7 16 28
Wyoming 1 1 1 6 35 31
District of Columbia 48 25 48 37 50 39

Be aware: A rank of 1 is finest, 50 is worst. Rankings don’t common to the full. States with no tax rank equally as 1. DC’s rating and rank don’t have an effect on different states. The report reveals tax techniques as of July 1, 2021 (the start of Fiscal 12 months 2022).

Supply: Tax Basis.

Notable Rating Modifications on this 12 months’s Index

Alabama

Alabama policymakers eradicated the state’s throwback rule—a fancy and uncompetitive company earnings tax provision that throws “nowhere” earnings again into the gross sales issue of the supply state—and decoupled from the World Intangible Low-Taxed Earnings (GILTI) provision, which, when included into state tax codes, results in state taxation of worldwide earnings. These important company adjustments drove a six-place enchancment in Alabama’s company earnings tax rating, and improved the state’s rating one place total, from fortieth to thirty ninth.

Arkansas

As part of ongoing reform efforts, Arkansas decreased each its particular person and company charges this yr. Inside the highest fee schedule, the highest fee for people lowered from 6.6 p.c to five.9 p.c, and the highest fee for companies dropped from 6.5 p.c to 6.2 p.c. These adjustments drove an enchancment of 4 locations within the company part and three locations within the particular person part, bringing Arkansas from forty sixth to forty fourth total.

California

Beforehand, California adopted the federal remedy of internet working losses (NOLs), permitting uncapped carryforwards for 20 years. Nevertheless, attributable to ill-placed coronavirus-related funds issues (the state posted a $76 billion surplus), the state has suspended NOLs utterly for firms with earnings over $1 million. That dramatically—if quickly—alters the state’s remedy of enterprise losses for the more severe, and makes it the one state with out NOLs, that are an integral a part of company earnings taxation. This main shift prompted the state’s company earnings tax rating to fall from twenty eighth to forty sixth, though California remained at 48th total.

Idaho

Idaho not too long ago enacted tax reforms that retroactively consolidated the state’s seven particular person earnings tax brackets into 5 and lowered the highest fee from 6.925 p.c to six.5 p.c starting in tax yr 2021. These adjustments improved the state’s particular person earnings tax rating by 4 locations and likewise yielded a four-place enchancment on its total rating, elevating the state from twenty first to seventeenth.

Illinois

Citing funds issues because of the pandemic, Illinois quickly modified its remedy of NOLs to be much less favorable towards companies, capping NOL carryforwards at $100,000 for tax years 2021 by means of 2024. This new remedy prompted the state’s company rating to drop 6 locations, though its total rating of thirty sixth is unaffected.

Iowa

As a part of the implementation of a bigger tax reform package deal, Iowa decreased its prime company earnings tax from 12 p.c to 9.8 p.c—paid for by means of the repeal of company federal deductibility—and eradicated its company different minimal tax. These reforms improved the state’s company rating by eight locations and resulted within the total rank bettering from forty first to thirty eighth.

Kansas

Kansas improved markedly, from thirty fourth to twenty fourth place total, attributable to important reforms to each its gross sales tax and company earnings tax. Following the Wayfair resolution, Kansas was the one state with no secure harbor for smaller distant sellers. In 2021, Kansas established a $100,000 threshold for distant sellers. Moreover, the state changed its restricted NOL regime with conformity to federal provisions and decoupled from GILTI, inflicting its company rank to enhance from thirty first to twenty first.

New Mexico

Legislators in New Mexico created a further particular person earnings tax bracket on earnings above $210,000, bringing the state’s prime fee from 4.9 p.c to five.9 p.c. This dramatic enhance prompted a 10-place drop within the state’s particular person earnings tax rating and dropped New Mexico’s total rank from twenty second to twenty eighth.

New York

New York was one of many uncommon states to lift taxes in 2021, citing income issues. Beforehand, New York levied a flat 6.5 p.c company earnings tax, however lawmakers created what’s functionally a second bracket with a 7.25 p.c fee for firms making over $5 million. The highest marginal particular person earnings tax fee, in the meantime, has risen from 8.82 p.c to 10.9 p.c. The legislature additionally reversed the phaseout of the state’s capital inventory tax, reinstating the tax at 0.1875 p.c, which lowered the state’s property tax rating by one place. Regardless of these adjustments, New York’s total rank remained at 49th.  

Oregon

Oregon’s decline from fifteenth to twenty second total rank stems from adjustments to its unemployment tax system, with larger minimal charges and a bigger taxable wage base, in addition to the implementation of latest municipal earnings taxes in Portland and enhancements in different states.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania made a spread of enhancements to its unemployment insurance coverage taxes. The Commonwealth used to levy a minimal tax fee of two.39 p.c, the best amongst states, however now levies a much more aggressive 1.29 p.c. These important adjustments helped yield an enchancment from thirty second to twenty ninth total.

Tennessee

This yr, Tennessee completed the phaseout of its Corridor Tax, which was levied solely on curiosity and dividends earnings, for the reason that state already elected to not tax wage earnings. With this variation, the one remaining vestiges of non-corporate earnings tax remedy is within the state’s remedy of S Firms and a low-rate gross receipts tax that applies to passthrough companies, bettering the state to sixth finest on the earnings tax part. When mixed with different states’ worsening remedy of unemployment insurance coverage, this variation introduced the state’s total rating from seventeenth to eighth.

Desk 2. State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index (2014–2022)
  2022 2021 2021-2022 Change Prior 12 months Ranks
State Rank Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Alabama 39 4.57 40 4.51 1 0.06 40 41 39 38 41 40 40
Alaska 3 7.28 3 7.29 0 -0.01 3 3 3 3 3 4 4
Arizona 23 5.1 24 5.10 1 0.00 23 24 24 24 24 26 27
Arkansas 44 4.42 46 4.31 2 0.11 44 46 43 43 46 44 42
California 48 3.59 48 3.83 0 -0.24 48 49 48 48 48 48 48
Colorado 20 5.23 20 5.21 0 0.02 21 19 21 22 22 23 23
Connecticut 47 4.08 47 4.11 0 -0.03 47 47 47 47 47 47 47
Delaware 16 5.32 16 5.35 0 -0.03 15 13 22 23 15 16 18
Florida 4 6.93 4 6.90 0 0.03 4 4 4 4 4 5 5
Georgia 32 4.97 31 4.97 -1 0.00 32 34 32 33 33 30 29
Hawaii 41 4.52 39 4.54 -2 -0.02 39 39 33 30 37 37 38
Idaho 17 5.28 21 5.21 4 0.07 20 21 19 19 19 18 16
Illinois 36 4.73 36 4.78 0 -0.05 36 36 29 26 29 38 35
Indiana 9 5.64 9 5.61 0 0.03 10 10 9 9 10 10 10
Iowa 38 4.62 41 4.51 3 0.11 45 45 46 46 45 45 45
Kansas 24 5.08 34 4.89 10 0.19 35 31 28 27 26 25 24
Kentucky 18 5.28 18 5.28 0 0.00 19 20 37 37 34 35 34
Louisiana 42 4.5 42 4.50 0 0.00 43 42 45 45 38 33 32
Maine 33 4.96 29 4.98 -4 -0.02 28 29 36 36 35 34 30
Maryland 46 4.28 44 4.44 -2 -0.16 41 40 41 41 40 39 39
Massachusetts 34 4.95 35 4.86 1 0.09 34 27 25 28 27 28 26
Michigan 12 5.58 13 5.54 1 0.04 12 14 13 13 13 12 11
Minnesota 45 4.35 45 4.39 0 -0.04 46 44 44 44 44 46 46
Mississippi 30 4.99 28 5.00 -2 -0.01 29 30 27 29 28 27 25
Missouri 13 5.57 11 5.56 -2 0.01 14 15 16 16 20 17 15
Montana 5 6.05 5 6.08 0 -0.03 5 5 6 6 6 6 6
Nebraska 35 4.93 33 4.93 -2 0.00 31 26 34 32 30 29 37
Nevada 7 5.95 7 5.95 0 0.00 7 6 5 5 5 3 3
New Hampshire 6 6.01 6 6.04 0 -0.03 6 7 7 7 7 7 8
New Jersey 50 3.34 50 3.41 0 -0.07 50 50 50 50 50 49 49
New Mexico 28 5.05 22 5.19 -6 -0.14 25 25 26 25 25 24 22
New York 49 3.58 49 3.79 0 -0.21 49 48 49 49 49 50 50
North Carolina 11 5.61 10 5.59 -1 0.02 11 11 10 12 12 11 31
North Dakota 19 5.24 19 5.23 0 0.01 17 16 18 18 18 20 20
Ohio 37 4.72 37 4.65 0 0.07 37 38 40 39 42 41 41
Oklahoma 26 5.07 26 5.09 0 -0.02 27 28 23 21 23 22 21
Oregon 22 5.15 15 5.38 -7 -0.23 8 9 11 10 9 9 9
Pennsylvania 29 5 32 4.95 3 0.05 33 35 36 31 36 36 36
Rhode Island 40 4.56 38 4.58 -2 -0.02 38 37 38 40 39 42 44
South Carolina 31 4.98 30 4.98 -1 0.00 30 32 31 34 31 32 28
South Dakota 2 7.49 2 7.44 0 0.05 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Tennessee 8 5.68 17 5.29 9 0.39 18 18 14 14 16 15 14
Texas 14 5.56 12 5.55 -2 0.01 13 12 12 11 11 13 12
Utah 10 5.64 8 5.62 -2 0.02 9 8 8 8 8 8 7
Vermont 43 4.43 43 4.45 0 -0.02 42 43 42 42 43 43 43
Virginia 25 5.08 25 5.10 0 -0.02 24 22 20 20 21 19 17
Washington 15 5.39 14 5.39 -1 0.00 16 17 15 15 14 14 13
West Virginia 21 5.19 23 5.17 2 0.02 22 23 17 17 17 21 19
Wisconsin 27 5.07 27 5.03 0 0.04 26 33 30 35 32 31 33
Wyoming 1 7.78 1 7.74 0 0.04 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
District of Columbia 48 3.86 48 3.95 0 -0.09 47 47 48 48 47 48 47

Be aware: A rank of 1 is finest, 50 is worst. All scores are for fiscal years. DC’s rating and rank don’t have an effect on different states.

Supply: Tax Basis.

Latest and Proposed Modifications Not Mirrored within the 2022 Index

Arizona

The governor’s funds, signed into regulation in June, contains quite a lot of substantial reforms to the state’s particular person earnings tax starting in tax yr 2022. The deliberate adjustments will assist restore the state’s aggressive standing within the wake of a not too long ago enacted poll measure elevating taxes on excessive earners. Voter-approved Proposition 208 created a 3.5 proportion level surcharge on taxable earnings exceeding $250,000 (single filers) to fund schooling, which might have created an 8 p.c prime tax fee. Senate Invoice 1827 established an earnings tax fee cap of 4.5 p.c when the overall charges and the surcharge are mixed.

Below Senate Invoice 1828, the 4 common fund charges shall be consolidated into one, and the charges shall be decreased over time. Particularly, the 4.5 p.c cap is efficient retroactive to January 1, 2021, that means Arizona’s charges for TY 2021 match the charges that have been in place earlier than Prop. 208 was adopted, though some income from the 4.5 p.c prime marginal fee will go to schooling whereas some will go to the overall fund.

In tax yr 2022, the 2 highest particular person earnings tax brackets shall be eradicated, and the 2 remaining charges shall be decreased from 3.34 to 2.98 p.c and from 2.59 to 2.55 p.c, respectively. If common fund revenues exceed specified benchmarks, the two.98 p.c fee will see future reductions, with an eventual purpose of two.5 p.c not counting the surcharge. These adjustments shall be mirrored in future editions of the Index.

Louisiana

Louisiana voters accepted Constitutional Modification 2, which units in movement a pro-growth tax package deal paid for by means of the elimination of particular person and company federal deductibility. Starting in tax yr 2022, every particular person earnings tax bracket will see fee reductions, with the highest fee reducing from 6 p.c to 4.25 p.c, nicely below the brand new constitutional cap of 4.75 p.c. The state’s 5 company earnings tax brackets shall be consolidated into three, with a discount within the prime fee from 8 to 7.5 p.c. The state’s capital inventory tax prime fee may also decrease from 0.3 p.c to 0.275 p.c, aiming for eventual repeal by means of tax triggers.

Missouri

Below a regulation adopted in 2014, tax triggers are at the moment in place to scale back the highest particular person earnings tax fee by one-tenth of a p.c per yr, topic to income availability, for a complete of 5 reductions. Senate Invoice 153, signed into regulation in June, builds on these reforms by permitting two further reductions, additionally topic to income triggers. If income circumstances are met, Missouri will see its prime particular person earnings tax fee decrease from 5.4 to five.3 p.c in tax yr 2022.

Montana

Montana adopted structural reforms to each its particular person and company earnings taxes this yr, however solely the person earnings tax will see a fee discount as of January 1, 2022. The highest marginal earnings tax fee shall be decreased from 6.9 to six.75 p.c that yr, and, in 2024, the seven brackets shall be consolidated into two with a prime fee of 6.5 p.c. Though the bottom fee will rise to 4.7 p.c in 2024, conforming to the federal normal deduction in 2025 will yield tax financial savings for lower-income taxpayers. This regulation additionally doubles the bracket widths for married filers, thereby eradicating the wedding penalty that at the moment exists within the state’s earnings tax code.

Nebraska

Legislative Invoice 432, signed into regulation in Could, will cut back Nebraska’s prime marginal company earnings tax fee from 7.81 p.c to 7.5 p.c on January 1, 2022, and to 7.25 p.c in January 2023. The regulation additionally expresses the intent of the Unicameral legislature to go further laws lowering the speed to 7 p.c for tax yr 2024 and to six.84 p.c for tax yr 2025, though these reductions are contingent upon additional legislative motion.

New Hampshire

At present, New Hampshire is the one state that doesn’t impose a tax on wage or wage earnings however does levy a tax on curiosity and dividend earnings. Starting in tax yr 2023, the state will part out this curiosity and dividends tax by one proportion level per yr till it’s absolutely repealed by 2027. In 2022, the state will cut back the Enterprise Income tax (BPT) from 7.7 to 7.6 p.c and the Enterprise Enterprise Tax (BET, a value-added tax) from 0.6 to 0.55 p.c.

Below earlier regulation, income triggers have been in place that would scale back the BPT and BET charges if sure circumstances have been met, however the set off design makes it unlikely that fee reductions would happen with out important income development. Those self same triggers may have even prompted fee will increase below sure circumstances. Latest reforms take away that set off in favor of decrease, legislatively decided charges.

Oklahoma

Three payments signed into regulation in late Could will cut back Oklahoma’s particular person and company earnings tax charges beginning in tax yr 2022. Accordingly, the speed in every particular person earnings tax bracket will decrease by 0.25 proportion factors, dropping the highest fee from 5 to 4.75 p.c. The company earnings tax may also see a discount from 6 p.c to 4 p.c, beginning that very same yr.

Introduction

Taxation is inevitable, however the specifics of a state’s tax construction matter tremendously. The measure of complete taxes paid is related, however different parts of a state tax system can even improve or hurt the competitiveness of a state’s enterprise surroundings. The State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index distills many complicated issues to an easy-to-understand rating.

The fashionable market is characterised by cell capital and labor, with all kinds of companies, small and huge, tending to find the place they’ve the best aggressive benefit. The proof reveals that states with the very best tax techniques would be the best at attracting new companies and best at producing financial and employment development. It’s true that taxes are however one consider enterprise decision-making. Different issues additionally matter–comparable to entry to uncooked supplies or infrastructure or a talented labor pool–however a easy, smart tax system can positively influence enterprise operations with regard to those assets. Moreover, in contrast to adjustments to a state’s health-care, transportation, or schooling techniques, which might take a long time to implement, adjustments to the tax code can shortly enhance a state’s enterprise local weather.

You will need to do not forget that even in our world economic system, states’ stiffest competitors typically comes from different states. The Division of Labor studies that almost all mass job relocations are from one U.S. state to a different fairly than to a international location.[1] Definitely, job creation is fast abroad, as beforehand underdeveloped nations enter the world economic system, although within the aftermath of federal tax reform, U.S. companies not face the third-highest company tax fee on this planet, however fairly one consistent with averages for industrialized nations.[2] State lawmakers are proper to be involved about how their states rank within the world competitors for jobs and capital, however they have to be extra involved with firms shifting from Detroit, Michigan, to Dayton, Ohio, than from Detroit to New Delhi, India. Which means state lawmakers should pay attention to how their states’ enterprise climates match up towards their fast neighbors and to different regional competitor states.

Anecdotes in regards to the influence of state tax techniques on enterprise funding are plentiful. In Illinois early final decade, a whole bunch of hundreds of thousands of {dollars} of capital investments have been delayed when then-Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) proposed a hefty gross receipts tax.[3] Solely when the legislature resoundingly defeated the invoice did the funding resume. In 2005, California-based Intel determined to construct a multibillion-dollar chip-making facility in Arizona attributable to its favorable company earnings tax system.[4] In 2010, Northrup Grumman selected to maneuver its headquarters to Virginia over Maryland, citing the higher enterprise tax local weather.[5] In 2015, Common Electrical and Aetna threatened to decamp from Connecticut if the governor signed a funds that will enhance company tax burdens, and Common Electrical truly did so.[6] Anecdotes comparable to these reinforce what we all know from financial concept: taxes matter to companies, and people locations with essentially the most aggressive tax techniques will reap the advantages of business-friendly tax climates.

Tax competitors is an disagreeable actuality for state income and funds officers, however it’s an efficient restraint on state and native taxes. When a state imposes larger taxes than a neighboring state, companies will cross the border to some extent. Due to this fact, states with extra aggressive tax techniques rating nicely within the Index as a result of they’re finest suited to generate financial development.

State lawmakers are conscious of their states’ enterprise tax climates, however they’re generally tempted to lure enterprise with profitable tax incentives and subsidies as an alternative of broad-based tax reform. This could be a harmful proposition, as the instance of Dell Computer systems and North Carolina illustrates. North Carolina agreed to $240 million value of incentives to lure Dell to the state. Most of the incentives got here within the type of tax credit from the state and native governments. Sadly, Dell introduced in 2009 that it will be closing the plant after solely 4 years of operations.[7] A 2007 USA TODAY article chronicled comparable issues different states have had with firms that obtain beneficiant tax incentives.[8]

Lawmakers make these offers below the banner of job creation and financial growth, however the reality is that if a state wants to supply such packages, it’s most probably masking for an undesirable enterprise tax local weather. A much more efficient strategy is the systematic enchancment of the state’s enterprise tax local weather for the long run to enhance the state’s competitiveness. When assessing which adjustments to make, lawmakers want to recollect two guidelines:

  1. Taxes matter to enterprise. Enterprise taxes have an effect on enterprise selections, job creation and retention, plant location, competitiveness, the transparency of the tax system, and the long-term well being of a state’s economic system. Most significantly, taxes diminish income. If taxes take a bigger portion of income, that price is handed alongside to both shoppers (by means of larger costs), workers (by means of decrease wages or fewer jobs), or shareholders (by means of decrease dividends or share worth), or some mixture of the above. Thus, a state with decrease tax prices shall be extra enticing to enterprise funding and extra more likely to expertise financial development.
  2. States don’t enact tax adjustments (will increase or cuts) in a vacuum. Each tax regulation will in a roundabout way change a state’s aggressive place relative to its fast neighbors, its area, and even globally. Finally, it is going to have an effect on the state’s nationwide standing as a spot to reside and to do enterprise. Entrepreneurial states can make the most of the tax will increase of their neighbors to lure companies out of high-tax states.

To some extent, tax-induced financial distortions are a reality of life, however policymakers ought to try to maximise the events when companies and people are guided by enterprise ideas and decrease these circumstances the place financial selections are influenced, micromanaged, and even dictated by a tax system. The extra riddled a tax system is with politically motivated preferences, the much less possible it’s that enterprise selections shall be made in response to market forces. The Index rewards these states that decrease tax-induced financial distortions.

Rating the competitiveness of fifty very completely different tax techniques presents many challenges, particularly when a state dispenses with a significant tax fully. Ought to Indiana’s tax system, which incorporates three comparatively impartial taxes on gross sales, particular person earnings, and company earnings, be thought of kind of aggressive than Alaska’s tax system, which features a notably burdensome company earnings tax however no statewide tax on particular person earnings or gross sales?

The Index offers with such questions by evaluating the states on greater than 120 variables within the 5 main areas of taxation (company taxes, particular person earnings taxes, gross sales taxes, unemployment insurance coverage taxes, and property taxes) after which including the outcomes to yield a closing, total rating. This strategy rewards states on notably robust elements of their tax techniques (or penalizes them on notably weak elements), whereas measuring the overall competitiveness of their total tax techniques. The result’s a rating that may be in comparison with different states’ scores. Finally, each Alaska and Indiana rating nicely.

Literature Overview

Economists haven’t all the time agreed on how people and companies react to taxes. As early as 1956, Charles Tiebout postulated that if residents have been confronted with an array of communities that provided differing kinds or ranges of public items and providers at completely different prices or tax ranges, then all residents would select the group that finest happy their specific calls for, re3ealing their preferences by “voting with thei3 toes.” Tiebout’s article is the seminal work on the subject of how taxes have an effect on the placement selections of taxpayers.

Tiebout steered that residents with excessive calls for for public items would focus in communities with excessive ranges of public providers and excessive taxes whereas these with low calls for would select communities with low ranges of public providers and low taxes. Competitors amongst jurisdictions leads to a wide range of communities, every with residents who all worth public providers equally.

Nevertheless, companies type out the prices and advantages of taxes in another way from people. For companies, which may be extra cell and should earn income to justify their existence, taxes cut back profitability. Theoretically, companies could possibly be anticipated to be extra responsive than people to the lure of low-tax jurisdictions. Analysis means that companies have interaction in “yardstick competitors,” evaluating the prices of presidency providers throughout jurisdictions. Shleifer (1985) first proposed evaluating regulated franchises as a way to decide effectivity. Salmon (1987) prolonged Shleifer’s work to have a look at subnational governments. Besley and Case (1995) confirmed that “yardstick competitors” impacts voting habits, and Bosch and Sole-Olle (2006) additional confirmed the outcomes discovered by Besley and Case. Tax adjustments which can be out of sync with neighboring jurisdictions will influence voting habits.

The financial literature over the previous 50 years has slowly cohered round this speculation. Ladd (1998) summarizes the post-World Battle II empirical tax analysis literature in a wonderful survey article, breaking it down into three distinct durations of differing concepts about taxation: (1) taxes don’t change habits; (2) taxes could or could not change enterprise habits relying on the circumstances; and (3) taxes positively change habits.

Interval one, apart from Tiebout, included the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies and is summarized succinctly in three survey articles: Due (1961), Oakland (1978), and Wasylenko (1981). Due’s was a polemic towards tax giveaways to companies, and his analytical strategies consisted of fundamental correlations, interview research, and the examination of taxes relative to different prices. He discovered no proof to help the notion that taxes affect enterprise location. Oakland was skeptical of the assertion that tax differentials on the native degree had no affect in any respect. Nevertheless, as a result of econometric evaluation was comparatively unsophisticated on the time, he discovered no important articles to help his instinct. Wasylenko’s survey of the literature discovered a number of the first proof indicating that taxes do affect enterprise location selections. Nevertheless, the statistical significance was decrease than that of different elements comparable to labor provide and agglomeration economies. Due to this fact, he dismissed taxes as a secondary issue at most.

Interval two was a short transition in the course of the early- to mid-Nineteen Eighties. This was a time of nice ferment in tax coverage as Congress handed main tax payments, together with the so-called Reagan tax reduce in 1981 and a dramatic reform of the federal tax code in 1986. Articles revealing the financial significance of tax coverage proliferated and have become extra subtle. For instance, Wasylenko and McGuire (1985) prolonged the standard enterprise location literature to nonmanufacturing sectors and located, “Greater wages, utility costs, private earnings tax charges, and a rise within the total degree of taxation discourage employment development in a number of industries.” Nevertheless, Newman and Sullivan (1988) nonetheless discovered a blended bag in “their statement that important tax results [only] emerged when fashions have been fastidiously specified.”

Ladd was writing in 1998, so her “interval three” began within the late Nineteen Eighties and continued as much as 1998, when the amount and high quality of articles elevated considerably. Articles that match into interval three start to floor as early as 1985, as Helms (1985) and Bartik (1985) put forth forceful arguments based mostly on empirical analysis that taxes information enterprise selections. Helms concluded {that a} state’s potential to draw, retain, and encourage enterprise exercise is considerably affected by its sample of taxation. Moreover, tax will increase considerably retard financial development when the income is used to fund switch funds. Bartik concluded that the traditional view that state and native taxes have little impact on enterprise is fake.

Papke and Papke (1986) discovered that tax differentials amongst places could also be an necessary enterprise location issue, concluding that constantly excessive enterprise taxes can characterize a hindrance to the placement of trade. Curiously, they use the identical kind of after-tax mannequin utilized by Tannenwald (1996), who reaches a distinct conclusion.

Bartik (1989) gives robust proof that taxes have a destructive influence on enterprise start-ups. He finds particularly that property taxes, as a result of they’re paid no matter revenue, have the strongest destructive impact on enterprise. Bartik’s econometric mannequin additionally predicts tax elasticities of -0.1 to -0.5 that indicate a ten p.c reduce in tax charges will enhance enterprise exercise by 1 to five p.c. Bartik’s findings, in addition to these of Mark, McGuire, and Papke (2000), and ample anecdotal proof of the significance of property taxes, buttress the argument for inclusion of a property index dedicated to property-type taxes within the Index.

By the early Nineteen Nineties, the literature had expanded sufficiently for Bartik (1991) to determine 57 research on which to base his literature survey. Ladd succinctly summarizes Bartik’s findings:

The big variety of research permitted Bartik to take a distinct strategy from the opposite authors. As an alternative of dwelling on the outcomes and limitations of every particular person examine, he checked out them within the mixture and in teams. Though he acknowledged potential criticisms of particular person research, he convincingly argued that some systematic flaw must reduce throughout all research for the consensus outcomes to be invalid. In placing distinction to earlier reviewers, he concluded that taxes have fairly giant and important results on enterprise exercise.

Ladd’s “interval three” absolutely continues to this present day. Agostini and Tulayasathien (2001) examined the consequences of company earnings taxes on the placement of international direct funding in U.S. states. They decided that for “international buyers, the company tax fee is essentially the most related tax of their funding resolution.” Due to this fact, they discovered that international direct funding was fairly delicate to states’ company tax charges.

Mark, McGuire, and Papke (2000) discovered that taxes are a statistically important consider private-sector job development. Particularly, they discovered that non-public property taxes and gross sales taxes have economically giant destructive results on the annual development of personal employment.

Harden and Hoyt (2003) level to Phillips and Gross (1995) as one other examine contending that taxes influence state financial development, they usually assert that the consensus amongst latest literature is that state and native taxes negatively have an effect on employment ranges. Harden and Hoyt conclude that the company earnings tax has essentially the most important destructive influence on the speed of development in employment.

Gupta and Hofmann (2003) regressed capital expenditures towards a wide range of elements, together with weights of apportionment formulation, the variety of tax incentives, and burden figures. Their mannequin lined 14 years of information and decided that corporations are inclined to find property in states the place they’re topic to decrease earnings tax burdens. Moreover, Gupta and Hofmann recommend that throwback necessities are essentially the most influential on the placement of capital funding, adopted by apportionment weights and tax charges, and that investment-related incentives have the least influence.

Different economists have discovered that taxes on particular merchandise can produce behavioral outcomes comparable to people who have been present in these common research. For instance, Fleenor (1998) regarded on the impact of excise tax differentials between states on cross-border buying and the smuggling of cigarettes. Moody and Warcholik (2004) examined the cross-border results of beer excises. Their outcomes, supported by the literature in each circumstances, confirmed important cross-border buying and smuggling between low-tax states and high-tax states.

Fleenor discovered that buying areas sprouted in counties of low-tax states that shared a border with a high-tax state, and that roughly 13.3 p.c of the cigarettes consumed in the USA throughout FY 1997 have been procured through some kind of cross-border exercise. Equally, Moody and Warcholik discovered that in 2000, 19.9 million circumstances of beer, on internet, moved from low- to high-tax states. This amounted to some $40 million in gross sales and excise tax income misplaced in high-tax states.

Though the literature has largely congealed round a common consensus that taxes are a considerable issue within the decision-making course of for companies, disputes stay, and a few students are unconvinced.

Primarily based on a considerable overview of the literature on enterprise climates and taxes, Wasylenko (1997) concludes that taxes don’t seem to have a considerable impact on financial exercise amongst states. Nevertheless, his conclusion is premised on there being few important variations in state tax techniques. He concedes that high-tax states will lose financial exercise to common or low-tax states “so long as the elasticity is destructive and considerably completely different from zero.” Certainly, he approvingly cites a State Coverage Experiences article that finds that the highest-tax states, comparable to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New York, have acknowledged that prime taxes could also be liable for the low charges of job creation in these states.[9]

Wasylenko’s rejoinder is that policymakers routinely overestimate the diploma to which tax coverage impacts enterprise location selections and that on account of this misperception, they reply readily to public stress for jobs and financial development by proposing decrease taxes. In keeping with Wasylenko, different legislative actions are more likely to accomplish extra constructive financial outcomes as a result of in actuality, taxes don’t drive financial development.

Nevertheless, there’s ample proof that states compete for companies utilizing their tax techniques. A latest instance comes from Illinois, the place in early 2011 lawmakers handed two main tax will increase. The person earnings tax fee elevated from 3 p.c to five p.c, and the company earnings tax fee rose from 7.3 p.c to 9.5 p.c.[10] The end result was that many companies threatened to depart the state, together with some very high-profile Illinois firms comparable to Sears and the Chicago Mercantile Change. By the tip of the yr, lawmakers had reduce offers with each corporations, totaling $235 million over the subsequent decade, to maintain them from leaving the state.[11]

A brand new literature overview, Kleven et al. (2019), summarizes latest proof for tax-driven migration. In the meantime, Giroud and Rauh (2019) use microdata on multistate corporations to estimate the influence of state taxes on enterprise exercise, and discover that C company employment and institutions have short-run company tax elasticities of -0.4 to -0.5, whereas pass-through entities present elasticities of -0.2 to -0.4, that means that, for every percentage-point enhance within the fee, employment decreases by 0.4 to 0.5 p.c for C companies topic to the company earnings tax, and by 0.2 to 0.4 p.c inside pass-through companies topic to the person earnings tax.

Measuring the Impression of Tax Differentials

Some latest contributions to the literature on state taxation criticize enterprise and tax local weather research normally.[12] Authors of such research contend that comparative studies just like the State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index don’t take into consideration these elements which instantly influence a state’s enterprise local weather. Nevertheless, a cautious examination of those criticisms reveals that the authors consider taxes are unimportant to companies and due to this fact dismiss the research as merely being designed to advocate low taxes.

Peter Fisher’s Grading Locations: What Do the Enterprise Local weather Rankings Actually Inform Us? now printed by Good Jobs First, criticizes 4 indices: The U.S. Enterprise Coverage Index printed by the Small Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Council, Beacon Hill’s Competitiveness Report, the American Legislative Change Council’s Wealthy States, Poor States, and this examine. The primary version additionally critiqued the Cato Institute’s Fiscal Coverage Report Card and the Financial Freedom Index by the Pacific Analysis Institute. Within the report’s first version, printed earlier than Fisher summarized his objections: “The underlying downside with the … indexes, after all, is twofold: none of them truly do an excellent job of measuring what it’s they declare to measure, and they don’t, for essentially the most half, got down to measure the suitable issues to start with” (Fisher 2005). Within the second version, he recognized three overarching questions: (1) whether or not the indices included related variables, and solely related variables; (2) whether or not these variables measured what they purport to measure; and (3) how the index combines these measures right into a single index quantity (Fisher 2013). Fisher’s major argument is that if the indexes did what they presupposed to do, then all 5 would rank the states equally.

Fisher’s conclusion holds little weight as a result of the 5 indices serve such dissimilar functions, and every group has a distinct space of experience. There is no such thing as a cause to consider that the Tax Basis’s Index, which relies upon fully on state tax legal guidelines, would rank the states in the identical or comparable order as an index that features crime charges, electrical energy prices, and well being care (the Small Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Council’s Small Enterprise Survival Index), or toddler mortality charges and the proportion of adults within the workforce (Beacon Hill’s State Competitiveness Report), or constitution faculties, tort reform, and minimal wage legal guidelines (the Pacific Analysis Institute’s Financial Freedom Index).

The Tax Basis’s State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index is an indicator of which states’ tax techniques are essentially the most hospitable to enterprise and financial development. The Index doesn’t purport to measure financial alternative or freedom, and even the broad enterprise local weather, however fairly the narrower enterprise tax local weather, and its variables replicate this focus. We accomplish that not solely as a result of the Tax Basis’s experience is in taxes, however as a result of each part of the Index is topic to fast change by state lawmakers. It’s on no account clear what the very best plan of action is for state lawmakers who need to thwart crime, for instance, both within the quick or long run, however they’ll change their tax codes now. Opposite to Fisher’s Seventies’ view that the consequences of taxes are “small or non-existent,” our examine displays robust proof that enterprise selections are considerably impacted by tax issues.

Though Fisher doesn’t really feel tax climates are necessary to states’ financial development, different authors contend the alternative. Bittlingmayer, Eathington, Corridor, and Orazem (2005) discover of their evaluation of a number of enterprise local weather research {that a} state’s tax local weather does have an effect on its financial development fee and that a number of indices are capable of predict development. Particularly, they concluded, “The State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index explains development constantly.” This discovering was confirmed by Anderson (2006) in a examine for the Michigan Home of Representatives, and extra not too long ago by Kolko, Neumark, and Mejia (2013), who, in an evaluation of the power of 10 enterprise local weather indices to foretell financial development, concluded that the State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index yields “constructive, sizable, and statistically important estimates for each specification” they measured, and particularly cited the Index as one in every of two enterprise local weather indices (out of 10) with notably robust and sturdy proof of predictive energy.

Bittlingmayer et al. additionally discovered that relative tax competitiveness issues, particularly on the borders, and due to this fact, indices that place a excessive premium on tax insurance policies do a greater job of explaining development. Additionally they noticed that research targeted on a single subject do higher at explaining financial development at borders. Lastly, the article concludes that an important parts of the enterprise local weather are tax and regulatory burdens on enterprise (Bittlingmayer et al. 2005). These findings help the argument that taxes influence enterprise selections and financial development, they usually help the validity of the Index.

Fisher and Bittlingmayer et al. maintain opposing views in regards to the influence of taxes on financial development. Fisher finds help from Robert Tannenwald, previously of the Boston Federal Reserve, who argues that taxes usually are not as necessary to companies as public expenditures. Tannenwald compares 22 states by measuring the after-tax fee of return to money movement of a brand new facility constructed by a consultant agency in every state. This very completely different strategy makes an attempt to compute the marginal efficient tax fee of a hypothetical agency and yields outcomes that make taxes seem trivial.

The taxes paid by companies needs to be a priority to everybody as a result of they’re finally borne by people by means of decrease wages, elevated costs, and decreased shareholder worth. States don’t institute tax coverage in a vacuum. Each change to a state’s tax system makes its enterprise tax local weather kind of aggressive in comparison with different states and makes the state kind of enticing to enterprise. Finally, anecdotal and empirical proof, together with the cohesion of latest literature across the conclusion that taxes matter an incredible deal to enterprise, present that the Index is a crucial and useful gizmo for policymakers who need to make their states’ tax techniques welcoming to enterprise.

Methodology

The Tax Basis’s State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index is a hierarchical construction constructed from 5 parts:

  • Particular person Earnings Tax
  • Gross sales Tax
  • Company Earnings Tax
  • Property Tax
  • Unemployment Insurance coverage Tax

Utilizing the financial literature as our information, we designed these 5 parts to attain every state’s enterprise tax local weather on a scale of 0 (worst) to 10 (finest). Every part is dedicated to a significant space of state taxation and contains quite a few variables. Total, there are 125 variables measured on this report.

The 5 parts usually are not weighted equally, as they’re in some indices. Moderately, every part is weighted based mostly on the variability of the 50 states’ scores from the imply. The usual deviation of every part is calculated and a weight for every part is created from that measure. The result’s a heavier weighting of these parts with larger variability. The weighting of every of the 5 main parts is:

  • 31.2% — Particular person Earnings Tax
  • 23.7% — Gross sales Tax
  • 20.9% — Company Tax
  • 14.4% — Property Tax
  • 9.8% — Unemployment Insurance coverage Tax

This improves the explanatory energy of the State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index as an entire, as a result of parts with larger normal deviations are these areas of tax regulation the place some states have important aggressive benefits. Companies which can be evaluating states for brand spanking new or expanded places should give larger emphasis to tax climates when the variations are giant. Then again, parts wherein the 50 state scores are clustered collectively, carefully distributed across the imply, are these areas of tax regulation the place companies usually tend to de-emphasize tax elements of their location selections. For instance, Delaware is understood to have a big benefit in gross sales tax competitors, as a result of its tax fee of zero attracts companies and buyers from all around the Mid-Atlantic area. That benefit and its drawing energy enhance each time one other state raises its gross sales tax.

In distinction with this variability in state gross sales tax charges, unemployment insurance coverage tax techniques are comparable across the nation, so a small change in a single state’s regulation may change its part rating dramatically.

Inside every part are two equally weighted subindices dedicated to measuring the influence of the tax charges and the tax bases. Every subindex consists of a number of variables. There are two kinds of variables: scalar variables and dummy variables. A scalar variable is one that may have any worth between 0 and 10. If a subindex consists solely of scalar variables, then they’re weighted equally. A dummy variable is one which has solely a worth of 0 or 1. For instance, a state both indexes its brackets for inflation or doesn’t. Mixing scalar and dummy variables inside a subindex is problematic as a result of the acute valuation of a dummy can overly affect the outcomes of the subindex. To counter this impact, the Index typically weights scalar variables 80 p.c and dummy variables 20 p.c.

Relative versus Absolute Indexing

The State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index is designed as a relative index fairly than an absolute or splendid index. In different phrases, every variable is ranked relative to the variable’s vary in different states. The relative scoring scale is from 0 to 10, with zero that means not “worst potential” however fairly worst among the many 50 states.

Many states’ tax charges are so shut to one another that an absolute index wouldn’t present sufficient details about the variations among the many states’ tax techniques, particularly for pragmatic enterprise homeowners who need to know which states have the very best tax system in every area.

Evaluating States with no Tax. One downside related to a relative scale is that it’s mathematically not possible to match states with a given tax to states that shouldn’t have the tax. As a zero fee is the bottom potential fee and essentially the most impartial base, because it creates essentially the most favorable tax local weather for financial development, these states with a zero fee on particular person earnings, company earnings, or gross sales acquire an immense aggressive benefit. Due to this fact, states with no given tax typically obtain a ten, and the Index measures all the opposite states towards one another.

Three notable exceptions to this rule exist. The primary is in Washington, Tennessee, and Texas, which shouldn’t have taxes on wage earnings however do apply their gross receipts taxes to S companies. (Washington and Texas additionally apply these to restricted legal responsibility companies.) As a result of these entities are typically taxed by means of the person code, these two states don’t rating completely within the particular person earnings tax part. The second exception is present in Nevada, the place a payroll tax (for functions aside from unemployment insurance coverage) can also be included within the particular person earnings tax part. The ultimate exception is in zero gross sales tax states–Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington–which shouldn’t have common gross sales taxes however nonetheless don’t rating an ideal 10 in that part part due to excise taxes on gasoline, beer, spirits, and cigarettes, that are included in that part. Alaska, furthermore, forgoes a state gross sales tax, however does allow native possibility gross sales taxes.

Normalizing Ultimate Scores. One other downside with utilizing a relative scale inside the parts is that the common scores throughout the 5 parts fluctuate. This alters the worth of not having a given tax throughout main indices. For instance, the unadjusted common rating of the company earnings tax part is 6.72 whereas the common rating of the gross sales tax part is 5.37.

In an effort to remedy this downside, scores on the 5 main parts are “normalized,” which brings the common rating for all of them to five.00, excluding states that shouldn’t have the given tax. That is achieved by multiplying every state’s rating by a relentless worth.

As soon as the scores are normalized, it’s potential to match states throughout indices. For instance, due to normalization, it’s potential to say that Connecticut’s rating of 5.08 on company earnings taxes is healthier than its rating of 4.80 on the gross sales tax.

Time Body Measured by the Index (Snapshot Date)

Beginning with the 2006 version, the Index has measured every state’s enterprise tax local weather because it stands firstly of the usual state fiscal yr, July 1. Due to this fact, this version is the 2022 Index and represents the tax local weather of every state as of July 1, 2021, the primary day of fiscal yr 2022 for many states.

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia (D.C.) is simply included as an exhibit and its scores and “phantom ranks” provided don’t have an effect on the scores or ranks of different states.

2022 Modifications to Methodology

The 2022 version of the Index introduces a brand new variable to the person earnings tax base subindex, accounting for comfort guidelines. This addition is meant to offer extra nuance to the Index’s remedy of the person earnings tax, along with current variables on prime charges, variety of brackets, marriage penalties, inflation indexing, part 179 expensing, and different necessary elements of the tax.

Whereas those that reside in a single state and work in one other usually obtain a tax credit score to remove double taxation of their earnings, a number of states tax individuals the place their workplace is even when they aren’t at the moment working in that state, ostensibly for the comfort of the employer. These people could also be denied their house state’s credit score for taxes paid to a different state, exposing them to double taxation. Just lately, comfort guidelines have come into the highlight with the rise of distant work because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Below such provisions, an worker is handled as in the event that they work of their employer’s state if their work is carried out elsewhere for what’s termed the “comfort of the employer,” with exceptions typically just for when an worker’s work legitimately couldn’t be carried out within the employer’s state. Connecticut’s retaliatory comfort rule, solely imposed towards different jurisdictions with such a rule, is topic to half the penalty assigned to states with a traditional comfort rule making use of to staff working out of all different states.

Previous Rankings and Scores

This report contains 2014-2021 Index rankings that can be utilized for comparability with the 2022 rankings and scores. These can differ from beforehand printed Index rankings and scores attributable to enactment of retroactive statutes, backcasting of the above methodological adjustments, and corrections to variables dropped at our consideration for the reason that final report was printed. The scores and rankings on this report are definitive.

Company Tax

This part measures the influence of every state’s principal tax on enterprise actions and accounts for 20.9 p.c of every state’s complete rating. It’s nicely established that the extent of enterprise taxation can have an effect on a enterprise’s degree of financial exercise inside a state. For instance, Newman (1982) discovered that differentials in state company earnings taxes have been a significant component influencing the motion of trade to Southern states. Twenty years later, with world funding tremendously expanded, Agostini and Tulayasathien (2001) decided {that a} state’s company tax fee is essentially the most related tax within the funding selections of international buyers.

Most states levy normal company earnings taxes on revenue (gross receipts minus bills). Some states, nevertheless, problematically impose taxes on the gross receipts of companies with few or no deductions for bills. Between 2005 and 2010, for instance, Ohio phased within the Business Actions Tax (CAT), which has a fee of 0.26 p.c. Washington has the Enterprise and Occupation (B&O) Tax, which is a multi-rate tax (relying on trade) on the gross receipts of Washington companies. Delaware has an analogous Producers’ and Retailers’ License Tax, as does Virginia with its locally-levied Enterprise/Skilled/Occupational License (BPOL) tax and West Virginia with its native Enterprise & Occupation (B&O) tax. Texas additionally added the Margin Tax, an advanced gross receipts tax, in 2007, Nevada adopted the gross receipts-based multi-rate Commerce Tax in 2015, and Oregon applied a brand new modified gross receipts tax in 2020. Nevertheless, in 2011, Michigan handed a big company tax reform that eradicated the state’s modified gross receipts tax and changed it with a 6 p.c company earnings tax, efficient January 1, 2012.[13] The earlier tax had been in place since 2007, and Michigan’s repeal adopted others in Kentucky (2006) and New Jersey (2006). A number of states contemplated gross receipts taxes in 2017, however none have been adopted.

Since gross receipts taxes and company earnings taxes are levied on completely different bases, we individually evaluate gross receipts taxes to one another, and company earnings taxes to one another, within the Index.

For states with company earnings taxes, the company tax fee subindex is calculated by assessing three key areas: the highest tax fee, the extent of taxable earnings at which the highest fee kicks in, and the variety of brackets. States that levy neither a company earnings tax nor a gross receipts tax obtain a superbly impartial system in regard to enterprise earnings and thus obtain an ideal rating.

States that do impose a company tax typically will rating nicely if they’ve a low fee. States with a excessive fee or a fancy and multiple-rate system rating poorly.

To calculate the parallel subindex for the company tax base, three broad areas are assessed: tax credit, remedy of internet working losses, and an “different” class that features variables comparable to conformity to the Inside Income Code, protections towards double taxation, and the taxation of “throwback” earnings, amongst others. States that rating nicely on the company tax base subindex typically may have few enterprise tax credit, beneficiant carryback and carryforward provisions, deductions for internet working losses, conformity to the Inside Income Code, and provisions that alleviate double taxation.

Desk 3. Company Tax Element of the State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index (2014–2022)
  2022 2021 2021-2022 Change Prior 12 months Ranks
State Rank Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Alabama 17 5.51 23 5.22 6 0.29 23 22 22 14 23 25 24
Alaska 28 5.08 26 5.10 -2 -0.02 26 25 27 26 27 27 26
Arizona 23 5.28 22 5.26 -1 0.02 21 16 14 19 21 23 23
Arkansas 30 4.88 34 4.82 4 0.06 34 40 39 39 39 37 37
California 46 4.05 28 4.92 -18 -0.87 28 38 32 33 34 32 30
Colorado 6 6.00 9 5.81 3 0.19 7 6 18 18 15 13 20
Connecticut 27 5.08 27 5.10 0 -0.02 27 34 31 32 32 30 28
Delaware 50 2.40 50 2.44 0 -0.04 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Florida 7 5.97 6 5.94 -1 0.03 9 11 19 19 16 14 13
Georgia 8 5.89 7 5.87 -1 0.02 6 8 10 11 10 10 9
Hawaii 19 5.45 19 5.45 0 0.00 17 12 11 6 4 5 5
Idaho 29 4.99 29 4.91 0 0.08 29 28 24 24 22 22 18
Illinois 42 4.37 36 4.63 -6 -0.26 36 37 36 25 33 45 44
Indiana 11 5.73 12 5.64 1 0.09 11 19 23 23 24 28 29
Iowa 38 4.53 46 4.03 8 0.50 48 47 48 48 48 48 48
Kansas 21 5.37 31 4.87 10 0.50 35 32 38 38 38 36 36
Kentucky 15 5.60 15 5.57 0 0.03 13 15 25 27 26 26 25
Louisiana 34 4.74 35 4.76 1 -0.02 37 35 40 40 36 21 17
Maine 35 4.57 37 4.57 2 0.00 38 33 41 41 42 43 42
Maryland 33 4.85 33 4.86 0 -0.01 32 26 20 21 18 16 15
Massachusetts 36 4.54 38 4.56 2 -0.02 39 39 35 36 37 35 33
Michigan 20 5.42 20 5.41 0 0.01 18 13 8 9 8 8 8
Minnesota 45 4.13 45 4.17 0 -0.04 46 44 42 43 43 41 41
Mississippi 13 5.63 13 5.61 0 0.02 10 14 12 12 12 11 10
Missouri 3 6.75 3 6.79 0 -0.04 3 4 5 5 3 4 4
Montana 22 5.33 21 5.33 -1 0.00 20 9 13 13 19 17 16
Nebraska 32 4.85 32 4.87 0 -0.02 31 29 28 28 28 29 35
Nevada 25 5.17 25 5.13 0 0.04 25 21 33 34 25 1 1
New Hampshire 41 4.39 41 4.40 0 -0.01 43 46 44 47 47 47 47
New Jersey 48 3.50 48 3.55 0 -0.05 49 49 45 42 40 38 38
New Mexico 12 5.71 11 5.69 -1 0.02 22 23 26 30 31 34 34
New York 24 5.32 16 5.56 -8 -0.24 14 18 7 8 11 20 22
North Carolina 4 6.14 4 6.09 0 0.05 4 3 3 4 7 24 27
North Dakota 9 5.89 8 5.85 -1 0.04 19 17 16 16 14 19 21
Ohio 40 4.42 42 4.39 2 0.03 42 43 47 46 46 44 45
Oklahoma 10 5.80 10 5.78 0 0.02 8 20 9 10 9 9 11
Oregon 49 2.79 49 3.19 0 -0.40 33 30 34 35 35 33 31
Pennsylvania 44 4.14 43 4.19 -1 -0.05 44 45 43 44 44 42 43
Rhode Island 37 4.54 39 4.55 2 -0.01 40 36 30 31 30 39 39
South Carolina 5 6.04 5 6.01 0 0.03 5 5 15 15 13 12 12
South Dakota 1 10.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Tennessee 26 5.13 24 5.13 -2 0.00 24 27 21 22 17 15 14
Texas 47 3.98 47 3.94 0 0.04 47 48 49 49 49 49 49
Utah 14 5.61 14 5.58 0 0.03 12 7 4 3 5 6 6
Vermont 43 4.15 44 4.18 1 -0.03 45 41 37 37 41 40 40
Virginia 16 5.53 17 5.52 1 0.01 15 10 6 7 6 7 7
Washington 39 4.47 40 4.43 1 0.04 41 42 46 45 45 46 46
West Virginia 18 5.46 18 5.45 0 0.01 16 24 17 17 20 18 19
Wisconsin 31 4.87 30 4.89 -1 -0.02 30 31 29 29 29 31 32
Wyoming 1 10.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
District of Columbia 25 5.18 24 5.19 -1 -0.01 24 24 27 27 38 38 38

Be aware: A rank of 1 is finest, 50 is worst. All scores are for fiscal years. DC’s rating and rank don’t have an effect on different states.

Supply: Tax Basis.

Company Tax Price

The company tax fee subindex is designed to gauge how a state’s company earnings tax prime marginal fee, bracket construction, and gross receipts fee have an effect on its competitiveness in comparison with different states, because the extent of taxation can have an effect on a enterprise’s degree of financial exercise inside a state (Newman 1982).

A state’s company tax is levied along with the federal company earnings tax of 21 p.c, considerably decreased by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 from a graduated-rate tax with a prime fee of 35 p.c, the best fee amongst industrialized nations. Two states levy neither a company earnings tax nor a gross receipts tax: South Dakota and Wyoming. These states mechanically rating an ideal 10 on this subindex. Due to this fact, this part ranks the remaining 48 states relative to one another.

High Tax Price. New Jersey’s 11.5 p.c fee (together with a brief and retroactive surcharge from 2020 to 2023) qualifies for the worst rating amongst states that levy one, adopted by Pennsylvania’s 9.99 p.c fee. Different states with comparatively excessive company earnings tax charges are Iowa and Minnesota (each at 9.8 p.c), Alaska (9.4 p.c), Maine (8.93 p.c), and California (8.84 p.c). Against this, North Carolina’s fee of two.5 p.c is the bottom nationally, adopted by Missouri’s at 4 p.c, North Dakota’s at 4.31 p.c, and Florida at 4.458 p.c. Different states with comparatively low prime company tax charges are Colorado (4.5 p.c), Arizona and Indiana (each at 4.9 p.c), Utah (4.95 p.c), and Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina, all at 5 p.c. Oklahoma is scheduled to implement a 4 p.c company earnings tax fee in 2022 and can quickly be part of these ranks.

Graduated Price Construction. Two variables are used to evaluate the financial drag created by multiple-rate company earnings tax techniques: the earnings degree at which the best tax fee begins to use and the variety of tax brackets. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have single-rate techniques, they usually rating finest. Single-rate techniques are per the sound tax ideas of simplicity and neutrality. In distinction to the person earnings tax, there is no such thing as a significant “potential to pay” idea in company taxation. Jeffery Kwall, the Kathleen and Bernard Beazley Professor of Regulation at Loyola College Chicago College of Regulation, notes that

graduated company charges are inequitable—that’s, the scale of a company bears no crucial relation to the earnings ranges of the homeowners. Certainly, low-income companies could also be owned by people with excessive incomes, and high-income companies could also be owned by people with low incomes.[14]

A single-rate system minimizes the inducement for corporations to have interaction in costly, counterproductive tax planning to mitigate the injury of upper marginal tax charges that some states levy as taxable earnings rises.

The High Bracket. This variable measures how quickly a state’s tax system applies its highest company earnings tax fee. The best rating is awarded to a single-rate system that has one bracket that applies to the primary greenback of taxable earnings. Subsequent finest is a two-bracket system the place the highest fee kicks in at a low degree of earnings, for the reason that decrease the highest fee kicks in, the extra the system is sort of a flat tax. States with a number of brackets unfold over a broad earnings spectrum are given the worst rating.

Variety of Brackets. An earnings tax system creates adjustments in habits when the taxpayer’s earnings reaches the tip of 1 tax fee bracket and strikes into a better bracket. At such a break level, incentives change, and in consequence, quite a few fee adjustments are extra economically dangerous than a single-rate construction. This variable is meant to measure the disincentive impact the company earnings tax has on rising incomes. States that rating the very best on this variable are the 29 states–and the District of Columbia–which have a single-rate system. Alaska’s 10-bracket system earns the worst rating on this class. Different states with multi-bracket techniques embody Arkansas (six brackets) and Louisiana (5 brackets).

Company Tax Base

This subindex measures the financial influence of every state’s definition of what needs to be topic to company taxation.

The three standards used to measure the competitiveness of every state’s company tax base are given equal weight: the provision of sure credit, deductions, and exemptions; the power of taxpayers to deduct internet working losses; and a number of smaller tax base points that mix to make up the opposite third of the company tax base subindex.

Below a gross receipts tax, a few of these tax base standards (internet working losses and a few company earnings tax base variables) are changed by the provision of deductions from gross receipts for worker compensation prices and value of products bought. States are rewarded for granting these deductions as a result of they diminish the best drawback of utilizing gross receipts as the bottom for company taxation: the uneven efficient tax charges that numerous industries pay, relying on what number of ranges of manufacturing are hit by the tax.

Web Working Losses. The company earnings tax is designed to tax solely the income of a company. Nevertheless, a yearly revenue snapshot could not absolutely seize a company’s true profitability. For instance, a company in a extremely cyclical trade could look very worthwhile throughout growth years however lose substantial quantities throughout bust years. When examined over your entire enterprise cycle, the company may very well have a median revenue margin.

The deduction for internet working losses (NOL) helps be sure that, over time, the company earnings tax is a tax on common profitability. With out the NOL deduction, companies in cyclical industries pay a lot larger taxes than these in secure industries, even assuming an identical common income over time. Merely put, the NOL deduction helps degree the taking part in area amongst cyclical and noncyclical industries. Below the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal authorities permits losses to be carried ahead indefinitely, although they could solely cut back taxable earnings by 80 p.c in any given yr. As a result of gross receipts taxes inherently preclude the opportunity of carrying internet working losses backward or ahead, the Index treats states with statewide gross receipts taxes as having the equal of no NOL carryback or carryforward provisions.

California has quickly suspended its internet working loss provisions as a revenue-raising measure in the course of the pandemic regardless of the state posting file surpluses. It’s the solely state with out an lively NOL provision and is assigned the worst rating throughout all NOL variables.

Variety of Years Allowed for Carryback and Carryforward. This variable measures the variety of years allowed on a carryback or carryforward of an NOL deduction. The longer the general time span, the upper the likelihood that the company earnings tax is being levied on the company’s common profitability. Usually, states entered FY 2022 with higher remedy of the carryforward (as much as a most of 20 years) than the carryback (as much as a most of three years). States rating nicely on the Index in the event that they conform to the brand new federal provisions or present their very own sturdy system of carryforwards and carrybacks.

Caps on the Quantity of Carryback and Carryforward. When firms have a bigger NOL than they’ll deduct in a single yr, most states allow them to hold deductions of any quantity again to earlier years’ returns or ahead to future returns. States that restrict these quantities are ranked decrease within the Index. Two states, Idaho and Montana, restrict the variety of carrybacks, although they do higher than a lot of their friends in providing any carryback provisions in any respect. Of states that enable a carryforward of losses, solely Illinois, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania restrict carryforwards. Illinois’ cap is a latest addition, supposed to solely apply to tax years 2021 by means of 2024. Consequently, these states rating poorly on this variable.

Gross Receipts Tax Deductions. Proponents of gross receipts taxation invariably reward the steadier movement of tax receipts into authorities coffers compared with the fluctuating income generated by company earnings taxes, however this stability comes at an incredible price. The attractively low statutory charges related to gross receipts taxes are an phantasm. Since gross receipts taxes are levied many occasions within the manufacturing course of, the efficient tax fee on a product is far larger than the statutory fee would recommend. Efficient tax charges below a gross receipts tax fluctuate dramatically by trade or particular person enterprise, a stark departure from the precept of tax neutrality. Corporations with few steps of their manufacturing chain are comparatively evenly taxed below a gross receipts tax, and vertically-integrated, high-margin corporations prosper, whereas corporations with longer manufacturing chains are uncovered to a considerably larger tax burden. The stress of this financial imbalance typically leads lawmakers to enact separate charges for every trade, an inevitably unfair and inefficient course of.

Two reforms that states could make to mitigate this injury are to allow deductions from gross receipts for worker compensation prices and value of products bought, successfully shifting towards a daily company earnings tax.

Delaware, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington rating the worst, as a result of their gross receipts taxes don’t supply full deductions for both the price of items bought or worker compensation. Texas gives a deduction for both the price of items bought or worker compensation however not each. The Virginia BPOL tax, the West Virginia B&O, and the Pennsylvania enterprise privilege tax usually are not included on this survey, as a result of they’re assessed on the native degree and never levied uniformly throughout the state.

Federal Earnings Used as State Tax Base. States that use federal definitions of earnings cut back the tax compliance burden on their taxpayers. Two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) don’t conform to federal definitions of company earnings they usually rating poorly.

Allowance of Federal ACRS and MACRS Depreciation. The huge array of federal depreciation schedules is, by itself, a tax complexity nightmare for companies. The specter of getting 50 completely different schedules could be a catastrophe from a tax complexity standpoint. This variable measures the diploma to which states have adopted the federal Accelerated Value Restoration System (ACRS) and Modified Accelerated Value Restoration System (MACRS) depreciation schedules. One state (California) provides complexity by failing to totally conform to the federal system.

Deductibility of Depletion. The deduction for depletion works equally to depreciation, however it applies to pure assets. As with depreciation, tax complexity could be staggering if all 50 states imposed their very own depletion schedules. This variable measures the diploma to which states have adopted the federal depletion schedules. 13 states are penalized as a result of they don’t absolutely conform to the federal system: Alaska, California, Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Tennessee.

Various Minimal Tax. The federal Various Minimal Tax (AMT) was created to make sure that all taxpayers paid some minimal degree of taxes yearly. Sadly, it does so by making a parallel tax system to the usual company earnings tax code. Proof reveals that the AMT doesn’t enhance effectivity or enhance equity in any significant method. It nets little cash for the federal government, imposes compliance prices that in some years are literally bigger than collections, and encourages corporations to chop again or shift their investments (Chorvat and Knoll, 2002). As such, states which have mimicked the federal AMT put themselves at a aggressive drawback by means of pointless tax complexity.

5 states have an AMT on companies and thus rating poorly: California, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.

Deductibility of Taxes Paid. This variable measures the extent of double taxation on earnings used to pay international taxes, i.e., paying a tax on cash the taxpayer has already mailed to international taxing authorities. States can keep away from this double taxation by permitting the deduction of taxes paid to international jurisdictions. Twenty-three states enable deductions for international taxes paid and rating nicely. The remaining states with company earnings taxation don’t enable deductions for international taxes paid and thus rating poorly.

Indexation of the Tax Code. For states which have multiple-bracket company earnings taxes, you will need to index the brackets for inflation. That stops de facto tax will increase on the nominal enhance in earnings attributable to inflation. Put merely, this “inflation tax” leads to larger tax burdens on taxpayers, often with out their data or consent. All 15 states with graduated company earnings taxes fail to index their tax brackets: Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, and Vermont.

Throwback. To cut back the double taxation of company earnings, states use apportionment formulation that search to find out how a lot of an organization’s earnings a state can correctly tax. Usually, states require an organization with nexus (that’s, enough connection to the state to justify the state’s energy to tax its earnings) to apportion its earnings to the state based mostly on some ratio of the corporate’s in-state property, payroll, and gross sales in comparison with its complete property, payroll, and gross sales.

Among the many 50 states, there’s little concord in apportionment formulation. Many states weight the three elements equally whereas others weight the gross sales issue extra closely (a latest development in state tax coverage). Since many companies make gross sales into states the place they don’t have nexus, companies can find yourself with “nowhere earnings,” earnings that’s not taxed by any state. To counter this phenomenon, many states have adopted what are known as throwback guidelines as a result of they determine nowhere earnings and throw it again right into a state the place it will likely be taxed, though it was not earned in that state.

Throwback and throwout guidelines for gross sales of tangible property add yet one more layer of tax complexity. Since two or extra states can theoretically lay declare to “nowhere” earnings, guidelines must be created and enforced to determine who will get to tax it. States with company earnings taxation are nearly evenly divided between these with and with out throwback guidelines. Twenty-five states shouldn’t have them, whereas 23 states and the District of Columbia do.

Part 168(ok) Expensing. As a result of company earnings taxes are supposed to fall on internet earnings, they need to embody deductions for enterprise bills—together with funding in equipment and tools. Traditionally, nevertheless, companies have been required to depreciate the worth of those purchases over time. In recent times, the federal authorities provided “bonus depreciation” to speed up the deduction for these investments, and below the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, investments in equipment and tools are absolutely deductible within the first yr, a coverage often called “full expensing.” Eighteen states observe the federal authorities in providing full expensing, whereas two supply “bonus depreciation” wanting full expensing.

Web Curiosity Limitation. Federal regulation now restricts the deduction of enterprise curiosity, limiting the deduction to 30 p.c of modified earnings, with the power to hold the rest ahead to future tax years. This alteration was supposed to remove the bias in favor of debt financing (over fairness financing) within the federal code, however notably when states undertake this limitation with out incorporating its counterbalancing provision, full expensing, the result’s larger funding prices. Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia conform to the online curiosity limitation.

Inclusion of GILTI. Traditionally, states have largely prevented taxing worldwide earnings. Following federal tax reform, nevertheless, some states have latched onto the federal provision for the taxation of World Low-Taxed Intangible Earnings (GILTI), supposed as a guardrail for the brand new federal territorial system of taxation, as a way to broaden their tax bases to incorporate international enterprise exercise. States which tax GILTI are penalized within the Index, whereas states obtain partial credit score for reasonable taxation of GILTI (as an illustration, by adopting the Part 250 deduction) and are rewarded for decoupling or nearly absolutely decoupling from GILTI (by, as an illustration, treating it as largely-deductible international dividend earnings along with offering the Part 250 deduction).

Tax Credit

Many states present tax credit which decrease the efficient tax charges for sure industries and investments, typically for giant corporations from out of state which can be contemplating a transfer. Policymakers create these offers below the banner of job creation and financial growth, however the reality is that if a state wants to supply such packages, it’s most probably masking for a nasty enterprise tax local weather. Financial growth and job creation tax credit complicate the tax system, slender the tax base, drive up tax charges for firms that don’t qualify, distort the free market, and sometimes fail to attain financial development.[15]

A simpler strategy is to systematically enhance the enterprise tax local weather for the long run. Thus, this part rewards these states that don’t supply the next tax credit, with states that supply them scoring poorly.

Funding Tax Credit. Funding tax credit usually supply an offset towards tax legal responsibility if the corporate invests in new property, crops, tools, or equipment within the state providing the credit score. Generally, the brand new funding should be “certified” and accepted by the state’s financial growth workplace. Funding tax credit distort the market by rewarding funding in new property versus the renovation of previous property.

Job Tax Credit. Job tax credit usually supply an offset towards tax legal responsibility if the corporate creates a specified variety of jobs over a specified time period. Generally, the brand new jobs should be “certified” and accepted by the state’s financial growth workplace, allegedly to stop corporations from claiming that jobs shifted have been jobs added. Even when administered effectively, job tax credit can misfire in quite a lot of methods. They induce companies whose financial place could be finest served by spending extra on new tools or advertising and marketing to rent new workers as an alternative. Additionally they favor companies which can be increasing anyway, punishing corporations which can be already struggling. Thus, states that supply such credit rating poorly on the Index.

Analysis and Improvement (R&D) Tax Credit. Analysis and growth tax credit cut back the quantity of tax due by an organization that invests in “certified” analysis and growth actions. The theoretical argument for R&D tax credit is that they encourage the form of fundamental analysis that’s not economically justifiable within the quick run however that’s higher for society in the long term. In follow, their destructive unwanted effects–tremendously complicating the tax system and establishing a authorities company because the arbiter of what kinds of analysis meet a criterion so tough to evaluate–far outweigh the potential advantages. Thus, states that supply such credit rating poorly on the Index.

Particular person Earnings Tax

The person earnings tax part, which accounts for 31.2 p.c of every state’s complete Index rating, is necessary to enterprise as a result of a big variety of companies, together with sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S companies, report their earnings by means of the person earnings tax code.

Taxes can have a big influence on a person’s resolution to grow to be a self-employed entrepreneur. Gentry and Hubbard (2004) discovered, “Whereas the extent of the marginal tax fee has a destructive impact on entrepreneurial entry, the progressivity of the tax additionally discourages entrepreneurship, and considerably so for some teams of households.” Utilizing schooling as a measure of potential for innovation, Gentry and Hubbard discovered {that a} progressive tax system “discourages entry into self-employment for individuals of all instructional backgrounds.” Furthermore, citing Carroll, Holtz-Eakin, Rider, and Rosen (2000), Gentry and Hubbard contend, “Greater tax charges cut back funding, hiring, and small enterprise earnings development” (p. 7). Much less impartial particular person earnings tax techniques, due to this fact, damage entrepreneurship and a state’s enterprise tax local weather.

One other necessary cause particular person earnings tax charges are important for companies is the price of labor. Labor usually constitutes a significant enterprise expense, so something that hurts the labor pool may also have an effect on enterprise selections and the economic system. Complicated, poorly designed tax techniques that extract an inordinate quantity of tax income cut back each the amount and high quality of the labor pool. That is per the findings of Wasylenko and McGuire (1985), who discovered that particular person earnings taxes have an effect on companies not directly by influencing the placement selections of people. A progressive, multi-rate earnings tax exacerbates this downside by growing the marginal tax fee at larger ranges of earnings, frequently lowering the worth of labor vis-à-vis the worth of leisure.

For instance, suppose a employee has to decide on between one hour of further work value $10 and one hour of leisure which to him is value $9.50. A rational individual would select to work for an additional hour. But when a ten p.c earnings tax fee reduces the after-tax worth of labor to $9, then a rational individual would cease working and take the hour to pursue leisure. Moreover, staff incomes larger wages–$30 per hour, for instance–who face progressively larger marginal tax charges–20 p.c, as an illustration–usually tend to be discouraged from working further hours. On this situation, the employee’s after-tax wage is $24 per hour; due to this fact, these staff who worth leisure greater than $24 per hour will select to not work. For the reason that after-tax wage is $6 decrease than the pretax wage on this instance, in comparison with solely $1 decrease within the earlier instance, extra staff will select leisure. Within the mixture, the earnings tax reduces the obtainable labor provide.[16]

The person earnings tax fee subindex measures the influence of tax charges on the marginal greenback of particular person earnings utilizing three standards: the highest tax fee, the graduated fee construction, and the usual deductions and exemptions that are handled as a zero p.c tax bracket. The charges and brackets used are for a single taxpayer, not a pair submitting a joint return.

The person earnings tax base subindex takes under consideration measures enacted to stop double taxation, whether or not the code is listed for inflation, and the way the tax code treats married {couples} in comparison with singles. States that rating nicely defend married {couples} from being taxed extra severely than if that they had filed as two single people. Additionally they defend taxpayers from double taxation by recognizing LLCs and S companies below the person tax code and indexing their brackets, exemptions, and deductions for inflation.

States that don’t impose a person earnings tax typically obtain an ideal rating, and states that do impose a person earnings tax will typically rating nicely if they’ve a flat, low tax fee with few deductions and exemptions. States that rating poorly have complicated, multiple-rate techniques.

The seven states with out a person earnings tax or non-UI payroll tax are, not surprisingly, the best scoring states on this part: Alaska, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. Nevada, which taxes wage earnings (however not unearned earnings) at a low fee below a non-UI payroll tax, additionally does extraordinarily nicely on this part of the Index. New Hampshire additionally scores nicely, as a result of whereas the state levies a tax on particular person earnings within the type of curiosity and dividends, it doesn’t tax wages and salaries.[17] Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah rating extremely as a result of they’ve a single, low tax fee.

Scoring close to the underside of this part are states which have excessive tax charges and really progressive bracket buildings. They typically fail to index their brackets, exemptions, and deductions for inflation, don’t enable for deductions of international or different state taxes, penalize married {couples} submitting collectively, and don’t acknowledge LLCs and S companies.

Desk 4. Particular person Earnings Tax Element of the State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index (2014–2022)
  2022 2021 2021-2022 Change Prior 12 months Ranks
State Rank Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Alabama 27 4.91 29 4.92 2 -0.01 31 31 25 25 25 25 23
Alaska 1 10.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Arizona 18 5.34 18 5.39 0 -0.05 17 19 19 19 18 24 22
Arkansas 39 4.31 42 3.92 3 0.39 40 40 40 40 37 36 34
California 49 2.01 50 2.10 1 -0.09 49 49 50 50 50 50 50
Colorado 14 5.91 13 5.90 -1 0.01 13 13 14 14 14 14 15
Connecticut 47 3.38 47 3.44 0 -0.06 45 43 47 47 46 42 42
Delaware 44 3.82 44 3.83 0 -0.01 44 44 44 44 42 43 43
Florida 1 10.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Georgia 35 4.73 36 4.74 1 -0.01 36 37 35 35 35 35 33
Hawaii 46 3.46 46 3.48 0 -0.02 47 47 38 38 47 47 47
Idaho 20 5.21 24 5.07 4 0.14 25 23 24 24 23 21 20
Illinois 13 5.92 12 5.93 -1 -0.01 14 14 13 11 11 15 10
Indiana 15 5.86 14 5.87 -1 -0.01 15 15 15 15 15 13 14
Iowa 38 4.32 40 4.32 2 0.00 41 42 42 42 41 41 41
Kansas 22 5.11 21 5.12 -1 -0.01 22 21 18 17 17 17 16
Kentucky 17 5.56 17 5.57 0 -0.01 18 17 37 37 38 38 36
Louisiana 34 4.73 35 4.75 1 -0.02 35 35 31 32 32 33 32
Maine 23 5.09 22 5.11 -1 -0.02 20 25 32 31 34 28 26
Maryland 45 3.66 45 3.69 0 -0.03 43 45 46 46 43 44 44
Massachusetts 11 6.02 16 5.74 5 0.28 11 11 11 12 12 11 12
Michigan 12 5.99 11 6.00 -1 -0.01 12 12 12 13 13 12 13
Minnesota 43 3.88 43 3.92 0 -0.04 46 46 45 45 44 45 45
Mississippi 25 4.97 27 4.98 2 -0.01 28 28 23 23 24 22 21
Missouri 21 5.15 20 5.16 -1 -0.01 23 27 33 33 31 32 31
Montana 24 5.06 23 5.07 -1 -0.01 24 22 20 20 20 19 18
Nebraska 29 4.88 30 4.89 1 -0.01 30 30 34 34 33 34 38
Nevada 5 8.51 5 8.52 0 -0.01 5 5 1 1 1 1 1
New Hampshire 9 6.37 9 6.38 0 -0.01 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
New Jersey 48 2.05 49 2.13 1 -0.08 50 50 48 48 48 48 48
New Mexico 36 4.53 26 5.00 -10 -0.47 27 26 22 22 22 20 19
New York 50 1.84 48 2.20 -2 -0.36 48 48 49 49 49 49 49
North Carolina 16 5.77 15 5.79 -1 -0.02 16 16 16 16 16 16 37
North Dakota 26 4.95 25 5.03 -1 -0.08 19 18 21 21 21 23 27
Ohio 41 4.23 41 4.00 0 0.23 42 41 43 43 45 46 46
Oklahoma 30 4.86 31 4.87 1 -0.01 32 32 28 28 29 30 29
Oregon 42 3.99 38 4.36 -4 -0.37 39 38 36 36 36 37 35
Pennsylvania 19 5.23 19 5.24 0 -0.01 21 20 17 18 19 18 17
Rhode Island 31 4.82 32 4.86 1 -0.04 26 24 27 27 27 27 25
South Carolina 33 4.80 34 4.81 1 -0.01 34 34 30 30 30 31 30
South Dakota 1 10.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Tennessee 6 8.30 8 7.20 2 1.10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Texas 7 8.02 6 8.03 -1 -0.01 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Utah 10 6.11 10 6.12 0 -0.01 10 10 10 10 10 10 11
Vermont 40 4.30 39 4.34 -1 -0.04 38 36 41 41 40 40 40
Virginia 32 4.80 33 4.81 1 -0.01 33 33 29 29 28 29 28
Washington 7 8.02 6 8.03 -1 -0.01 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
West Virginia 28 4.90 28 4.92 0 -0.02 29 29 26 26 26 26 24
Wisconsin 37 4.35 37 4.42 0 -0.07 37 39 39 39 39 39 39
Wyoming 1 10.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
District of Columbia 48 2.79 48 2.92 0 -0.13 47 47 49 49 46 47 47

Be aware:  A rank of 1 is finest, 50 is worst. All scores are for fiscal years. DC’s rating and rank don’t have an effect on different states.

Supply: Tax Basis.

Particular person Earnings Tax Price

The speed subindex compares the states that tax particular person earnings after setting apart the 4 states that don’t and due to this fact obtain excellent scores: Alaska, Florida, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Tennessee, Texas, and Washington shouldn’t have a person earnings tax, however they do tax S company earnings—and Texas and Washington tax LLC earnings— by means of their gross receipts taxes and thus don’t rating completely on this part. Nevada has a low-rate payroll tax on wage earnings. New Hampshire, in the meantime, doesn’t tax wage and wage earnings however does tax curiosity and dividend earnings.

High Marginal Tax Price. California has the best prime earnings tax fee of 13.3 p.c. Different states with excessive prime charges embody Hawaii (11.0 p.c), New York (not too long ago raised to 10.9 p.c), New Jersey (10.75 p.c), Oregon (9.9 p.c), Minnesota (9.85 p.c), Vermont (8.75 p.c), and Iowa (8.53 p.c).

States with the bottom prime statutory charges are North Dakota (2.9 p.c), Pennsylvania (3.07 p.c), Indiana (3.23 p.c), Ohio (3.99 p.c), Michigan (4.25 p.c), Arizona and Colorado (each at 4.5 p.c), and Utah (4.95 p.c). Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma all impose a prime statutory fee of 5 p.c.[18] Illinois and Kansas, which beforehand boasted charges under 5 p.c, each adopted fee will increase in recent times. (Though Illinois’ statutory fee is 4.95 p.c, it additionally imposes a further 1.5 p.c tax on pass-through companies, mentioned elsewhere, bringing the speed for these entities to six.45 p.c.)

Along with statewide earnings tax charges, some states enable local-level earnings taxes.[19] We characterize these because the imply between the speed within the capital metropolis and most populous metropolis. In some circumstances, states authorizing local-level earnings taxes nonetheless maintain the extent of earnings taxation modest total. As an illustration, Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania enable native earnings add-ons, however are nonetheless among the many states with the bottom total charges.

High Tax Bracket Threshold. This variable assesses the diploma to which pass-through companies are topic to decreased after-tax return on funding as internet earnings rises. States are rewarded for a prime fee that kicks in at decrease ranges of earnings, as a result of doing so approximates a much less distortionary flat-rate system. For instance, Alabama has a progressive earnings tax construction with three earnings tax charges. Nevertheless, as a result of Alabama’s prime fee of 5 p.c applies to all taxable earnings over $3,000, the state’s earnings tax fee construction is almost flat.

States with flat-rate techniques rating the very best on this variable as a result of their prime fee kicks in on the first greenback of earnings (after accounting for the usual deduction and private exemption). They’re Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah. States with excessive kick-in ranges rating the worst. These embody New York ($25 million), New Jersey ($1 million of taxable earnings), California ($1 million), Connecticut ($500,000), and North Dakota ($440,600 of taxable earnings).

Variety of Brackets. The Index converts exemptions and normal deductions to a zero bracket earlier than tallying earnings tax brackets. From an financial perspective, normal deductions and exemptions are equal to a further tax bracket with a zero tax fee.

For instance, Kansas has a normal deduction of $3,000 and a private exemption of $2,250, for a mixed worth of $5,250. Statutorily, Kansas has a prime fee on all taxable earnings over $30,000 and two decrease brackets, one starting on the first greenback of earnings and one other at $15,000, so it has a median bracket width of $10,000. Due to its deduction and exemption, nevertheless, Kansas’s prime fee truly kicks in at $35,250 of earnings, and it has three tax brackets under that with a median width of $11,750. The scale of allowed normal deductions and exemptions varies significantly.[20]

Pennsylvania scores the very best on this variable by having just one tax bracket (that’s, a flat tax with no normal deduction). States with solely two brackets (that’s, flat taxes with a normal deduction) are Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Utah. On the opposite finish of the spectrum, Hawaii scores worst with 13 brackets, adopted by California with 11 brackets, and Iowa and Missouri with 10 brackets.

Common Width of Brackets. Many states have a number of slender tax brackets shut collectively on the low finish of the earnings scale, together with a zero bracket created by normal deductions and exemptions. Most taxpayers by no means discover them, as a result of they go so shortly by means of these brackets and pay the highest fee on most of their earnings. Then again, some states impose ever-increasing charges all through the earnings spectrum, inflicting people and noncorporate companies to change their income-earning and tax-planning habits. This subindex penalizes the latter group of states by measuring the common width of the brackets, rewarding these states the place the common width is small, since in these states the highest fee is levied on most earnings, appearing extra like a flat fee on all earnings.

Earnings Recapture. Connecticut and New York apply the speed of the highest earnings tax bracket to earlier taxable earnings after the taxpayer crosses the highest bracket threshold, whereas Arkansas imposes completely different tax tables relying on the filer’s degree of earnings. New York’s recapture provision is essentially the most damaging and leads to an roughly $22,000 penalty for reaching the highest bracket. Earnings recapture provisions are poor coverage, as a result of they lead to dramatically excessive marginal tax charges on the level of their kick-in, and they’re nontransparent in that they increase tax burdens considerably with out being mirrored within the statutory fee.

Particular person Earnings Tax Base

States have completely different definitions of taxable earnings, and a few create larger impediments to financial exercise than others. The bottom subindex provides a 40 p.c weight to the double taxation of taxable earnings and a 60 p.c weight to an accumulation of different base points, together with indexation and marriage penalties.

The states with no particular person earnings tax of any form obtain excellent neutrality. Tennessee, Texas, and Washington, nevertheless, are docked barely as a result of they don’t acknowledge LLCs or S companies, and Nevada’s payroll tax retains the state from attaining an ideal retailer. Of the opposite 43 states, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, and Utah have the very best scores, avoiding many issues with the definition of taxable earnings that plague different states. In the meantime, states the place the tax base is discovered to trigger an pointless drag on financial exercise embody New Jersey, Delaware, New York, California, Connecticut, and Ohio.

Marriage Penalty. A wedding penalty exists when a state’s normal deduction and tax brackets for married taxpayers submitting collectively usually are not double these for single filers. Consequently, two singles (if mixed) can have a decrease tax invoice than a married couple submitting collectively with the identical earnings. That is discriminatory and has severe enterprise ramifications. The highest-earning 20 p.c of taxpayers is dominated (85 p.c) by married {couples}. This similar 20 p.c additionally has the best focus of enterprise homeowners of all earnings teams (Hodge 2003A, Hodge 2003B). Due to these concentrations, marriage penalties have the potential to have an effect on a big share of pass-through companies. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have marriage penalties constructed into their earnings tax brackets.

Some states try to get across the marriage penalty downside by permitting married {couples} to file as in the event that they have been singles or by providing an offsetting tax credit score. Whereas useful in offsetting the greenback price of the wedding penalty, these options come on the expense of added tax complexity. Nonetheless, states that enable for married {couples} to file as singles don’t obtain a wedding penalty rating discount.

Double Taxation of Capital Earnings. Since most states with a person earnings tax system mimic the federal earnings tax code, in addition they possess its best flaw: the double taxation of capital earnings. Double taxation is caused by the interplay between the company earnings tax and the person earnings tax. The final word supply of most capital earnings–curiosity, dividends, and capital good points–is company income. The company earnings tax reduces the extent of income that may finally be used to generate curiosity or dividend funds or capital good points.[21] This capital earnings should then be declared by the receiving particular person and taxed. The result’s the double taxation of this capital earnings—first on the company degree and once more on the person degree.

All states that tax wage earnings rating poorly by this criterion. New Hampshire, which taxes people on curiosity and dividends, scores considerably higher as a result of it doesn’t tax capital good points. Nevada’s payroll tax doesn’t apply to capital earnings, and thus scores completely on this measure, together with states which forgo all earnings taxation.

Federal Earnings Used as State Tax Base. Regardless of the shortcomings of the federal authorities’s definition of earnings, states that use it cut back the tax compliance burden on taxpayers. 5 states rating poorly as a result of they don’t conform to federal definitions of particular person earnings: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Various Minimal Tax (AMT)

On the federal degree, the Various Minimal Tax (AMT) was created in 1969 to make sure that all taxpayers paid some minimal degree of taxes yearly. Sadly, it does so by making a parallel tax system to the usual particular person earnings tax code. AMTs are an inefficient technique to stop tax deductions and credit from completely eliminating tax legal responsibility. As such, states which have mimicked the federal AMT put themselves at a aggressive drawback by means of pointless tax complexity. 5 states rating poorly for imposing an AMT on people: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, and Minnesota.

Credit score for Taxes Paid

This variable measures the extent of double taxation on earnings used to pay international and state taxes, i.e., paying the identical taxes twice. States can keep away from double taxation by permitting a credit score for state taxes paid to different jurisdictions.

Recognition of Restricted Legal responsibility Company and S Company Standing

One necessary growth within the federal tax system was the creation of the restricted legal responsibility company (LLC) and the S company. LLCs and S companies present companies a number of the advantages of incorporation, comparable to restricted legal responsibility, with out the overhead of turning into a conventional C company. The income of those entities are taxed below the person earnings tax code, which avoids the double taxation issues that plague the company earnings tax system. Each state with a full particular person earnings tax acknowledges LLCs to not less than a point, and all however Louisiana acknowledge S companies in some style, however those who require further state election or make the entity file by means of the state’s gross receipts tax (as in Delaware, Ohio, Texas, and Washington) rating poorly on this variable.

Indexation of the Tax Code

Indexing the tax code for inflation is important as a way to stop de facto tax will increase on the nominal enhance in earnings attributable to inflation. This “inflation tax” leads to larger tax burdens on taxpayers, often with out their data or consent. Three areas of the person earnings tax are generally listed for inflation: the usual deduction, private exemptions, and tax brackets. Twenty-six states index all three or don’t impose a person earnings tax; 14 states and the District of Columbia index one or two of the three; and ten states don’t index in any respect.

Gross sales Taxes

Gross sales tax makes up 23.7 p.c of every state’s Index rating. The kind of gross sales tax acquainted to taxpayers is a tax levied on the acquisition worth of an excellent on the level of sale. Because of the inclusion of some enterprise inputs in most states’ gross sales tax bases, the speed and construction of the gross sales tax is a crucial consideration for a lot of companies. The gross sales tax can even damage the enterprise tax local weather as a result of because the gross sales tax fee climbs, clients make fewer purchases or search low-tax alternate options. Consequently, enterprise is misplaced to lower-tax places, inflicting misplaced income, misplaced jobs, and misplaced tax income.[22] The impact of differential gross sales tax charges amongst states or localities is clear when a traveler crosses from a high-tax state to a neighboring low-tax state. Usually, an unlimited expanse of buying malls springs up alongside the border within the low-tax jurisdiction.

On the constructive aspect, gross sales taxes levied on items and providers on the level of sale to the end-user have not less than two virtues. First, they’re clear: the tax isn’t confused with the worth of products by clients. Second, since they’re levied on the level of sale, they’re much less more likely to trigger financial distortions than taxes levied at some intermediate stage of manufacturing (comparable to a gross receipts tax or gross sales taxes on business-to-business transactions).

The destructive influence of gross sales taxes is nicely documented within the financial literature and thru anecdotal proof. For instance, Bartik (1989) discovered that prime gross sales taxes, particularly gross sales taxes levied on tools, had a destructive impact on small enterprise start-ups. Furthermore, firms have been identified to keep away from finding factories or services in sure states as a result of the manufacturing unit’s equipment could be topic to the state’s gross sales tax.[23]

States that create essentially the most tax pyramiding and financial distortion, and due to this fact rating the worst, are states that levy a gross sales tax that typically permits no exclusions for enterprise inputs.[24] Hawaii, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Washington are examples of states that tax many enterprise inputs. The best base for gross sales taxation is all items and providers on the level of sale to the end-user.

Excise taxes are gross sales taxes levied on particular items. Items topic to excise taxation are usually (however not all the time) perceived to be luxuries or vices, the latter of that are much less delicate to drops in demand when the tax will increase their worth. Examples usually embody tobacco, liquor, and gasoline. The gross sales tax part of the Index takes under consideration the excise tax charges every state levies.

The 5 states with no state gross sales tax–Alaska,[25] Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon–obtain the very best gross sales tax part scores. Amongst states with a gross sales tax, these with low common charges and broad bases, and which keep away from tax pyramiding, do finest. Wyoming, Wisconsin, Maine, Idaho, Michigan, and Virginia all do nicely, with well-structured gross sales taxes and modest excise tax charges.

On the different finish of the spectrum, Alabama, Washington, Louisiana, California, and Tennessee fare the worst, imposing excessive charges and taxing a spread of enterprise inputs, comparable to utilities, providers, manufacturing, and leases—and sustaining comparatively excessive excise taxes. Louisiana and Tennessee have the best mixed state and native charges of 9.55 p.c. Basically, these states levy excessive gross sales tax charges that apply to most or all enterprise enter gadgets.

Desk 5. Gross sales Tax Element of the State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index (2014–2022)
  2022 2021 2021-2022 Change Prior 12 months Rankings
State Rank Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Alabama 50 2.56 50 2.56 0 0.00 50 50 49 49 50 50 50
Alaska 5 8.08 5 8.11 0 -0.03 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Arizona 40 4.06 40 4.06 0 0.00 40 40 43 44 43 43 43
Arkansas 45 3.58 46 3.57 1 0.01 46 45 46 46 48 48 46
California 47 3.53 45 3.60 -2 -0.07 45 46 44 43 44 44 44
Colorado 38 4.26 36 4.37 -2 -0.11 37 37 37 37 36 37 37
Connecticut 23 4.80 25 4.79 2 0.01 26 29 29 31 32 34 34
Delaware 2 9.03 2 9.04 0 -0.01 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
Florida 21 4.94 23 4.91 2 0.03 23 22 30 29 23 23 23
Georgia 33 4.47 32 4.49 -1 -0.02 33 35 34 34 37 28 29
Hawaii 28 4.62 28 4.61 0 0.01 29 32 26 26 27 31 31
Idaho 9 5.41 9 5.39 0 0.02 11 12 15 14 14 12 14
Illinois 39 4.23 39 4.27 0 -0.04 34 34 27 27 33 35 35
Indiana 19 5.01 20 5.01 1 0.00 20 13 9 9 17 21 20
Iowa 15 5.18 14 5.16 -1 0.02 14 18 19 19 19 17 17
Kansas 27 4.73 37 4.34 10 0.39 38 27 28 28 29 25 24
Kentucky 13 5.22 13 5.21 0 0.01 13 19 14 12 13 18 11
Louisiana 48 3.04 48 3.05 0 -0.01 48 48 50 50 47 46 48
Maine 8 5.65 8 5.64 0 0.01 8 8 8 8 8 8 7
Maryland 26 4.76 18 5.04 -8 -0.28 19 17 18 17 16 15 12
Massachusetts 12 5.24 12 5.23 0 0.01 12 10 11 18 18 20 18
Michigan 10 5.39 10 5.39 0 0.00 10 14 12 10 9 10 10
Minnesota 29 4.61 27 4.66 -2 -0.05 28 26 25 25 26 33 30
Mississippi 32 4.49 31 4.49 -1 0.00 32 36 39 39 39 39 38
Missouri 25 4.78 24 4.81 -1 -0.03 24 25 24 23 25 24 22
Montana 3 8.96 3 8.96 0 0.00 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Nebraska 14 5.21 15 5.15 1 0.06 15 11 21 20 21 22 21
Nevada 44 3.81 44 3.89 0 -0.08 44 44 42 41 41 41 41
New Hampshire 1 9.06 1 9.08 0 -0.02 1 1 2 2 2 1 1
New Jersey 43 3.96 42 4.02 -1 -0.06 42 42 41 40 40 40 40
New Mexico 41 4.05 41 4.05 0 0.00 41 41 40 42 42 42 42
New York 42 3.97 43 3.96 1 0.01 43 43 45 45 45 45 45
North Carolina 20 4.98 21 4.96 1 0.02 21 24 20 21 20 16 26
North Dakota 30 4.61 29 4.61 -1 0.00 27 30 35 35 34 32 33
Ohio 35 4.39 34 4.40 -1 -0.01 31 28 31 32 30 29 28
Oklahoma 37 4.28 38 4.27 1 0.01 39 39 36 36 35 36 36
Oregon 4 8.84 4 8.83 0 0.01 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Pennsylvania 17 5.14 17 5.09 0 0.05 17 21 22 22 22 19 19
Rhode Island 24 4.80 26 4.78 2 0.02 25 23 23 24 24 27 27
South Carolina 31 4.52 30 4.55 -1 -0.03 30 33 32 30 31 30 32
South Dakota 34 4.43 33 4.42 -1 0.01 35 31 33 33 28 26 25
Tennessee 46 3.54 47 3.53 1 0.01 47 47 47 47 46 47 47
Texas 36 4.38 35 4.38 -1 0.00 36 38 38 38 38 38 39
Utah 22 4.94 22 4.92 0 0.02 22 15 17 16 12 13 16
Vermont 16 5.14 16 5.14 0 0.00 16 20 16 15 15 14 15
Virginia 11 5.26 11 5.36 0 -0.10 9 9 10 11 10 9 9
Washington 49 2.96 49 2.95 0 0.01 49 49 48 48 49 49 49
West Virginia 18 5.04 19 5.03 1 0.01 18 16 13 13 11 11 13
Wisconsin 7 6.02 7 5.82 0 0.20 7 7 7 7 7 7 8
Wyoming 6 6.04 6 6.07 0 -0.03 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
District of Columbia 37 4.33 34 4.41 -3 -0.08 36 31 35 34 34 34 34

Be aware: A rank of 1 is finest, 50 is worst. All scores are for fiscal years. DC’s rating and rank don’t have an effect on different states.

Supply: Tax Basis.

Gross sales Tax Price

The tax fee itself is necessary, and a state with a excessive gross sales tax fee reduces demand for in-state retail gross sales. Shoppers will flip extra ceaselessly to cross-border or catalog purchases, leaving much less enterprise exercise within the state. This subindex measures the best potential gross sales tax fee relevant to in-state retail buying and taxable business-to-business transactions. 4 states–Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon–shouldn’t have state or native gross sales taxes and thus are given a fee of zero. Alaska is typically counted amongst states with no gross sales tax because it doesn’t levy a statewide gross sales tax. Nevertheless, Alaska localities are allowed to levy gross sales taxes and the weighted statewide common of those taxes is 1.76 p.c.

The Index measures the state and native gross sales tax fee in every state. A mixed fee is computed by including the overall state fee to the weighted common of the county and municipal charges.

State Gross sales Tax Price. Of the forty-five states (and the District of Columbia) with a statewide gross sales tax, Colorado’s 2.9 p.c fee is the bottom. 5 states have a 4 p.c state-level gross sales tax: Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, New York, and Wyoming. On the different finish is California with a 7.25 p.c state gross sales tax, together with a compulsory statewide native add-on tax. Tied for second-highest are Indiana, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Tennessee (all at 7 p.c). Different states with excessive statewide charges embody Minnesota (6.88 p.c) and Nevada (6.85 p.c).

Native Possibility Gross sales Tax Charges. Thirty-eight states authorize the usage of native possibility gross sales taxes on the county and/or municipal degree, and in some states, the native possibility gross sales tax considerably will increase the tax fee confronted by shoppers.[26] Native jurisdictions in Colorado, for instance, add a median of 4.82 p.c in native gross sales taxes to the state’s 2.9 p.c state-level fee, bringing the full common gross sales tax fee to 7.72 p.c. This can be an understatement in some localities with a lot larger native add-ons, however by weighting every locality’s fee, the Index computes a statewide common of native charges that’s akin to the common in different states.

Alabama and Louisiana have the best common native possibility gross sales taxes (5.22 and 5.10 p.c, respectively), and in each states the common native possibility gross sales tax is larger than the state gross sales tax fee. Different states with excessive native possibility gross sales taxes embody Colorado (4.82 p.c), New York (4.52 p.c), and Oklahoma (4.45 p.c).

States with the best mixed state and common native gross sales tax charges are Louisiana and Tennessee (each at 9.55 p.c), Arkansas (9.48 p.c), Washington (9.29 p.c), and Alabama (9.22 p.c). On the low finish are Alaska (1.76 p.c), Hawaii (4.44 p.c), Wyoming (5.39 p.c), Wisconsin (5.43 p.c), and Maine (5.5 p.c).

Distant Vendor Protections. With the Supreme Court docket’s elimination of the bodily presence requirement for imposing gross sales tax assortment obligations, all states with gross sales taxes at the moment are requiring distant sellers to gather and remit gross sales tax. Whereas most states have adopted secure harbors for small sellers and have a single level of administration for all state and native gross sales taxes, just a few diverge from these practices, imposing substantial compliance prices on out-of-state retailers. Alabama, Alaska (which solely has native gross sales taxes), Colorado, and Louisiana lack uniform administration, whereas Kansas doesn’t supply a secure harbor for small sellers.

Gross sales Tax Base

The gross sales tax base subindex is computed in response to 5 options of every state’s gross sales tax:

  • whether or not the bottom contains a wide range of business-to-business transactions comparable to equipment, uncooked supplies, workplace tools, farm tools, and enterprise leases;
  • whether or not the bottom contains items and providers usually bought by shoppers, comparable to groceries, clothes, and gasoline;
  • whether or not the bottom contains providers, comparable to authorized, monetary, accounting, medical, health, landscaping, and restore;
  • whether or not the state leans on gross sales tax holidays, which quickly exempt choose items from the gross sales tax; and
  • the excise tax fee on merchandise comparable to gasoline, diesel gasoline, tobacco, spirits, and beer.

The highest 5 states on this subindex—New Hampshire, Delaware, Montana, Oregon, and Alaska—are the 5 states with no common state gross sales tax. Nevertheless, none receives an ideal rating as a result of every levies gasoline, diesel, tobacco, and beer excise taxes. States like Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Idaho, and Missouri obtain excessive scores on their tax base by avoiding the issues of tax pyramiding and adhering to low excise tax charges, although of those, Colorado receives poor marks for a scarcity of native base conformity.

States with the worst scores on the bottom subindex are Hawaii, Alabama, Washington, California, South Dakota, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Maryland. Their tax techniques hamper financial development by together with too many enterprise inputs, excluding too many client items and providers, and imposing extreme charges of excise taxation.

Gross sales Tax on Enterprise-to-Enterprise Transactions (Enterprise Inputs). When a enterprise should pay gross sales taxes on manufacturing tools and uncooked supplies, then that tax turns into a part of the worth of regardless of the enterprise makes with that tools and people supplies. The enterprise should then acquire gross sales tax by itself merchandise, with the end result {that a} tax is being charged on a worth that already comprises taxes. This tax pyramiding invariably leads to some industries being taxed extra closely than others, which violates the precept of neutrality and causes financial distortions.

These variables are sometimes inputs to different enterprise operations. For instance, a producing agency will depend the price of transporting its closing items to retailers as a big price of doing enterprise. Most corporations, small and huge alike, rent accountants, legal professionals, and different skilled service suppliers. If these providers are taxed, then it’s costlier for each enterprise to function.

To grasp how business-to-business gross sales taxes can distort the market, suppose a gross sales tax have been levied on the sale of flour to a bakery. The bakery shouldn’t be the end-user as a result of the flour shall be baked into bread and bought to shoppers. Financial concept shouldn’t be clear as to which get together will finally bear the burden of the tax. The tax could possibly be “handed ahead” onto the shopper or “handed backward” onto the bakery.[27] The place the tax burden falls is dependent upon how delicate the demand for bread is to cost adjustments. If clients have a tendency to not change their bread-buying habits when the worth rises, then the tax may be absolutely handed ahead onto shoppers. Nevertheless, if the patron reacts to larger costs by shopping for much less, then the tax should be absorbed by the bakery as an added price of doing enterprise.

The hypothetical gross sales tax on all flour gross sales would distort the market, as a result of completely different companies that use flour have clients with various worth sensitivity. Suppose the bakery is ready to go your entire tax on flour ahead to the patron however the pizzeria down the road can’t. The homeowners of the pizzeria would face a better price construction and income would drop. Since income are the market sign for alternative, the tax would tilt the market away from pizza-making. Fewer entrepreneurs would enter the pizza enterprise, and current companies would rent fewer individuals. In each circumstances, the gross sales tax charged to purchasers of bread and pizza could be partly a tax on a tax as a result of the tax on flour could be constructed into the worth. Economists name this tax pyramiding, and public finance students overwhelmingly oppose making use of the gross sales tax to enterprise inputs because of the ensuing pyramiding and lack of transparency.

Besley and Rosen (1998) discovered that for a lot of merchandise, the after-tax worth of the nice elevated by the identical quantity because the tax itself. Meaning a gross sales tax enhance was handed alongside to shoppers on a one-for-one foundation. For different items, nevertheless, they discovered that the worth of the nice rose by twice the quantity of the tax, that means that the tax enhance interprets into an excellent bigger burden for shoppers than is often thought. Be aware that these inputs ought to solely be exempt from gross sales tax if they’re really inputs into the manufacturing course of. If they’re consumed by an end-user, they’re correctly includable within the state’s gross sales tax base.

States that create essentially the most tax pyramiding and financial distortion, and due to this fact rating the worst, are states that levy a gross sales tax that typically permits no exclusions for enterprise inputs. Hawaii, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Washington are examples of states that tax many enterprise inputs.

Gross sales Tax Breadth. An economically impartial gross sales tax base contains all closing retail gross sales of products and providers bought by the end-users. In follow, nevertheless, states have a tendency to incorporate most items, however comparatively few providers, of their gross sales tax bases, a rising subject in an more and more service-oriented economic system. Professor John Mikesell of Indiana College estimates that, nationwide, gross sales taxes lengthen to about 36 p.c of all closing client transactions.[28] Exempting any items or providers narrows the tax base, drives up the gross sales tax fee on these gadgets nonetheless topic to tax, and introduces pointless distortions into the market. A well-structured gross sales tax, nevertheless, doesn’t fall upon enterprise inputs. Due to this fact, states that tax providers which can be enterprise inputs rating poorly on the Index, whereas states are rewarded for increasing their base to incorporate extra closing retail gross sales of products and providers.

Gross sales Tax on Gasoline. There is no such thing as a financial cause to exempt gasoline from the gross sales tax, as it’s a closing retail buy by shoppers. Nevertheless, all however seven states accomplish that. Whereas all states levy an excise tax on gasoline, these funds are sometimes devoted for transportation functions, making them a type of consumer tax distinct from the overall gross sales tax. The 5 states that absolutely embody gasoline of their gross sales tax base (Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan) get a greater rating. A number of different states obtain partial credit score for making use of an advert valorem tax to gasoline gross sales, however at a distinct fee than for the overall gross sales tax. New York applies native gross sales taxes solely.

Gross sales Tax on Groceries. A well-structured gross sales tax contains all end-user items within the tax base, to maintain the bottom broad, charges low, and forestall distortions within the market. Many states exempt groceries to scale back the incidence of the gross sales tax on low-income residents. Such an exemption, nevertheless, additionally advantages grocers and higher-income residents, and creates further compliance prices because of the necessity of sustaining complicated, ever-changing lists of exempt and nonexempt merchandise. Public help applications such because the Ladies, Infants, and Kids (WIC) program or the Complement Diet Help Program (SNAP) present extra focused help than excluding groceries from the gross sales tax base. 13 states embody or partially embody groceries of their gross sales tax base.

Excise Taxes

Excise taxes are single-product gross sales taxes. Lots of them are supposed to scale back consumption of the product bearing the tax. Others, just like the gasoline tax, are sometimes used to fund particular initiatives comparable to highway building.

Gasoline and diesel excise taxes (levied per gallon) are often justified as a type of consumer tax paid by those that profit from highway building and upkeep. Although fuel taxes–together with tolls–are among the best methods to lift income for transportation initiatives (roughly approximating a consumer price for infrastructure use), gasoline represents a big enter for many companies, so states that levy larger charges have a much less aggressive enterprise tax local weather. State excise taxes on gasoline vary from 66.98 cents in California to 14.98 cents per gallon in Alaska. The Index depends upon calculated charges from the American Petroleum Institute, capturing states’ base excise taxes along with different gallonage-based charges and advert valorem taxes positioned upon gasoline. Common gross sales tax charges that apply to gasoline are included on this calculated fee, however states which embody, or partially embody, gasoline within the gross sales tax base are rewarded within the gross sales tax breadth measure.

Tobacco, spirits, and beer excise taxes can discourage in-state consumption and encourage shoppers to hunt decrease costs in neighboring jurisdictions (Moody and Warcholik, 2004). This impacts a large swath of stores, comparable to comfort shops, that transfer giant volumes of tobacco and beer merchandise. The issue is exacerbated for these retailers situated close to the border of states with decrease excise taxes as shoppers transfer their buying out of state—known as cross-border buying.

There’s additionally the rising downside of cross-border smuggling of merchandise from states and areas that levy low excise taxes on tobacco into states that levy excessive excise taxes on tobacco. This each will increase prison exercise and reduces taxable gross sales by official retailers.[29]

States with the best tobacco taxes per pack of 20 cigarettes are New York and Connecticut (at $4.35 every), Rhode Island ($4.25), Minnesota ($3.65), and Massachusetts ($3.51), whereas states with the bottom tobacco taxes are Missouri (17 cents), Georgia (37 cents), North Dakota (44 cents), North Carolina (45 cents), and South Carolina and Idaho (57 cents).

States with the best beer taxes on a per gallon foundation are Tennessee ($1.29), Alaska ($1.07), Alabama ($1.05), Georgia ($1.01), and Hawaii ($0.93), whereas states with the bottom beer taxes are Wyoming (2 cents), Missouri and Wisconsin (6 cents), and Colorado, Oregon, and Pennsylvania (every at 8 cents). States with the best spirits taxes per gallon are Washington ($32.31), Oregon ($21.95), and Virginia ($19.89).

Property Tax

The property tax part, which incorporates taxes on actual and private property, internet value, and the switch of belongings, accounts for 14.4 p.c of every state’s Index rating.

When correctly structured, property taxes exceed most different taxes in comporting with the profit precept and may be pretty economically environment friendly. Within the realm of public finance, they’re typically additionally prized for his or her comparative transparency amongst taxes, although that transparency could contribute to the general public’s typically low view of property taxes. The Tax Basis’s Survey of Tax Attitudes discovered that native property taxes are perceived because the second most unfair state or native tax.[30]

Property taxes matter to companies, and the tax fee on industrial property is commonly larger than the tax on comparable residential property. Moreover, many localities and states levy taxes on the non-public property or tools owned by a enterprise. They are often on belongings starting from automobiles to equipment and tools to workplace furnishings and fixtures, however are separate from actual property taxes, that are taxes on land and buildings.

Companies remitted over $839 billion in state and native taxes in fiscal yr 2020, of which $330 billion (39.2 p.c) was for property taxes. The property taxes included tax on actual, private, and utility property owned by companies (Phillips et al. 2021). Since property taxes could be a giant burden on enterprise, they’ll have a big impact on location selections.

Mark, McGuire, and Papke (2000) discover taxes that modify from one location to a different inside a area could possibly be uniquely necessary determinants of intraregional location selections. They discover that larger charges of two enterprise taxes–the gross sales tax and the non-public property tax–are related to decrease employment development. They estimate {that a} tax hike on private property of 1 proportion level reduces annual employment development by 2.44 proportion factors.

Bartik (1985), discovering that property taxes are a big consider enterprise location selections, estimates {that a} 10 p.c enhance in enterprise property taxes decreases the variety of new crops opening in a state by between 1 and a pair of p.c. Bartik (1989) backs up his earlier findings by concluding that larger property taxes negatively have an effect on the institution of small companies. He elaborates that the notably robust destructive impact of property taxes happens as a result of they’re paid no matter income, and lots of small companies usually are not worthwhile of their first few years, so excessive property taxes could be extra influential than profit-based taxes on the start-up resolution.

States which maintain statewide property taxes low higher place themselves to draw enterprise funding. Localities competing for enterprise can put themselves at a larger aggressive benefit by retaining private property taxes low.

Taxes on capital inventory, tangible and intangible property, stock, actual property transfers, estates, inheritance, and presents are additionally included within the property tax part of the Index. The states that rating the very best on property tax are Indiana, New Mexico, Idaho, Delaware, Nevada, and Ohio. These states typically have low charges of property tax, whether or not measured per capita or as a proportion of earnings. Additionally they keep away from distortionary taxes like property, inheritance, present, and different wealth taxes. States that rating poorly on the property tax part are Connecticut, Vermont, Illinois, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. These states typically have excessive property tax charges and levy a number of wealth-based taxes.

The property tax portion of the Index consists of two equally weighted subindices dedicated to measuring the financial influence of each charges and bases. The speed subindex consists of property tax collections (measured each per capita and as a proportion of private earnings) and capital inventory taxes. The bottom portion consists of dummy variables detailing whether or not every state levies wealth taxes comparable to inheritance, property, present, stock, intangible property, and different comparable taxes.[31]

Desk 6. Property Tax Element of the State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index (2014–2022)
  2022 2021 2021-2022 Change Prior 12 months Ranks
State Rank Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Alabama 19 5.32 19 5.31 0 0.01 18 19 16 17 21 13 13
Alaska 24 5.18 23 5.19 -1 -0.01 23 22 40 24 19 29 28
Arizona 11 5.69 10 5.67 -1 0.02 11 11 11 11 12 11 11
Arkansas 27 5.13 26 5.16 -1 -0.03 25 26 24 23 26 23 22
California 14 5.45 14 5.47 0 -0.02 15 13 14 14 13 15 15
Colorado 34 4.70 33 4.72 -1 -0.02 33 33 32 33 34 39 39
Connecticut 50 2.32 50 2.34 0 -0.02 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Delaware 4 6.32 4 6.28 0 0.04 4 4 7 7 5 5 5
Florida 12 5.59 12 5.58 0 0.01 12 12 12 13 17 22 21
Georgia 25 5.16 25 5.16 0 0.00 30 29 27 25 24 27 27
Hawaii 30 5.01 29 5.11 -1 -0.10 26 21 19 18 16 19 19
Idaho 3 6.48 3 6.43 0 0.05 3 3 2 2 2 2 2
Illinois 48 3.58 48 3.56 0 0.02 48 48 47 47 47 47 47
Indiana 1 6.51 2 6.45 1 0.06 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
Iowa 39 4.35 38 4.37 -1 -0.02 38 38 37 39 38 37 37
Kansas 31 4.98 31 5.01 0 -0.03 31 31 30 30 29 33 33
Kentucky 22 5.20 22 5.19 0 0.01 21 23 20 21 22 16 16
Louisiana 23 5.20 24 5.16 1 0.04 27 27 22 26 18 18 18
Maine 41 4.24 40 4.32 -1 -0.08 40 40 39 40 39 38 38
Maryland 43 4.12 43 4.16 0 -0.04 41 41 42 41 41 41 41
Massachusetts 45 3.74 45 3.83 0 -0.09 44 45 45 45 45 45 45
Michigan 21 5.22 20 5.26 -1 -0.04 24 25 26 27 28 26 26
Minnesota 32 4.94 32 4.95 0 -0.01 32 32 31 32 32 30 29
Mississippi 38 4.44 37 4.48 -1 -0.04 37 37 36 37 37 34 34
Missouri 8 5.81 8 5.82 0 -0.01 9 9 9 10 14 12 12
Montana 29 5.05 28 5.14 -1 -0.09 28 30 28 28 27 25 25
Nebraska 40 4.29 41 4.30 1 -0.01 39 39 38 38 35 36 36
Nevada 5 6.17 5 6.15 0 0.02 6 5 6 6 7 7 7
New Hampshire 46 3.71 47 3.69 1 0.02 45 46 44 44 44 43 43
New Jersey 44 3.88 44 3.92 0 -0.04 46 44 49 48 48 48 48
New Mexico 2 6.50 1 6.51 -1 -0.01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
New York 47 3.61 46 3.76 -1 -0.15 47 47 46 46 46 44 44
North Carolina 13 5.53 13 5.52 0 0.01 13 14 29 29 25 10 10
North Dakota 10 5.71 11 5.63 1 0.08 7 6 4 4 4 4 4
Ohio 6 6.12 6 6.12 0 0.00 5 7 5 5 6 8 8
Oklahoma 28 5.07 30 5.10 2 -0.03 29 28 21 20 23 21 20
Oregon 17 5.38 16 5.39 -1 -0.01 19 16 17 16 11 17 17
Pennsylvania 15 5.43 15 5.44 0 -0.01 16 17 15 15 30 31 31
Rhode Island 42 4.20 42 4.18 0 0.02 42 42 43 43 43 46 46
South Carolina 36 4.61 35 4.59 -1 0.02 35 36 35 36 36 35 35
South Dakota 18 5.36 21 5.25 3 0.11 14 15 13 12 10 9 9
Tennessee 33 4.74 34 4.61 1 0.13 34 35 34 35 40 40 40
Texas 37 4.48 36 4.52 -1 -0.04 36 34 33 34 33 32 32
Utah 7 5.99 7 5.97 0 0.02 8 8 8 8 8 6 6
Vermont 49 3.24 49 3.29 0 -0.05 49 49 48 49 49 49 49
Virginia 26 5.15 27 5.15 1 0.00 22 24 23 22 20 24 23
Washington 20 5.28 18 5.38 -2 -0.10 17 18 18 19 15 14 14
West Virginia 9 5.77 9 5.71 0 0.06 10 10 10 9 9 20 24
Wisconsin 16 5.41 17 5.38 1 0.03 20 20 25 31 31 28 30
Wyoming 35 4.62 39 4.33 4 0.29 43 43 41 42 42 42 42
District of Columbia 50 2.96 50 3.06 0 -0.10 49 49 48 48 40 50 46

Be aware: A rank of 1 is finest, 50 is worst. All scores are for fiscal years. DC’s rating and rank don’t have an effect on different states.

Supply: Tax Basis.

Property Tax Price

The property tax fee subindex consists of property tax collections per capita (40 p.c of the subindex rating), property tax collections as a p.c of private earnings (40 p.c of the subindex rating), and capital inventory taxes (20 p.c of the subindex rating). The heavy weighting of tax collections is because of their significance to companies and people and their growing measurement and visibility to all taxpayers. Each are included to achieve a greater understanding of how a lot every state collects in proportion to its inhabitants and its earnings. Tax collections as a proportion of private earnings types an efficient fee that provides taxpayers a way of how a lot of their earnings is dedicated to property taxes, and the per capita determine lets them understand how a lot in precise greenback phrases they pay in property taxes in comparison with residents of different states.

Whereas these measures usually are not splendid–having efficient tax charges of private and actual property for each companies and people could be preferable–they’re the very best measures obtainable because of the important knowledge constraints posed by property tax collections. Since a excessive proportion of property taxes are levied on the native degree, there are numerous jurisdictions. The sheer variety of completely different localities makes knowledge assortment nearly not possible. The few research that deal with the topic use consultant cities or cities as an alternative of your entire state. Thus, the very best supply for knowledge on property taxes is the Census Bureau, as a result of it might probably compile the info and reconcile definitional issues.

States that keep low efficient charges and low collections per capita usually tend to promote development than states with excessive charges and collections.

Property Tax Collections Per Capita. Property tax collections per capita are calculated by dividing property taxes collected in every state (obtained from the Census Bureau) by inhabitants. The states with the best property tax collections per capita are New Jersey ($3,378), New Hampshire ($3,362), Connecticut ($3,107), New York ($3,025), and Vermont ($2,738). The states that acquire the least per capita are Alabama ($597), Oklahoma ($771), Arkansas ($776), Tennessee ($799), and New Mexico ($832).

Efficient Property Tax Price. Property tax collections as a p.c of private earnings are derived by dividing the Census Bureau’s determine for complete property tax collections by private earnings in every state. This gives an efficient property tax fee. States with the best efficient charges and due to this fact the worst scores are New Hampshire (5.47 p.c), Vermont (5.12 p.c), New Jersey (4.98 p.c), Maine (4.61 p.c), Rhode Island (4.47 p.c), and New York (4.41 p.c). States that rating nicely with low efficient tax charges are Alabama (1.4 p.c), Oklahoma (1.68 p.c), Tennessee (1.69 p.c), Delaware (1.76 p.c), Arkansas (1.79 p.c), and Louisiana (1.93 p.c).

Capital Inventory Tax Price. Capital inventory taxes (generally known as franchise taxes) are levied on the wealth of a company, often outlined as internet value. They’re typically levied along with company earnings taxes, including a reproduction layer of taxation and compliance for a lot of companies. Firms that discover themselves in monetary hassle should use their restricted money movement to pay their capital inventory tax. In assessing capital inventory taxes, the subindex accounts for 3 variables: the capital inventory tax fee; the utmost cost; and whether or not any capital inventory tax is imposed along with a company earnings tax, or whether or not the enterprise is responsible for the upper of the 2. The capital inventory tax subindex is 20 p.c of the full fee subindex.

This variable measures the speed of taxation as levied by the 16 states with a capital inventory tax. Legislators have come to comprehend the damaging results of capital inventory taxes, and a handful of states are lowering or repealing them. Kansas accomplished the phaseout of its tax in 2011. West Virginia and Rhode Island absolutely phased out their capital inventory taxes as of January 1, 2015, and Pennsylvania phased out its capital inventory tax in 2016. New York completed a phaseout of the state’s capital inventory tax as of January 1, 2021, however the legislature determined to quickly reinstate the tax attributable to coronavirus-related funds issues. Equally, Illinois had plans to start a phaseout in 2020, finishing the method in 2024. After two years, Illinois reversed its phaseout plan and opted as an alternative to freeze the franchise tax exemption at $1,000. Connecticut will part out its tax over 5 years beginning in 2021. States with the best capital inventory tax charges embody Arkansas and Louisiana (0.3 p.c), Connecticut and Massachusetts (0.26 p.c), Tennessee (0.25 p.c), and New York (0.1875 p.c).

Most Capital Inventory Tax Fee. Eight states mitigate the destructive financial influence of the capital inventory tax by inserting a cap on the utmost capital inventory tax cost. These states are Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, and Oklahoma, and amongst states with a capital inventory tax, they obtain the best rating on this variable.

Capital Inventory Tax versus Company Earnings Tax. Some states mitigate the destructive financial influence of the capital inventory tax by permitting companies to pay the upper of their capital inventory tax or their company tax. These states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York) are given credit score for this provision. States that shouldn’t have a capital inventory tax get the very best scores on this subindex whereas the states that power firms to pay each rating the worst.

Property Tax Base

This subindex consists of dummy variables itemizing the various kinds of property taxes every state levies. Seven taxes are included and every is equally weighted. Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Ohio, Alaska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania rating the very best as a result of they every solely levy one of many seven taxes. Connecticut, Maryland, and Kentucky obtain the worst scores as a result of they impose many of those taxes.

Enterprise Tangible Property Tax. This variable rewards states which take away, or considerably take away, enterprise tangible private property from their tax base. Taxes on tangible private property, that means property that may be touched or moved (versus actual property), are a supply of tax complexity and nonneutrality, incentivizing corporations to alter their funding selections and relocate to keep away from the tax. Eight states (Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) exempt all tangible private property from taxation, whereas one other 4 states (Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota) exempt most such property from taxation apart from choose industries which can be centrally assessed.

Intangible Property Tax. This dummy variable provides low scores to these states that impose taxes on intangible private property. Intangible private property contains shares, bonds, and different intangibles comparable to logos. This tax may be extremely detrimental to companies that maintain giant quantities of their very own or different firms’ inventory and which have helpful logos. 9 states levy this tax in numerous levels: Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.[32]

Stock Tax. Levied on the worth of an organization’s stock, the stock tax is particularly dangerous to giant retail shops and different companies that retailer giant quantities of merchandise. Stock taxes are extremely distortionary, as a result of they power firms to make selections about manufacturing that aren’t fully based mostly on financial ideas however fairly on the way to pay the least quantity of tax on items produced. Stock taxes additionally create robust incentives for firms to find stock in states the place they’ll keep away from these dangerous taxes. Fourteen states levy some type of stock tax.

Cut up Roll Taxation. In some states, completely different courses of property—like residential, industrial, industrial, and agricultural property—face distinct tax burdens, both as a result of they’re taxed at completely different charges or are uncovered to completely different evaluation ratios. When such distinctions exist, the state is alleged to have a break up (fairly than unified) property tax roll. The Index assesses whether or not states make the most of break up roll taxation, which tends to discriminate towards enterprise property, and what ratio exists between industrial and residential property taxation.

Property Tax Limitation Regimes. Most states restrict the diploma to which localities can increase property taxes, however these property tax limitation regimes fluctuate dramatically. Broadly talking, there are three kinds of property tax limitations. Evaluation limits prohibit the speed at which a given property’s assessed worth can enhance annually. (It typically, however not all the time, resets upon sale or change of use, and generally resets when substantial enhancements are made.) Price limits, because the identify implies, both cap the allowable fee or prohibit the quantity by which the speed may be raised in a given yr. Lastly, levy limits impose a restriction on the expansion of complete collections (excluding these from new building), implementing or necessitating fee reductions if revenues exceed the allowable development fee. Most limitation regimes allow voter overrides. The Index penalizes states for imposing evaluation limitations, which distort property taxation, resulting in comparable properties dealing with extremely disparate efficient charges of taxation and influencing selections about property utilization. It additionally rewards states for adopting both a fee or levy restrict, or each.

Asset Switch Taxes (Property, Inheritance, and Reward Taxes). 4 taxes levied on the switch of belongings are a part of the property tax base. These taxes, levied along with the federal property tax, all enhance the fee and complexity of transferring wealth and damage a state’s enterprise local weather. These dangerous results may be notably acute within the case of small, family-owned companies if they don’t have the liquid belongings essential to pay the property’s tax legal responsibility.[33] The 4 taxes are actual property switch taxes, property taxes, inheritance taxes, and present taxes. Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia levy taxes on the switch of actual property, including to the price of buying actual property and growing the complexity of actual property transactions. This tax is dangerous to companies that switch actual property typically.

The federal Financial Progress and Tax Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) lowered the federal property tax fee by means of 2009 and eradicated it fully in 2010. Previous to 2001, most states levied an property tax that piggybacked on the federal system, as a result of the federal tax code allowed people to take a dollar-for-dollar tax credit score for state property taxes paid. In different phrases, states primarily obtained free tax collections from the property tax, and people didn’t object as a result of their complete tax legal responsibility was unchanged. EGTRRA eradicated this dollar-for-dollar credit score system, changing it with a tax deduction.

Consequently, over the previous decade, some states enacted their very own property tax whereas others repealed their property taxes. Some states have provisions reintroducing the property tax if the federal dollar-for-dollar credit score system is revived. This might have occurred in 2011, as EGTRRA expired and the federal property tax returned to pre-2001 ranges. Nevertheless, in late 2010, Congress reenacted the property tax for 2011 and 2012 however with larger exemptions and a decrease fee than pre-2001 regulation and maintained the deduction for state property taxes. The tax reform regulation of 2017 raised the federal exemption nonetheless additional. Thirty-eight states obtain a excessive rating for both (1) remaining coupled to the federal credit score and permitting their state property tax to run out or (2) not enacting their very own property tax, together with two which repealed their property tax this yr. Twelve states and the District of Columbia have maintained an property tax both by linking their tax to the pre-EGTRRA credit score or by creating their very own stand-alone system. These states rating poorly.

Annually, some companies, particularly those who haven’t spent a enough sum on property tax planning and on giant insurance coverage insurance policies, discover themselves unable to pay their property taxes, both federal or state. Often they’re small- to medium-sized family-owned companies the place the demise of the proprietor events a surprisingly giant tax legal responsibility.

Inheritance taxes are just like property taxes, however they’re levied on the inheritor of an property as an alternative of on the property itself. Due to this fact, an individual may inherit a family-owned firm from his or her mother and father and be pressured to downsize it, or promote half or all of it, as a way to pay the inheritor’s inheritance tax. Six states have inheritance taxes and are punished within the Index, as a result of the inheritance tax causes financial distortions. Maryland has each an property tax and an inheritance tax, the one state to impose each after New Jersey accomplished the repeal of its property tax.

Connecticut is the one state with a present tax, and it scores poorly. Reward taxes are designed to cease people’ makes an attempt to keep away from the property tax by giving their estates away earlier than they die. Reward taxes have a destructive influence on a state’s enterprise tax local weather as a result of in addition they closely influence people who’ve sole proprietorships, S companies, and LLCs.

Unemployment Insurance coverage Taxes

Unemployment insurance coverage (UI) is a social insurance coverage program collectively operated by the federal and state governments. Taxes are paid by employers into the UI program to finance advantages for staff not too long ago unemployed. In comparison with the opposite main taxes assessed within the State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index, UI taxes are a lot much less well-known. Each state has one, and all 50 of them are complicated, variable-rate techniques that impose completely different charges on completely different industries and completely different bases relying upon such elements because the well being of the state’s UI belief fund.[34]

One of many worst elements of the UI tax system is that financially troubled companies, for which layoffs could also be a matter of survival, truly pay larger marginal charges as they’re pressured into larger tax fee schedules. Within the tutorial literature, this has lengthy been known as the “shut-down impact” of UI taxes: failing companies face climbing UI taxes, with the end result that they fail sooner.

The unemployment insurance coverage tax part of the Index consists of two equally weighted subindices, one which measures every state’s fee construction and one which focuses on the tax base. Unemployment insurance coverage taxes comprise 9.8 p.c of a state’s closing Index rating.

Total, the states with the least damaging UI taxes are Oklahoma, Florida, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Michigan. Comparatively talking, these states have fee buildings with decrease minimal and most charges and a wage base on the federal degree. As well as, they’ve easier expertise formulation and charging strategies, they usually haven’t sophisticated their techniques with profit add-ons and surtaxes.

Conversely, the states with the worst UI taxes are Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Kentucky, Idaho, and Maryland. These states are inclined to have fee buildings with excessive minimal and most charges and wage bases above the federal degree. Additionally they are inclined to function extra sophisticated expertise formulation and charging strategies, and have added advantages and surtaxes to their techniques.

Desk 7. Unemployment Insurance coverage Tax Element of the State Enterprise Tax Local weather Index (2014–2022)
  2022 2021 2021-2022 Change Prior 12 months Ranks
State Rank Rating Rank Rating Rank Rating 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Alabama 18 5.22 15 5.38 -3 -0.16 18 12 11 14 26 25 23
Alaska 43 4.38 44 4.41 1 -0.03 45 34 24 29 22 24 26
Arizona 11 5.56 8 5.62 -3 -0.06 6 13 15 11 5 4 2
Arkansas 33 4.80 23 5.03 -10 -0.23 23 33 31 30 43 40 28
California 23 5.04 21 5.10 -2 -0.06 22 17 13 16 13 14 14
Colorado 41 4.50 40 4.54 -1 -0.04 42 39 34 42 34 35 38
Connecticut 22 5.06 22 5.08 0 -0.02 21 23 19 21 20 20 21
Delaware 3 5.93 3 5.88 0 0.05 3 3 3 3 3 3 1
Florida 2 5.93 2 6.01 0 -0.08 2 2 2 2 2 2 4
Georgia 37 4.67 38 4.65 1 0.02 38 37 37 35 39 39 39
Hawaii 29 4.94 25 4.97 -4 -0.03 28 26 26 24 24 28 32
Idaho 47 4.03 47 4.02 0 0.01 47 47 46 46 45 46 47
Illinois 40 4.59 42 4.50 2 0.09 39 41 41 38 37 37 41
Indiana 25 4.99 27 4.97 2 0.02 25 11 10 10 15 9 10
Iowa 34 4.78 36 4.73 2 0.05 34 32 33 34 35 33 33
Kansas 16 5.38 14 5.42 -2 -0.04 14 15 12 12 11 8 7
Kentucky 48 3.94 48 4.01 0 -0.07 48 46 47 48 46 45 46
Louisiana 5 5.79 4 5.79 -1 0.00 4 4 4 9 4 5 5
Maine 35 4.77 32 4.81 -3 -0.04 31 24 43 44 41 42 37
Maryland 46 4.09 33 4.80 -13 -0.71 32 28 23 26 28 21 31
Massachusetts 50 3.48 50 3.29 0 0.19 50 50 49 49 47 48 48
Michigan 7 5.63 18 5.19 11 0.44 17 48 48 47 48 47 44
Minnesota 30 4.88 31 4.83 1 0.05 33 25 36 28 29 29 34
Mississippi 6 5.76 5 5.78 -1 -0.02 5 5 5 5 8 7 8
Missouri 4 5.89 7 5.66 3 0.23 9 8 7 7 12 13 13
Montana 19 5.12 20 5.12 1 0.00 20 21 20 19 18 18 20
Nebraska 13 5.53 11 5.56 -2 -0.03 11 9 9 8 10 12 12
Nevada 45 4.25 46 4.29 1 -0.04 46 44 44 43 42 43 43
New Hampshire 44 4.30 43 4.45 -1 -0.15 44 43 42 41 44 44 45
New Jersey 32 4.84 30 4.85 -2 -0.01 30 31 35 25 32 32 30
New Mexico 8 5.62 9 5.62 1 0.00 8 10 16 17 7 10 11
New York 36 4.74 37 4.68 1 0.06 37 30 29 32 33 31 24
North Carolina 12 5.56 10 5.57 -2 -0.01 10 7 6 6 9 11 9
North Dakota 9 5.60 13 5.44 4 0.16 13 14 14 15 16 16 16
Ohio 10 5.60 6 5.67 -4 -0.07 7 6 8 4 6 6 6
Oklahoma 1 6.15 1 6.36 0 -0.21 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
Oregon 39 4.59 35 4.75 -4 -0.16 35 36 30 33 27 30 29
Pennsylvania 21 5.07 39 4.57 18 0.50 41 45 50 45 50 50 50
Rhode Island 49 3.74 49 3.82 0 -0.08 49 49 46 50 49 49 49
South Carolina 27 4.96 24 4.98 -3 -0.02 26 27 28 37 31 36 35
South Dakota 38 4.65 41 4.53 3 0.12 43 38 38 40 40 41 40
Tennessee 20 5.07 26 4.97 6 0.10 24 22 22 23 25 26 25
Texas 14 5.53 12 5.53 -2 0.00 12 18 25 13 14 15 15
Utah 17 5.37 17 5.28 0 0.09 15 16 21 22 19 22 19
Vermont 15 5.45 16 5.33 1 0.12 16 20 18 20 17 17 17
Virginia 42 4.45 45 4.40 3 0.05 40 42 40 39 38 38 42
Washington 24 4.99 19 5.13 -5 -0.14 19 19 17 18 21 19 18
West Virginia 26 4.99 28 4.96 2 0.03 29 29 27 27 23 23 22
Wisconsin 28 4.94 34 4.77 6 0.17 36 40 39 36 36 27 27
Wyoming 31 4.84 29 4.91 -2 -0.07 27 35 32 31 30 34 36
District of Columbia 39 4.64 36 4.75 -3 -0.11 34 32 29 27 27 27 25

Be aware: A rank of 1 is finest, 50 is worst. All scores are for fiscal years. DC’s rating and rank don’t have an effect on different states.

Supply: Tax Basis.

Unemployment Insurance coverage Tax Price

UI tax charges in every state are based mostly on a schedule of charges starting from a minimal fee to a most fee. The speed for any specific enterprise relies upon the enterprise’s expertise score: companies with the very best expertise scores can pay the bottom potential fee on the schedule whereas these with the worst scores pay the best. The speed is utilized to a taxable wage base (a predetermined fraction of an worker’s wage) to find out UI tax legal responsibility.

A number of charges and fee schedules can have an effect on neutrality as states try to steadiness the twin UI targets of spreading the price of unemployment to all employers and guaranteeing high-turnover employers pay extra.

Total, the states with the very best rating on this fee subindex are Nebraska, Maine, South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, and Missouri. Usually, these states have low minimal and most tax charges on every schedule and a wage base at or close to the federal degree. The states with the worst scores are Maryland, Massachusetts, Alaska, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Kentucky.

The subindex provides equal weight to 2 elements: the precise fee schedules in impact in the newest yr, and the statutory fee schedules that may doubtlessly be applied at any time relying on the state of the economic system and the UI fund.

Tax Charges Imposed within the Most Latest 12 months

Minimal Tax Price. States with decrease minimal charges rating higher. The minimal charges in impact in the newest yr vary from zero p.c (in Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) to 2.20 p.c (in Maryland).

Most Tax Price. States with decrease most charges rating higher. The utmost charges in impact in the newest yr vary from 5.4 p.c (in Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, and Oregon) to twenty.60 p.c (in Arizona).

Taxable Wage Base. Arizona, California, Florida, Tennessee obtain the very best scores on this variable with a taxable wage base of $7,000—consistent with the federal taxable wage base. The state with the best taxable bases and, thus, the worst rating on this variable, is Washington ($56,500).

Potential Charges

Because of the impact of enterprise and seasonal cycles on UI funds, states will generally change UI tax fee schedules. When UI belief funds are flush, states will development towards their decrease fee schedules (“most favorable schedules”); nevertheless, when UI belief funds are low, states will development towards their larger fee schedules (“least favorable schedules”).

Most Favorable Schedule: Minimal Tax Price. States obtain the very best rating on this variable with a minimal tax fee of zero, which they implement when unemployment is low and the UI fund is flush. The minimal fee on essentially the most favorable schedule ranges from zero in 22 states to 1.0 p.c in Alaska.

Most Favorable Schedule: Most Tax Price. The bottom most fee of 5.4 p.c is imposed by 21 states and the District of Columbia. The state with the best most tax fee and, thus, the worst most tax rating, is Wisconsin (10.7 p.c).

Least Favorable Schedule: Minimal Tax Price. 13 states obtain the very best rating on this variable with a minimal tax fee of zero p.c. The state with the best minimal tax fee and, thus, the worst minimal tax rating, is Hawaii (2.4 p.c).

Least Favorable Schedule: Most Tax Price. Twelve states obtain the very best rating on this variable with a relatively low most tax fee of 5.4 p.c. The state with the best most tax fee and, thus, the worst most tax rating, is Massachusetts (18.55 p.c).

Unemployment Insurance coverage Tax Base

The UI base subindex scores states on how they decide which companies ought to pay the UI tax and the way a lot, in addition to different UI-related taxes for which companies may be liable.

The states that obtain the very best scores on this subindex are Oklahoma, Delaware, Vermont, Arizona, and New Mexico. Basically, these states have comparatively easy expertise formulation, they exclude extra elements from the charging methodology, they usually implement fewer surtaxes.

States that obtain the worst scores are Virginia, Nevada, Idaho, Maine, and Georgia. Basically, they’ve extra sophisticated expertise formulation, exclude fewer elements from the charging methodology, and have sophisticated their techniques with add-ons and surtaxes. The three elements thought of on this subindex are expertise score formulation (40 p.c of the subindex rating), charging strategies (40 p.c of the subindex rating), and a number of smaller elements aggregated into one variable (20 p.c of the subindex rating).

Expertise Ranking Formulation. A enterprise’s expertise score method determines the speed the agency should pay—whether or not it is going to lean towards the minimal fee or most fee of the actual fee schedule in impact within the state at the moment.

There are 4 fundamental expertise formulation: contribution, profit, payroll, and state expertise. The primary three expertise formulation–contribution, profit, and payroll–are based mostly solely on the enterprise’s expertise and are due to this fact nonneutral by design.[35] Nevertheless, the ultimate variable–state expertise–is a constructive mitigating issue as a result of it’s based mostly on statewide expertise. In different phrases, the state expertise shouldn’t be tied to the expertise of anybody enterprise; due to this fact, it’s a extra impartial issue. This subindex penalizes states that depend upon the contribution, profit, and payroll expertise variables whereas rewarding states with the state expertise variable.

Charging Strategies and Advantages Excluded from Charging. A enterprise’s expertise score will fluctuate relying on which charging methodology the state authorities makes use of. When a former worker applies for unemployment advantages, the advantages paid to the worker should be charged to a earlier employer. There are three fundamental charging strategies:

  • Charging Most Latest or Principal Employer: 9 states cost all the advantages to 1 employer, often the newest.
  • Charging Base-Interval Employers in Inverse Chronological Order: Six states cost all base-period employers in inverse chronological order. Which means all employers inside a base time period (often the final yr, generally longer) may have the advantages charged towards them, with the newest employer being charged essentially the most.
  • Charging in Proportion to Base-Interval Wages: Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia cost in proportion to base-period wages. Which means all employers inside a base time period (often the final yr, generally longer) may have the advantages charged towards them in proportion to the wages they paid.

None of those charging strategies could possibly be known as impartial, however on the margin, charging the newest or principal employer is the least impartial as a result of the enterprise confronted with the need of shedding workers is aware of it is going to bear the complete profit cost. Probably the most impartial of the three is the “charging in proportion to base-period wages” since there’s a larger likelihood of sharing the profit costs with earlier employers.

Consequently, the states that cost in proportion to base-period wages obtain the very best rating. The states that cost the newest or principal employer obtain the worst rating. The states that cost base-period employers in inverse chronological order obtain a median rating.

Many states additionally acknowledge that sure profit prices shouldn’t be charged to employers, particularly if the separation is past the employer’s management. Due to this fact, this subindex additionally accounts for six kinds of exclusions from profit costs:

  • Profit award reversed
  • Reimbursements on mixed wage claims
  • Voluntary leaving
  • Discharge for misconduct
  • Refusal of appropriate work
  • Continues to work for employer on part-time foundation

States are rewarded for every of those exclusions as a result of they nudge a UI system towards neutrality. As an illustration, if profit costs have been levied for workers who voluntarily stop, then industries with excessive turnover charges, comparable to retail, could be hit disproportionately tougher. States that obtain the very best scores on this class are Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Vermont. Then again, the states that obtain the worst scores are Virginia, Nevada, Maine, Idaho, Georgia, South Carolina, and Rhode Island. Most states cost the newest or principal employer and forbid most profit exclusions.

Solvency Tax. These taxes are levied on employers when a state’s unemployment fund falls under some outlined degree. Twenty-seven states have a solvency tax on the books, although they fall below completely different names, comparable to solvency adjustment tax (Alaska), supplemental evaluation tax (Delaware), subsidiary tax (New York), and fund steadiness issue (Virginia).

Taxes for Socialized Prices or Unfavorable Stability Employer. These are levied on employers when the state needs to recuperate profit prices above and past the UI tax collections based mostly on the conventional expertise score course of. Eight states have these taxes on the books, although they fall below completely different names, comparable to shared price evaluation tax (Alabama) and social price issue tax (Washington).

Mortgage and Curiosity Reimbursement Surtaxes. Levied on employers when a mortgage is taken from the federal authorities or when bonds are bought to pay for profit prices, these taxes are of two common sorts. The primary is a tax to repay the federal mortgage or bond subject. The second is a tax to pay the curiosity on the federal mortgage or bond subject. States usually are not allowed to pay curiosity prices instantly from the state’s unemployment belief fund. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have these taxes on the books, although they fall below a number of names, comparable to advance curiosity tax and bond evaluation tax (Colorado) and non permanent emergency evaluation tax (Delaware).

Reserve Taxes. Reserve taxes are levied on employers, to be deposited in a reserve fund separate from the unemployment belief fund. For the reason that fund is separate, the curiosity earned on it’s typically used to create different funds for functions comparable to job coaching and paying the prices of the reserve tax’s assortment. 4 states have these taxes on the books: Idaho and Iowa (reserve tax), Nebraska (state UI tax), and North Carolina (reserve fund tax).

Surtaxes for UI Administration or Non-UI Functions. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia levy surtaxes on employers, often to fund administration however generally for job coaching or particular enhancements in expertise. They’re typically deposited in a fund outdoors of the state’s unemployment fund. Among the names they go by are the state coaching and employment program (Arkansas), reemployment service fund tax (New York), wage safety tax (Oregon), and funding in South Dakota future price (South Dakota).

Momentary Incapacity Insurance coverage (TDI). A handful of states–California, Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York–have established a brief incapacity insurance coverage (TDI) program that augments the UI program by extending advantages to these unable to work due to illness or harm. No separate tax funds these applications; the cash comes proper out of the states’ unemployment funds. As a result of the steadiness of the funds triggers numerous taxes, the TDIs are included as a destructive issue within the calculation of this subindex.

Voluntary Contributions. Twenty-six states enable companies to make voluntary contributions to the unemployment belief fund. Most often, these contributions are rewarded with a decrease fee schedule, typically saving the enterprise more cash in taxes than was paid by means of the contribution. The Index rewards states that enable voluntary contributions as a result of corporations are capable of pay after they can finest afford to as an alternative of when they’re struggling. This provision helps to mitigate the nonneutralities of the UI tax.

Time Interval to Qualify for Expertise Ranking. Newly fashioned companies, naturally, don’t qualify for an expertise score as a result of they don’t have any important employment historical past on which to base the score. Federal guidelines stipulate that states can levy a “new employer” fee for one to 3 years, however at least one yr. From a neutrality perspective, nevertheless, this new employer fee is nonneutral in nearly all circumstances for the reason that fee is larger than the bottom fee schedule. The longer this fee is in impact, the more severe the nonneutrality. As such, the Index rewards states with the minimal one yr required to earn an expertise score and penalizes states that require the complete three years.


References

Agostini, Claudio and Soraphol Tulayasathien. “Tax Results on Funding Location: Proof for Overseas Direct Funding in the USA,” Workplace of Tax Coverage Analysis, College of Michigan Enterprise College (2001).

Anderson, Patrick. “Benchmarking for Success: A Comparability of State Enterprise Taxes,” Anderson Financial Group (2006), 19-20.

Bartik, Timothy J. Who Advantages from State and Native Financial Improvement Insurance policies? (Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Analysis, 1991).

Bartik, Timothy J. “Small Enterprise Begin-Ups in the USA: Estimates of the Results of Traits of States,” Southern Financial Journal (April 1989): 1004-1018.

Bartik, Timothy J. “Enterprise Location Selections in the USA: Estimates of the Results of Unionization, Taxes, and Different Traits of States,” Journal of Enterprise and Economics Statistics 3:1 (January 1985): 14-22.

Besley, Timothy J. and Anne Case. “Does Electoral Accountability Have an effect on Financial Coverage Decisions? Proof from Gubernatorial Time period Limits,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110:1 (August 1995): 769–798.

Besley, Timothy J. and Harvey S. Rosen. “Gross sales Taxes and Costs: An Empirical Evaluation,” NBER Working Paper No. 6667 (July 1998).

Bishop-Henchman, Joseph. “Unemployment Insurance coverage Taxes: Choices for Program Design and Bancrupt Belief Funds,” Tax Basis (Oct. 17, 2011).

Bishop-Henchman, Joseph and Jason Sapia. “Native Earnings Taxes: Metropolis- and County-Degree Earnings and Wage Taxes Proceed to Wane,” Tax Basis (Aug. 31, 2011).

Bittlingmayer, Gregory, Liesel Eathington, Arthur Corridor and Peter F. Orazem. “Enterprise Local weather Indexes: Which Work, Which Don’t, and What Can They Say in regards to the Kansas Financial system?” The Heart for Utilized Economics, Kansas College (June 2005).

Bosch, Nuria and Albert Sole-Olle. “Yardstick competitors and the political prices of elevating taxes: An empirical evaluation of Spanish municipalities,” Worldwide Tax and Public Finance 14:1 (February 2007): 71-92. 

Brueckner, Jan and Luz A. Saavedra. “Do Native Governments Interact in Strategic Property-Tax Competitors?” Nationwide Tax Journal 54 (June 2001): 203–229.

Brunori, David. State Tax Coverage: A Political Perspective (Washington, D.C.: City Institute Press, September 2011).

Brunori, David. Native Tax Coverage: A Federalist Perspective (Washington, D.C.: City Institute Press, December 2007).

Byars, Jon, Bobby McCormick, and Bruce Yandle. “Financial Freedom in America’s 50 States: a 1999 Evaluation,” Heart for Coverage and Authorized Research, Division of Economics, Clemson College (March 1, 1999).

Carroll, Robert, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mark Rider, and Harvey S. Rosen. “Earnings Taxes and Entrepreneurs’ Use of Labor,” Journal of Labor Economics 18 (April 2000): 324-351.

Chamberlain, Andrew and Patrick Fleenor. “Tax Pyramiding: The Financial Penalties of Gross Receipts Taxes,” Tax Basis (Dec. 4, 2006).

Chorvat, Terrence R. and Michael S. Knoll. “The Financial and Coverage Implications of Repealing the Company Various Tax,” Tax Basis (Feb. 1, 2002).

Due, John F. “Research of State-Native Tax Influences on Location of Business,” Nationwide Tax Journal 14 (June 1961): 163-173.

Drenkard, Scott, Liz Emanuel, and Yordan Yahiro. “State and Native Gross sales Taxes at Midyear 2014,” Tax Basis (Sept. 16, 2014).

Errecart, Joyce, Ed Gerrish, and Scott Drenkard. “States Shifting Away from Taxes on Tangible Private Property,” Tax Basis (Oct. 4, 2012).

Fetting, David. “Thomas J. Holmes on Walmart’s Location Technique,” Fedgazette (March 1, 2006).

Fisher, Peter. Grading Locations: What do the Enterprise Local weather Rankings Actually Inform Us? (Washington, D.C.: Financial Coverage Institute, June 2005).

Fisher, Peter. Grading Locations: What Do the Enterprise Local weather Rankings Actually Inform Us? Second Version (Washington, D.C.: Good Jobs First, Could 2013).

Fleenor, Patrick. “How Excise Tax Differentials Have an effect on Interstate Smuggling and Cross-Border Gross sales of Cigarettes in the USA,” Tax Basis (Oct. 1, 1998).

Fleenor, Patrick and J. Scott Moody. “A Primer on the Financial Implications of Marginal Tax Charges,” Tax Basis (Nov. 1, 1999).

Fox, William F. and Matthew N. Murray. “Do Financial Results Justify the Use of Fiscal Incentives?” Southern Financial Journal 71:78 (July 2004).

Gentry, William H. and R. Glenn Hubbard. “‘Success Taxes,’ Entrepreneurial Entry and Innovation,” NBER Working Paper No. 10551 (June 2004).  

Giroud, Xavier, and Joshua Rauh. “State Taxation and the Reallocation of Enterprise Exercise: Proof from Institution-Degree Information,” Journal of Political Financial system 127:3 (June 2019).

Goolsbee, Austan (2004). “The influence of the company earnings tax: proof from state organizational type knowledge,” Journal of Public Economics 88, subject 11 (Sept. 2004): 2283-2299.

Goolsbee, Austan and Edward L. Maydew. “Coveting Thy Neighbor’s Manufacturing: The Dilemma of State Earnings Apportionment,” Journal of Public Economics 75:1 (January 2000).

Gupta, Sanjya and Mary Ann Hofmann. “The Impact of State Earnings Tax Apportionment and Tax Incentives on New Capital Expenditures,” Journal of the American Taxation Affiliation 25, Complement 2003 (Could 2003): 1–25.

Harden, J. William and Hoyt, William H. “Do States Select their Mixture of Taxes to Decrease Employment Losses?” Nationwide Tax Journal 56 (March 2003): 7–26.

Haughton, Jonathan and Vadym Slobodyanyuk. State Competitiveness Report 2001 (Boston: Beacon Hill Institute, Suffolk College, December 2001).

Helms, L. Jay. “The Impact of State and Native Taxes on Financial Progress: A Time Sequence – Cross Part Method,” The Overview of Economics and Statistics 67:4 (November 1985): 574-582.

Hodge, Scott A. “Married {Couples} File Much less Than Half of All Tax Returns, However Pay 74 P.c of all Earnings Taxes,” Tax Basis, (Mar. 25, 2003).

Hodge, Scott A. “Personal a Enterprise? You Could also be Wealthy: Two-Thirds of Taxpayers Hit by Highest Tax Price Have Enterprise Earnings,” Tax Basis (Could 5, 2003).

Hodge, Scott A. and J. Scott Moody. “Rich American and Enterprise Exercise,” Tax Basis (Aug. 1, 2004).

Hodge, Scott A. and Andre Dammert. “U.S. Lags whereas Opponents Speed up Company Earnings Tax Reform,” Tax Basis Fiscal Truth No. 184 (Aug. 5, 2009).

Inside Income Service. “Particular person Earnings Tax Returns 2013,” Rev. 08-2015.

Kleven, Henrik, Camille Landais, Mathilde Muñoz, and Stefanie Stantcheva. “Taxation and Migration: Proof and Coverage Implications,” Nationwide Bureau of Financial Analysis Working Paper No. 25740 (April 2019).

Kolko, Jed, David Neumark, and Marisol Cuellar Meija. (2013). “What Do Enterprise Local weather Indexes Educate Us About State Coverage and Financial Progress?” Journal of Regional Science 53:2 (Apr. 28, 2013): 220-255.

Kwall, Jeffrey Ok. “The Repeal of Graduated Company Tax Charges,” Tax Notes (June 27, 2011).

Ladd, Helen F. Native Authorities Tax and Land Use Insurance policies in the USA: Understanding the Hyperlinks. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Feb. 1998.

Ladd, Helen F. (1992). “Mimicking of Native Tax Burdens Amongst Neighboring Counties,” Public Finance Overview 20:4 (Oct. 1, 1992): 450-467.

Mark, Stephen T., Therese J. Mc Quire, and Leslie E. Papke. “The Affect of Taxes on Employment and Inhabitants Progress: Proof from the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Space,” Nationwide Tax Journal 53 (March 2000): 105-123.

McQuire, Therese J. and Michael Wasylenko. “Jobs and Taxes: The Results of Enterprise Local weather on States’ Employment Progress Charges,” Nationwide Tax Journal 38 (December 1985): 497–511.

Mikesell, John L. “Gross Receipts Taxes in State Authorities Finance: A Overview of Their Historical past and Efficiency,” Tax Basis (Jan. 31, 2007).

Mikesell, John L. “State Retail Taxes in 2012: The Restoration Continues,” State Tax Notes (Dec. 26, 2012).

Miles, Marc A., Edwin J. Feulner, and Mary Anastasia Miles O’Grady. The 2004 Index of Financial Freedom: Establishing the Hyperlink Between Financial Freedom and Prosperity, The Heritage Basis and The Wall Road Journal (January 2004).

Moody, J., and Scott and Wendy P. Warcholik. “How Tax Competitors Impacts Cross-Border Gross sales of Beer in the USA,” Tax Basis (March 2004).

Moon, Matt. (2009). “How Do Individuals Really feel About Taxes At this time? Tax Basis’s 2009 Survey of U.S. Attitudes on Taxes, Authorities Spending, and Wealth Distribution,” Tax Basis (Apr. 8, 2009).

Newman, Robert J. (1983). “Business Migration and Progress within the South,” The Overview of Economics and Statistics 65:1 (February 1983): 76-86.

Newman, Robert and Dennis Sullivan. “Econometric Evaluation of Enterprise Tax Impacts on Industrial Location: What do we all know and the way do we all know it?” Journal of City Economics 23:2 (March 1988): 215–234.

Oakland, William H. “Econometric Evaluation of Enterprise Tax Impacts on Industrial Location: A Survey,” Metropolitan Financing and Progress Administration Insurance policies, Committee on Taxation, Sources and Financial Improvement, College of Wisconsin, Madison (1978): 13–30.

Papke, James A. and Leslie E. Papke. “Measuring Differential State-Native Tax Liabilities and Their Implications for Enterprise Funding Location,” Nationwide Tax Journal 39:3 (September 1986): 357–366.

Peters, Alan and Peter Fisher. “The Failure of Financial Improvement Incentives,” Journal of the American Planning Affiliation 70:27 (2004).

Phillips, Andrew and Caroline Sallee, “Whole State and Native Enterprise Taxes: State-by-State Estimates for Fiscal 12 months 2020,” Council On State Taxation (COST) with Ernst and Younger LLP and the State Tax Analysis Institute (October 2021).

Poletti, Therese. “Incentive-rich Arizona to Home New Intel Plant,” The (San Jose) Mercury Information (July 26, 2005).

Pomp, Richard. “Reforming a State Company Earnings Tax,” Albany Regulation Overview 51:3/4 (Spring/Summer time 1987).

Plaut, Thomas R. and Joseph E. Pluta. “Enterprise Local weather, Taxes and Expenditures, and State Industrial Progress in the USA,” Southern Financial Journal 50:1 (July 1983): 99–119.

Robyn, Mark A. and Gerald T. Prante. “State-Native Tax Burdens Fall in 2009 as Tax Revenues Shrink Quicker than Earnings,” Tax Basis (Feb. 23, 2011).

Salmon, Pierre. “Decentralisation as an Incentive Scheme,” Oxford Overview of Financial Policy 3:2 (1987): 24–43. 

Shleifer, Andrei. “A concept of yardstick competitors,” Rand Journal of Economics 16:3 (Autumn 1985): 320–328. 

Sullivan, Martin. “The States’ Fiscal Mess: How Dangerous Is It?” Tax Notes, 98:4 (2003), 482-486.

Tannenwald, Robert. “State Enterprise Tax Local weather: How Ought to it’s Measured and How Vital is it?” New England Financial Overview, Federal Reserve Financial institution of Boston (January/February 1996): 23-38.

Tax Basis. Location Issues: A Comparative Evaluation of State Tax Prices on Enterprise (2012).

Tax Basis. Details & Figures: How Does Your State Evaluate? (2015).

Tiebout, Charles. “A Pure Idea of Native Public Expenditures,” Journal of Political Financial system 64:5 (1956): 416–424.

Vedder, Richard. “Taxes and Financial Progress,” The Taxpayers Community, Inc. (2001).

Wasylenko, Michael. “Taxation and Financial Improvement: The State of Financial Literature,” New England Financial Overview, Federal Reserve Financial institution of Boston (March/April 1997): 37–52.

Wasylenko, Michael. “The Location of Corporations: The Function of Taxes and Fiscal Incentives,” City Affairs Annual Overview 20 (1981): 155-189.


Footnotes

[1] See U.S. Division of Labor, “Prolonged Mass Layoffs, First Quarter 2013,” Desk 10, Could 13, 2013.

[2] Daniel Bunn, “Company Earnings Tax Charges Across the World, 2018,” Tax Basis, Nov. 27, 2018, https://taxfoundation.org/publications/corporate-tax-rates-around-the-world/.

[3] Editorial, “Scale it again, Governor,” Chicago Tribune, March 23, 2007.

[4] Ryan Randazzo, Edythe Jenson, and Mary Jo Pitzl, “Cathy Carter Weblog: Chandler getting new $5 billion Intel facility,” AZCentral.com, Mar. 6, 2013.

[5] Dana Hedgpeth and Rosalind Helderman, “Northrop Grumman decides to maneuver headquarters to Northern Virginia,” The Washington Put up, April 27, 2010.

[6] Susan Haigh, “Connecticut Home Speaker: Tax ‘errors’ made in funds,” Related Press, Nov. 5, 2015.

[7] Austin Mondine, “Dell cuts North-Carolina plant regardless of $280m sweetener,” TheRegister.co.uk, Oct. 8, 2009.

[8] Dennis Cauchon, “Enterprise Incentives Lose Luster for States,” USA TODAY, Aug. 22, 2007.

[9] State Coverage Experiences, Vol. 12, No. 11, Concern 1, p. 9, June 1994.

[10] Each fee will increase had a brief part and have been allowed to partially expire earlier than legislators overrode a gubernatorial veto to extend charges above the place they might have been ought to they’ve been allowed to sundown.

[11] Benjamin Yount, “Tax enhance, influence, dominate Illinois Capitol in 2011,” Illinois Statehouse Information, Dec. 27, 2011.

[12] A development in tax literature all through the Nineteen Nineties was the growing use of indices to measure a state’s common enterprise local weather. These embody the Heart for Coverage and Authorized Research’ Financial Freedom in America’s 50 States: A 1999 Evaluation and the Beacon Hill Institute’s State Competitiveness Report 2001. Such indexes even exist on the worldwide degree, together with the Heritage Basis and The Wall Road Journal’s 2004 Index of Financial Freedom. Plaut and Pluta (1983) examined the usage of enterprise local weather indices as explanatory variables for enterprise location actions. They discovered that such common indices do have a big explanatory energy, serving to to elucidate, for instance, why companies have moved from the Northeast and Midwest towards the South and Southwest. In flip, in addition they discovered that prime taxes have a destructive impact on employment development.

[13] See Mark Robyn, “Michigan Implements Optimistic Company Tax Reform,” Tax Basis, Feb. 10, 2012.

[14] Jeffrey L. Kwall, “The Repeal of Graduated Company Tax Charges,” Tax Notes, June 27, 2011, 1395.

[15] For instance, see Alan Peters and Peter Fisher, “The Failures of Financial Improvement Incentives,” Journal of the American Planning Affiliation 70(1), Winter 2004, 27; and William F. Fox and Matthew N. Murray, “Do Financial Results Justify the Use of Fiscal Incentives?” Southern Financial Journal 71(1), July 2004, 78.

[16] See Edward C. Prescott, “Why Do Individuals Work So A lot Greater than Europeans?” Federal Reserve Financial institution of Minneapolis Quarterly Overview, July 2004. See additionally J. Scott Moody and Scott A. Hodge, “Rich Individuals and Enterprise Exercise,” Tax Basis, Aug. 1, 2004.

[17] Tennessee has begun the method of phasing out its tax on curiosity and dividend earnings.

[18] New Hampshire and Tennessee each tax solely curiosity and dividends. To account for this, the Index converts the statutory tax fee in each states into an efficient fee as measured towards the everyday state earnings tax base that features wages. Below a typical earnings tax base with a flat fee and no tax preferences, that is the statutory fee that will be required to lift the identical quantity of income as the present system. Nationally, dividends and curiosity account for 19.6 p.c of earnings. For New Hampshire, its 5 p.c fee was multiplied by 19.6 p.c, yielding the equal fee of 0.98 p.c. For Tennessee, with a tax fee of 6 p.c, this calculation yields an equal fee of 1.18 p.c.

[19] See Joseph Bishop-Henchman and Jason Sapia, “Native Earnings Taxes: Metropolis- and County-Degree Earnings and Wage Taxes Proceed to Wane,” Tax Basis, Aug. 31, 2011.

[20] Some states supply tax credit in lieu of normal deductions or private exemptions. Moderately than lowering a taxpayer’s taxable earnings earlier than the tax charges are utilized, tax credit are subtracted from a taxpayer’s tax legal responsibility. Like deductions and exemptions, the result’s a decrease closing earnings tax invoice. In an effort to keep consistency inside the part rating, tax credit are transformed into equal earnings exemptions or deductions.

[21] Fairness-related capital good points usually are not created instantly by a company. Moderately, they’re the results of inventory appreciations attributable to company exercise comparable to growing retained earnings, growing capital investments, or issuing dividends. Inventory appreciation turns into taxable realized capital good points when the inventory is bought by the holder.

[22] States have sought to restrict this gross sales tax competitors by levying a “use tax” on items bought out of state and introduced into the state, usually on the similar fee because the gross sales tax. Few shoppers adjust to use tax obligations.

[23] For instance, in early 1993, Intel Company was contemplating California, New Mexico, and 4 different states as the positioning of a brand new billion-dollar manufacturing unit. California was the one one of many six states that levied its gross sales tax on equipment and tools, a tax that will have price Intel roughly $80 million. As Intel’s Bob Perlman defined in testimony earlier than a committee of the California state legislature, “There are two methods California’s not going to get the $80 million: with the manufacturing unit or with out it.” California wouldn’t repeal the tax on equipment and tools; New Mexico bought the plant.

[24] Gross sales taxes, that are ideally levied solely on gross sales to final-users, are a type of consumption tax. Consumption taxes which can be levied as an alternative at every stage of manufacturing are often called value-added taxes (VAT) and are well-liked internationally. Theoretically a VAT can keep away from the economically damaging tax pyramiding impact. The VAT has by no means gained broad acceptance within the U.S., and solely two states (Michigan and New Hampshire) have even tried a VAT-like tax.

[25] Alaska does authorize native governments to levy their very own gross sales taxes, nevertheless, which is mirrored within the state’s gross sales tax part rating.

[26] The typical native possibility gross sales tax fee is calculated as a median of native statutory charges, weighted by inhabitants. See Jared Walczak and Scott Drenkard, “State and Native Gross sales Tax Charges, Midyear 2016,” Tax Basis, July 5, 2016.

[27] See Timothy J. Besley and Harvey S. Rosen, “Gross sales Taxes and Costs: An Empirical Evaluation,” NBER Working Paper No. 6667, July 1998.

[28] Information from John Mikesell. For older printed knowledge, see Mikesell, “State Retail Taxes in 2012: The Restoration Continues,” State Tax Notes, June 24, 2013, 1003.

[29] See Scott Drenkard and Joseph Bishop-Henchman, “Cigarette Taxes and Cigarette Smuggling by State, 2014” Tax Basis, Jan. 17, 2017.

[30] See Matt Moon, “How do Individuals Really feel about Taxes At this time?” Tax Basis’s 2009 Survey of U.S. Attitudes on Taxes, Authorities Spending and Wealth Distribution, Tax Basis, Apr. 8, 2009.

[31] Although not included instantly on this Index for knowledge availability causes, tangible private property taxes can even have an effect on enterprise selections. For a complete overview of those taxes and reform suggestions, see Joyce Errecart, Ed Gerrish, and Scott Drenkard, “States Shifting Away from Taxes on Tangible Private Property,” Tax Basis, Oct. 4, 2012.

[32] Some states, like Kentucky, are sometimes thought of to not impose an intangible property tax however proceed to levy a low millage on monetary deposits.

[33] For a abstract of the consequences of the property tax on enterprise, see Congressional Price range Workplace, “Results of the Federal Property Tax on Farms and Small Companies,” July 2005. For a abstract on the property tax normally, see David Block and Scott Drenkard, “The Property Tax: Even Worse Than Republicans Say,” Tax Basis, Sept. 4, 2012.

[34] See typically Joseph Bishop-Henchman, “Unemployment Insurance coverage Taxes: Choices for Program Design and Bancrupt Belief Funds,” Tax Basis, Oct. 17, 2011.

[35] Alaska is the one state to make use of the payroll expertise methodology. This methodology doesn’t use profit funds within the method however as an alternative the variation in an employer’s payroll from quarter to quarter. This can be a violation of tax neutrality since any resolution by the employer or worker that will have an effect on payroll could set off larger UI tax charges.


Appendix

Desk 8. State Company Earnings Tax Charges (as of July 1, 2021)
State Charges   Brackets Gross Receipts Tax Price (a)
Alabama 6.5% > $0  
Alaska 0.0% > $0  
  2.0% > $25,000  
  3.0% > $49,000  
  4.0% > $74,000  
  5.0% > $99,000  
  6.0% > $124,000  
  7.0% > $148,000  
  8.0% > $173,000  
  9.0% > $198,000  
  9.4% > $222,000  
Arizona 4.9% > $0  
Arkansas  1.0% > $0  
  2.0% > $3,000  
  3.0% > $6,000  
  5.0% > $11,000  
  6.0% > $25,000  
  6.2% > $100,000  
California 8.84% > $0  
Colorado (b) 4.5% > $0  
Connecticut (c) 8.25% > $0  
Delaware 8.7% > $0 0.0945% – 0.7468% (d)
Florida 4.458% > $0  
Georgia 5.75% > $0  
Hawaii 4.4% > $0  
  5.4% > $25,000  
  6.4% > $100,000  
Idaho 6.5% > $0  
Illinois (e) 9.5% > $0  
Indiana 4.90% > $0  
Iowa 5.5% > $0  
  9.0% > $100,000  
  9.8% > $250,000  
Kansas 4.0% > $0  
  7.0% > $50,000  
Kentucky 5.0% > $0  
Louisiana 4.0% > $0  
  5.0% > $25,000  
  6.0% > $50,000  
  7.0% > $100,000  
  8.0% > $200,000  
Maine 3.5% > $0  
  7.93% > $350,000  
  8.33% > $1,050,000  
  8.93% > $3,500,000  
Maryland 8.25% > $0  
Massachusetts 8.0% > $0  
Michigan 6.0% > $0  
Minnesota 9.8% > $0  
Mississippi 3.0% > $0  
  4.0% > $5,000  
  5.0% > $10,000  
Missouri 4.0% > $0  
Montana 6.75% > $0  
Nebraska 5.58% > $0  
  7.81% > $100,000  
Nevada (f)   None   0.051% – 0.331% (d)
New Hampshire 7.7% > $0  
New Jersey (g, h) 6.5% > $0  
  7.5% > $50,000  
  9.0% > $100,000  
  11.5% > $1,000,000  
New Mexico 4.8% > $0  
  5.9% > $500,000  
New York (g) 6.50% > $0  
  7.25% > $5,000,000  
North Carolina 2.5% > $0  
North Dakota 1.41% > $0  
  3.55% > $25,000  
  4.31% > $50,000  
Ohio   (a)   0.26%
Oklahoma 6.0% > $0  
Oregon 6.6% > $0 0.57%
  7.6% > $1,000,000  
Pennsylvania 9.99% > $0  
Rhode Island 7.0% > $0  
South Carolina 5.0% > $0  
South Dakota   None    
Tennessee 6.5% > $0  
Texas   (a)   0.331% – 0.75% (d)
Utah 4.95% > $0  
Vermont 6.0% > $0  
  7.0% > $10,000  
  8.5% > $25,000  
Virginia  6.0% > $0 0.02% – 0.58% (d)
Washington   (a)   0.13% – 3.3% (d)
West Virginia 6.5% > $0  
Wisconsin 7.9% > $0  
Wyoming   None    
District of Columbia 8.25% > $0  

Be aware: Along with common earnings taxes, many states impose different taxes on companies comparable to gross receipts taxes and franchise taxes. Some states additionally impose another minimal tax (see Desk 12). Some states impose particular charges on monetary establishments.

(a) Whereas many states acquire gross receipts taxes from public utilities and different sectors, and a few states label their gross sales tax as a gross receipts tax, we present solely these state gross receipts taxes that broadly tax all enterprise as a proportion of gross receipts: the Delaware Producers & Retailers’ License Tax, the Nevada Commerce Tax, the Ohio Business Actions Tax, the Texas Margin Tax, the Virginia locally-levied Enterprise/Skilled/Occupational License Tax, and the Washington Enterprise & Occupation Tax. Ohio, Texas, and Washington shouldn’t have a company earnings tax however do have a gross receipts tax, whereas Delaware and Virginia have a gross receipts tax along with the company earnings tax.

(b) Colorado’s company and particular person earnings tax charges have been retroactively and quickly decreased from 4.55% to 4.5% for tax yr 2021 attributable to a big TABOR surplus.

(c) Connecticut’s fee features a 10% surtax that successfully will increase the speed from 7.5% to eight.25%. The surtax is required by companies with not less than $100 million annual gross earnings.

(d) Gross receipts tax charges fluctuate by trade in these states. Texas has solely two charges: 0.375% on retail and wholesale and 0.75% on all different industries. Virginia’s tax is domestically levied and charges fluctuate by enterprise and by jurisdiction. Washington has over 30 completely different trade classifications and charges, whereas Nevada has 26.

(e) Illinois’ fee contains two separate company earnings taxes, one at a 7% fee and one at a 2.5% fee. 

(f) Nevada additionally levies a payroll tax, the Modified Enterprise Tax, which is mirrored within the particular person earnings tax part of the Index.

(g) The charges indicated apply to a company’s complete internet earnings fairly than simply earnings over the brink. 

(h) In New Jersey, a brief and retroactive surcharge is in impact from 2020 to 2023, bringing the speed to 11.5% for companies with earnings over $1 million.

Supply: Tax Basis; state tax statutes, types, and directions; Bloomberg Tax.

Desk 9. State Company Earnings Tax and Enterprise Tax Bases: Tax Credit and Gross Receipts Tax Deductions (as of July 1, 2021)
        Gross Receipts Tax Deductions  
  Job Credit Analysis and Improvement Credit Funding Credit Compensation Bills Deductible Value of Items Bought Deductible
Alabama Sure No Sure    
Alaska No No No    
Arizona Sure Sure Sure    
Arkansas Sure Sure Sure    
California Sure Sure No    
Colorado Sure Sure Sure    
Connecticut No Sure Sure    
Delaware Sure Sure Sure No No
Florida Sure Sure Sure    
Georgia Sure Sure Sure    
Hawaii No Sure Sure    
Idaho Sure Sure Sure    
Illinois Sure Sure Sure    
Indiana Sure Sure Sure    
Iowa Sure Sure Sure    
Kansas Sure Sure Sure    
Kentucky Sure Sure Sure    
Louisiana Sure Sure Sure    
Maine No Sure Sure    
Maryland Sure Sure Sure    
Massachusetts  Sure Sure Sure    
Michigan No No No    
Minnesota Sure Sure Sure    
Mississippi Sure No Sure    
Missouri Sure No Sure    
Montana Sure Sure No    
Nebraska Sure Sure Sure    
Nevada No No No No No
New Hampshire  Sure Sure Sure    
New Jersey Sure Sure Sure    
New Mexico Sure Sure Sure    
New York Sure Sure Sure    
North Carolina No No No    
North Dakota No Sure Sure    
Ohio Sure Sure Sure No No
Oklahoma Sure No Sure    
Oregon No Sure No No No
Pennsylvania Sure Sure Sure    
Rhode Island Sure Sure Sure    
South Carolina Sure Sure Sure    
South Dakota No No No    
Tennessee Sure No Sure    
Texas  No Sure No Partial (a) Partial (a)
Utah Sure Sure Sure    
Vermont No Sure Sure    
Virginia Sure Sure Sure    
Washington No No No No No
West Virginia Sure Sure Sure    
Wisconsin Sure Sure Sure    
Wyoming No No No    
District of Columbia Sure No No    

(a) Companies could deduct both compensation or price of products bought however not each.

Supply: Tax Basis; Bloomberg Tax; state statutes.

Desk 10. State Company Earnings Tax and Enterprise Tax Bases: Web Working Losses (as of July 1, 2021)
  Carryback (Years) Carryback Cap Carryforward (Years) Carryforward Cap
Alabama 0 $0 15 Limitless
Alaska Conforms to federal remedy
Arizona 0 $0 20 Limitless
Arkansas 0 $0 8 Limitless
California 0 0 0 0
Colorado Conforms to federal remedy
Connecticut 0 $0 20 Limitless
Delaware Conforms to federal remedy
Florida Conforms to federal remedy
Georgia Conforms to federal remedy
Hawaii  Conforms to federal remedy
Idaho 2 $100,000 20 Limitless
Illinois 0 $0 12 Limitless
Indiana 0 $0 20 Limitless
Iowa 0 $0 20 Limitless
Kansas 5 $0 10 Limitless
Kentucky Conforms to federal remedy
Louisiana 0 $0 20 Limitless
Maine Conforms to federal remedy
Maryland Conforms to federal remedy
Massachusetts 0 $0 20 Limitless
Michigan 0 $0 10 Limitless
Minnesota 0 $0 15 Limitless
Mississippi 2 Limitless 20 Limitless
Missouri Conforms to federal remedy
Montana 3 $500,000 10 Limitless
Nebraska 0 $0 20 Limitless
Nevada n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
New Hampshire 0 $0 10 $10,000,000
New Jersey 0 $0 20 Limitless
New Mexico  0 $0 20 Limitless
New York 3 Limitless 20 Limitless
North Carolina 0 $0 15 Limitless
North Dakota 0 $0 20 Limitless
Ohio n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Oklahoma Conforms to federal remedy
Oregon 0 $0 15 Limitless
Pennsylvania 0 $0 20 40% of Legal responsibility (a)
Rhode Island 0 $0 5 Limitless
South Carolina Conforms to federal remedy
South Dakota Conforms to federal remedy
Tennessee 0 $0 15 Limitless
Texas n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Utah Conforms to federal remedy
Vermont 0 $0 10 Limitless
Virginia Conforms to federal remedy
Washington  n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
West Virginia Conforms to federal remedy
Wisconsin 0 $0 20 Limitless
Wyoming n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
District of Columbia Conforms to federal remedy

(a) Pennsylvania permits limitless carryforwards however caps claims at 40 p.c of tax legal responsibility in any given yr.

Supply: Tax Basis; Bloomberg Tax; state statutes.

Desk 11. State Company Earnings Tax and Enterprise Tax Bases: Remedy of Capital Funding (as of July 1, 2021)
  Part 168(ok) Expensing Conforms to Part 163(j) Limitation GILTI Inclusion
Alabama 100% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Alaska 100% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Arizona 0% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Arkansas 0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
California 0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
Colorado 100% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Connecticut 0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
Delaware 100% Sure Principally Excluded
Florida 0% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Georgia 0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
Hawaii  0% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Idaho 0% Sure Principally Excluded
Illinois 100% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Indiana 0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
Iowa 0% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Kansas 100% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Kentucky 0% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Louisiana 100% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Maine 0% Sure Taxes 50% or extra of GILTI
Maryland 0% Sure Taxes 50% or extra of GILTI
Massachusetts 0% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Michigan 0% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Minnesota 20% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Mississippi 0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
Missouri 100% No Decouples/95% exclusion
Montana 100% Sure Principally Excluded
Nebraska 100% Sure Principally Excluded
Nevada 0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
New Hampshire 0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
New Jersey 0% Sure Taxes 50% or extra of GILTI
New Mexico  100% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
New York 0% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
North Carolina 15% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
North Dakota 100% Sure Principally Excluded
Ohio 0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
Oklahoma 100% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Oregon 100% Sure Principally Excluded
Pennsylvania 0% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Rhode Island 0% Sure Principally Excluded
South Carolina 0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
South Dakota 100% No Decouples/95% exclusion
Tennessee 0% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Texas 0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
Utah 100% Sure Taxes 50% or extra of GILTI
Vermont 0% Sure Taxes 50% or extra of GILTI
Virginia 0% Sure Decouples/95% exclusion
Washington  0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
West Virginia 100% Sure Principally Excluded
Wisconsin 0% No Decouples/95% exclusion
Wyoming 100% No Decouples/95% exclusion
District of Columbia 0% No Principally Excluded

“Principally Excluded” means GILTI could apply or that the deduction is lower than 95%.

Supply: Tax Basis; Bloomberg Tax; state statutes.

Desk 12. State Company Earnings Tax and Enterprise Tax Bases: Different Variables (as of July 1, 2021)
  Federal Earnings Used as State Tax Base Permits Federal ACRS or MACRS Depreciation Permits Federal Depletion Throwback Rule Overseas Tax Deductibility Company AMT Brackets Listed for Inflation
Alabama Sure Sure Sure No Sure No Flat CIT
Alaska Sure Sure Partial Sure No Sure No
Arizona Sure Sure Sure No No No Flat CIT
Arkansas No Sure Sure Sure Sure No No
California Sure No Partial Sure No Sure Flat CIT
Colorado Sure Sure Sure Sure No No Flat CIT
Connecticut Sure Sure Sure No Sure No No
Delaware Sure Sure Partial No No No Flat CIT
Florida Sure Sure Sure No Sure No Flat CIT
Georgia Sure Sure Sure No No No Flat CIT
Hawaii  Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No No
Idaho Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No Flat CIT
Illinois Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No Flat CIT
Indiana Sure Sure Sure No Sure No Flat CIT
Iowa Sure Sure Partial No Sure No No
Kansas Sure Sure Sure Sure No No No
Kentucky Sure Sure Sure No No Sure Flat CIT
Louisiana Sure Sure Partial Sure Sure No No
Maine Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No No
Maryland Sure Sure Partial No Sure No Flat CIT
Massachusetts Sure Sure Sure Sure No No Flat CIT
Michigan Sure Sure Sure No No No Flat CIT
Minnesota Sure Sure Partial No No Sure Flat CIT
Mississippi No Sure Partial Sure No No No
Missouri Sure Sure Sure No Sure No Flat CIT
Montana Sure Sure Sure Sure No No Flat CIT
Nebraska Sure Sure Sure No Sure No No
Nevada Sure Sure Sure No Sure No GRT
New Hampshire Sure Sure Partial Sure No Sure Flat CIT
New Jersey Sure Sure Sure No No No No
New Mexico  Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No No
New York Sure Sure Sure No Sure No Flat CIT
North Carolina Sure Sure Partial No No No Flat CIT
North Dakota Sure Sure Sure Sure No No No
Ohio Sure Sure Sure No Sure No GRT
Oklahoma Sure Sure Partial Sure No No Flat CIT
Oregon Sure Sure Partial Sure No No No
Pennsylvania Sure Sure Sure No No No Flat CIT
Rhode Island Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No Flat CIT
South Carolina Sure Sure Sure No No No Flat CIT
South Dakota n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Tennessee Sure Sure Partial No Sure No Flat CIT
Texas Partial Sure Sure No Sure No GRT
Utah Sure Sure Sure Sure No No Flat CIT
Vermont Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No No
Virginia Sure Sure Sure No No No Flat CIT
Washington  Sure Sure Sure No Sure No GRT
West Virginia Sure Sure Sure Sure No No Flat CIT
Wisconsin Sure Sure Sure Sure No No Flat CIT
Wyoming n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
District of Columbia Sure Sure Sure Sure Partial No Flat CIT

Supply: Tax Basis; Bloomberg Tax; state statutes.

Desk 13. State Particular person Earnings Tax Charges (as of July 1, 2021)
         Normal Deduction Private Exemption Common Native Earnings Tax Charges ©
State Charges   Brackets (a) Single Per Filer (b) Per Dependent
Alabama 2.0% > $0 $2,500 $1,500 $1,000 0.50%
  4.0% > $500        
  5.0% > $3,000        
Alaska No Earnings Tax           None
Arizona 2.59% > $0 12550 (j) n.a. n.a. None
  3.34% > $27,272        
  4.17% > $54,544        
  4.50% > $163,632        
Arkansas (e, f) 2.0% > $0 $2,200 $29 (g) $29 (g) None
  4.0% > $4,000        
  5.9% > $8,000        
California (e) 1.0% > $0 $4,601 $124 (g) $383 (g) None
  2.0% > $8,932        
  4.0% > $21,175        
  6.0% > $33,421        
  8.0% > $46,394        
  9.3% > $58,634        
  10.3% > $299,508        
  11.3% > $359,407        
  12.3% > $599,012        
  13.3% > $1,000,000        
Colorado 4.5% > $0 $12,550 n.a. n.a. None
Connecticut (f) 3.0% > $0 n.a. $15,000 (d) $0 None
  5.0% > $10,000        
  5.50% > $50,000        
  6.0% > $100,000        
  6.50% > $200,000        
  6.90% > $250,000        
  6.99% > $500,000        
Delaware 2.20% > $2,000 $3,250 $110 (g) $110 (g) 0.625%
  3.90% > $5,000        
  4.80% > $10,000        
  5.20% > $20,000        
  5.55% > $25,000        
  6.60% > $60,000        
Florida No Earnings Tax           None
Georgia 1.0% > $0 $4,600 $2,700 $3,000 None
  2.0% > $750        
  3.0% > $2,250        
  4.0% > $3,750        
  5.0% > $5,250        
  5.75% > $7,000        
Hawaii 1.40% > $0 $2,200 $1,144 (d) $1,144 None
  3.20% > $2,400        
  5.50% > $4,800        
  6.40% > $9,600        
  6.80% > $14,400        
  7.20% > $19,200        
  7.60% > $24,000        
  7.90% > $36,000        
  8.25% > $48,000        
  9.00% > $150,000        
  10.00% > $175,000        
  11.00% > $200,000        
Idaho (e) 1.0% > $0 $12,550  (j) n.a. n.a. None
  3.1% > $1,568.00        
  4.5% > $4,704.00        
  4.4% > $6,272.00        
  6.5% > $7,840.00        
Illinois (h) 4.95% > $0 $0 $2,325 $2,325 None
Indiana 3.23% > $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 1.75%
Iowa (e) 0.33% > $0 $2,130 $40 (g) $40 (g) 0.171%
  0.67% > $1,676        
  2.25% > $3,353        
  4.14% > $6,704        
  5.63% > $15,084        
  5.96% > $25,140        
  6.25% > $33,520        
  7.44% > $50,280        
  8.53% > $75,420        
Kansas 3.10% > $2,500 $3,000 $2,250 $2,250 None
  5.25% > $15,000        
  5.70% > $30,000        
Kentucky 5.0% > $0 $2,690 n.a. n.a. 2.075%
Louisiana 2.0% > $0 n.a. $4,500 (i) $1,000 None
  4.0% > $12,500        
  6.0% > $50,000        
Maine (e) 5.80% > $0 $12,550 $4,300 $300 (g) None
  6.75% > $22,450        
  7.15% > $53,150        
Maryland 2.0% > $0 $2,300 $3,200 (d) $3,200 3.005%
  3.0% > $1,000        
  4.0% > $2,000        
  4.75% > $3,000        
  5.0% > $100,000        
  5.25% > $125,000        
  5.50% > $150,000        
  5.75% > $250,000        
Massachusetts 5.00% > $0 n.a. $4,400 $1,000 None
Michigan 4.25% > $0 n.a. $4,900 $4,900 1.70%
Minnesota (e) 5.35% > $0 $12,525 (j) n.a. $4,350 None
  6.80% > $27,230        
  7.85% > $89,440        
  9.85% > $166,040        
Mississippi 3.0% > $4,000 $2,300 $6,000 $1,500 None
  4.0% > $5,000        
  5.0% > $10,000        
Missouri 1.5% > $107 $12,550 (j) n.a. n.a. 0.50%
  2.0% > $1,073        
  2.5% > $2,146        
  3.0% > $3,219        
  3.5% > $4,292        
  4.0% > $5,365        
  4.5% > $6,438        
  5.0% > $7,511        
  5.4% > $8,584        
Montana (e) 1.0% > $0 $4,790 $2,560 $2,560 None
  2.0% > $3,100        
  3.0% > $5,500        
  4.0% > $8,400        
  5.0% > $11,300        
  6.0% > $14,500        
  6.9% > $18,700        
Nebraska (f) 2.46% > $0 $7,100 $142 (d, g) $142 (d, g) None
  3.51% > $3,340        
  5.01% > $19,990        
  6.84% > $32,210        
Nevada (ok) No Earnings Tax           None
New Hampshire (l) 5% > $0 n.a. $2,400 $0 None
New Jersey 1.400% > $0 n.a. $1,000 $1,500 0.50%
  1.750% > $20,000        
  3.500% > $35,000        
  5.525% > $40,000        
  6.370% > $75,000        
  8.970% > $500,000        
  10.750% > $1,000,000        
New Mexico 1.7% > $0 $12,550 (j) n.a. $4,000 None
  3.2% > $5,500        
  4.7% > $11,000        
  4.9% > $16,000        
  5.9%   $210,000        
New York (e, f) 4.00% > $0 $8,000 $0 $1,000 1.938%
  4.50% > $8,500        
  5.25% > $11,700        
  5.90% > $13,900        
  5.97% > $21,400        
  6.33% > $80,650        
  6.85% > $215,400        
  9.65% > $1,077,550        
  10.30% > $5,000,000        
  10.90% > $25,000,000        
North Carolina 5.25% > $0 $10,750 n.a. n.a. None
North Dakota (e) 1.10% > $0 $12,550 (j) n.a. n.a. None
  2.04% > $40,125        
  2.27% > $97,150        
  2.64% > $202,650        
  2.90% > $440,600        
Ohio (e) 2.765% > $22,151 n.a. $2,400 $2,400 2.50%
  3.226% > $44,251        
  3.688% > $88,451        
  3.990% > $110,651        
Oklahoma 0.5% > $0 $6,350 $1,000 $1,000 None
  1.0% > $1,000        
  2.0% > $2,500        
  3.0% > $3,750        
  4.0% > $4,900        
  5.0% > $7,200        
Oregon (e, ok) 4.8% > $0 $2,315 $210 (g) $210 (g) 2.387%
  6.8% > $3,650        
  8.8% > $9,200        
  9.90% > $125,000        
Pennsylvania  3.07% > $0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.67%
Rhode Island (e) 3.75% > $0 $9,050 (d) n.a. $4,250 (d) None
  4.75% > $66,200        
  5.99% > $150,550        
South Carolina (e) 0.0% > $0 $12,550 (j) n.a. $4,260 None
  3.0% > $3,070        
  4.0% > $6,150        
  5.0% > $9,230        
  6.0% > $12,310        
  7.0% > $15,400        
South Dakota No Earnings Tax           None
Tennessee No Earnings Tax           None
Texas No Earnings Tax           None
Utah 4.95% > $0 (m) (m) (m) None
Vermont (n) 3.35% > $0 $6,250 $4,350 $4,350 None
  6.60% > $40,350        
  7.60% > $97,800        
  8.75% > $204,000        
Virginia 2.0% > $0 $4,500 $930 $930 None
  3.0% > $3,000        
  5.0% > $5,000        
  5.75% > $17,000        
Washington No Earnings Tax           None
West Virginia 3.0% > $0 n.a. $2,000 $2,000 None
  4.0% > $10,000        
  4.50% > $25,000        
  6.0% > $40,000        
  6.50% > $60,000        
Wisconsin (e)  3.54% > $0 $11,050 (d) $700 $700 None
  4.65% > $12,120        
  5.30% > $24,250        
  7.65% > $266,930        
Wyoming No Earnings Tax           None
District of Columbia 4.0% > $0 12500 (j) n.a. n.a. None
  6.0% > $10,000        
  6.50% > $40,000        
  8.50% > $60,000        
  8.75% > $350,000        
  8.95% > $1,000,000        

(a) Brackets are for single taxpayers. Some states double bracket widths for joint filers (AL, AZ, CT, HI, ID, KS, LA, ME, NE, OR). New York doubles all besides the highest two brackets. Some states enhance however don’t double brackets for joint filers (CA, GA, MN, NM, NC, ND, OK, RI, VT, WI). Maryland decreases some and will increase others. New Jersey provides a 2.45% fee and doubles some bracket widths. Seek the advice of the Tax Basis web site for tables for joint filers. 

(b) Married joint filers typically obtain double the only exemption. 

(c) The typical native earnings tax fee is calculated by taking the imply of the earnings tax fee in essentially the most populous metropolis and the capital metropolis. 

(d) Topic to phaseout for higher-income taxpayers. 

(e) Bracket ranges are adjusted for inflation annually.

(f) Arkansas, Connecticut, Nebraska, and New York have an earnings “recapture” provision whereby the good thing about decrease tax brackets is eliminated for the highest bracket. See the person earnings tax part for particulars. 

(g) Tax credit score. 

(h) Illinois imposes a further 1.5% tax on pass-through companies, bringing the mixed fee to six.45%.

(i) The usual deduction and private exemptions are mixed: $4,500 for single and married submitting individually; $9,000 married submitting collectively. 

(j) These states undertake the identical normal deductions or (now zeroed-out) private exemptions because the federal authorities. In some circumstances, the hyperlink is implicit in the truth that the state tax calculations start with federal taxable earnings. 

(ok) Nevada imposes a payroll tax of 1.45%, which is included within the Index as a tax on wage earnings solely. Oregon imposes a payroll tax of 0.1% along with its earnings tax; that is additionally mirrored in Index calculations.

(l) Tax applies to curiosity and dividend earnings solely. 

(m) Utah’s normal deduction and private exemption are mixed right into a single credit score equal to six% of the taxpayer’s federal normal deduction (or itemized deductions) plus three-forths of the taxpayer’s federal exemptions. This credit score is phased out for larger earnings taxpayers. 

(n) Bracket ranges are adjusted for inflation annually; 2021 inflation adjustements weren’t obtainable as of publication, so inflation-adjusted quantities for tax yr 2020 are proven.

Supply: Tax Basis; state tax types and directions; state statutes.

Desk 14. State Particular person Earnings Tax Bases: Marriage Penalties, Comfort Guidelines, Capital Earnings, and Indexation (as of July 1, 2021)
      Capital Earnings Taxed Listed for Inflation
  Marriage Penalty Comfort Rule Curiosity Dividends Capital Beneficial properties Tax Brackets Normal Deduction Private Exemption
Alabama No No Sure Sure Sure No No No
Alaska n.a. No n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Arizona No No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Arkansas Sure No Sure Sure Sure Sure No Sure
California Sure No Sure Sure Sure Partial Sure Sure
Colorado No No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Connecticut No Partial Sure Sure Sure No Sure No
Delaware Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No No No
Florida n.a. No n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Georgia Sure No Sure Sure Sure No No No
Hawaii  No No Sure Sure Sure No No No
Idaho No No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Illinois No No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Indiana No No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No
Iowa Sure No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No
Kansas No No Sure Sure Sure No No No
Kentucky No No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Louisiana No No Sure Sure Sure No No No
Maine No No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Maryland Sure No Sure Sure Sure No Sure No
Massachusetts No No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No
Michigan No No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Minnesota Sure No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Mississippi Sure No Sure Sure Sure No No No
Missouri Sure No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Montana Sure No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Nebraska No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Nevada n.a. No n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
New Hampshire No No Sure Sure No Sure Sure No
New Jersey Sure No Sure Sure Sure No Sure No
New Mexico  Sure No Sure Sure Sure No Sure Sure
New York Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No No No
North Carolina No No Sure Sure Sure Sure No Sure
North Dakota Sure No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Ohio Sure No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Oklahoma Sure No Sure Sure Sure No No No
Oregon No Sure Sure Sure Sure Partial Sure Sure
Pennsylvania No No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Rhode Island Sure No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
South Carolina Sure No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
South Dakota n.a. No n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Tennessee n.a. No n.a. n.a. n.a. Sure Sure No
Texas n.a. No n.a. n.a. n.a. Sure Sure Sure
Utah No No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Vermont Sure No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure
Virginia Sure No Sure Sure Sure No No No
Washington  n.a. No n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
West Virginia Sure No Sure Sure Sure No Sure No
Wisconsin Sure No Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure No
Wyoming n.a. No n.a. n.a. n.a. Sure Sure Sure
District of Columbia Sure No Sure Sure Sure No Sure Sure

Supply: Tax Basis; Bloomberg Tax; state statutes.

Desk 15. State Particular person Earnings Tax Bases: Different Variables (as of July 1, 2021)
  Federal Earnings Used as State Tax Base Credit for Taxes Paid to Different States AMT Levied Recognition of LLC Standing Recognition of S-Corp Standing Part 179 Expensing Restrict
Alabama No Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Alaska Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Arizona Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Arkansas No Sure No Sure Partial $25,000
California Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure $25,000
Colorado Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure $1,000,000
Connecticut Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure $200,000
Delaware Sure Sure No No No $1,000,000
Florida n.a. n.a. n.a. Sure Sure $1,000,000
Georgia Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Hawaii  Sure Sure No Sure Sure $25,000
Idaho Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Illinois Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Indiana Sure Sure No Sure Sure $25,000
Iowa Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure $1,000,000
Kansas Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Kentucky Sure Sure No Sure Sure $100,000
Louisiana Sure Sure No Sure No $1,000,000
Maine Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Maryland Sure Sure No Sure Sure $25,000
Massachusetts Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Michigan Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Minnesota Sure Sure Sure Sure Sure $1,000,000
Mississippi No Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Missouri Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Montana Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Nebraska Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Nevada n.a. n.a. n.a. Sure Sure $1,000,000
New Hampshire Sure No No No No $500,000
New Jersey No Sure No Sure Partial $25,000
New Mexico  Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
New York Sure Sure No Sure Partial $1,000,000
North Carolina Sure Sure No Sure Sure $25,000
North Dakota Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Ohio Sure Sure No No No $1,000,000
Oklahoma Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Oregon Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Pennsylvania No Sure No Sure Sure $25,000
Rhode Island Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
South Carolina Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
South Dakota n.a. n.a. n.a. Sure Sure $1,000,000
Tennessee Sure Sure No Sure No $1,000,000
Texas n.a. n.a. n.a. No No $1,000,000
Utah Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Vermont Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Virginia Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Washington  n.a. n.a. n.a. No No $1,000,000
West Virginia Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Wisconsin Sure Sure No Sure Sure $1,000,000
Wyoming n.a. n.a. n.a. Sure Sure $1,000,000
District of Columbia Sure Sure No Sure No $25,000

Supply: Tax Basis; Bloomberg Tax; state statutes.

Desk 16. State Gross sales and Excise Tax Charges (as of July 1, 2021)
  Gross sales Taxes Excise Taxes
  State Gross sales Tax Price Common Native Price Gasoline (cents per gallon) (e)  Diesel (cents per gallon) (e)  Cigarettes ({dollars} per pack of 20) Beer ({dollars} per gallon) Spirits ({dollars} per gallon) (g)
Alabama 4.00% 5.22% 29.21 30.15 $0.68 $1.05 (f) $19.11 (h)
Alaska n.a. 1.76% 14.98 14.66 $2.00 $1.07 $12.80
Arizona 5.60% 2.80% 19.00 27.00 $2.00 $0.16 $3.00
Arkansas 6.50% 2.98% 24.80 28.80 $1.15 $0.34 $8.33
California (a) 7.25% 1.57% 66.98 93.08 $2.87 $0.20 $3.30
Colorado 2.90% 4.82% 22.00 20.50 $1.94 $0.08 $2.28
Connecticut 6.35% n.a. 35.75 44.10 $4.35 $0.23 $5.94
Delaware n.a. n.a. 23.00 22.00 $2.10 $0.26 $4.50
Florida 6.00% 1.01% 42.26 35.57 $1.34 $0.48 $6.50
Georgia 4.00% 3.33% 36.09 39.17 $0.37 $1.01 (f) $3.79
Hawaii (b) 4.00% 0.44% 50.17 50.81 $3.20 $0.93 $5.98
Idaho 6.00% 0.02% 33.00 33.00 $0.57 $0.15 $10.91 (h)
Illinois 6.25% 2.58% 59.56 65.22 $2.98 $0.23 $8.55
Indiana 7.00% n.a. 49.79 54.00 $1.00 $0.12 $2.68
Iowa 6.00% 0.94% 30.00 32.50 $1.36 $0.19 $13.03 (h)
Kansas 6.50% 2.20% 24.03 26.03 $1.29 $0.18 $2.50
Kentucky 6.00% n.a. 26.00 23.00 $1.10 $0.89 $8.41
Louisiana 4.45% 5.10% 20.01 20.01 $1.08 $0.40 $3.03
Maine 5.50% n.a. 30.01 31.21 $2.00 $0.35 $11.96 (h)
Maryland 6.00% n.a. 36.10 36.85 $2.00 $0.55 $5.03
Massachusetts 6.25% n.a. 26.54 26.54 $3.51 $0.11 $4.05
Michigan 6.00% n.a. 45.12 44.46 $2.00 $0.20 $11.95 (h)
Minnesota 6.88% 0.60% 30.60 30.60 $3.65 $0.46 $8.61
Mississippi 7.00% 0.07% 18.79 18.40 $0.68 $0.43 $8.11
Missouri 4.225% 4.03% 17.42 17.42 $0.17 $0.06 $2.00
Montana (c)  n.a. n.a. 32.75 30.20 $1.70 $0.14 $9.83
Nebraska 5.50% 1.44% 28.60 28.00 $0.64 $0.31 $3.75
Nevada 6.85% 1.38% 50.48 28.56 $1.80 $0.16 $3.60
New Hampshire n.a. n.a. 23.83 23.83 $1.78 $0.30 $0.00 (h)
New Jersey (d) 6.625% -0.03% 50.70 57.70 $2.70 $0.12 $5.50
New Mexico (b)  5.125% 2.71% 18.88 22.88 $2.00 $0.41 $6.06
New York 4.00% 4.52% 46.19 44.64 $4.35 $0.14 $6.44
North Carolina 4.75% 2.23% 36.35 36.35 $0.45 $0.62 $14.58 (h)
North Dakota (b) 5.00% 1.96% 23.00 23.00 $0.44 $0.45 $5.12
Ohio 5.75% 1.47% 38.51 47.01 $1.60 $0.18 $9.83 (h)
Oklahoma 4.50% 4.45% 20.00 20.00 $2.03 $0.40 $5.56
Oregon n.a. n.a. 38.83 38.06 $1.33 $0.08 $21.95 (h)
Pennsylvania 6.00% 0.34% 58.70 75.20 $2.60 $0.08 $7.41 (h)
Rhode Island 7.00% n.a. 35.00 35.00 $4.25 $0.12 $5.40
South Carolina 6.00% 1.47% 24.75 26.75 $0.57 $0.77 $5.42
South Dakota (b) 4.50% 1.90% 30.00 30.00 $1.53 $0.27 $4.73
Tennessee 7.00% 2.55% 27.40 28.40 $0.62 $1.29 $4.46
Texas 6.25% 1.94% 20.00 20.00 $1.41 $0.20 $2.40
Utah (a) 6.10% 1.09% 31.41 31.41 $1.70 $0.41 $15.92 (h)
Vermont 6.00% 0.24% 31.28 32.00 $3.08 $0.27 $7.68 (h)
Virginia (a) 5.30% 0.45% 34.40 35.30 $0.60 $0.26 $19.89 (h)
Washington  6.50% 2.79% 49.40 49.40 $3.03 $0.26 $35.31
West Virginia 6.00% 0.51% 35.70 35.70 $1.20 $0.18 $7.62 (h)
Wisconsin 5.00% 0.43% 32.90 32.90 $2.52 $0.06 $3.25
Wyoming 4.00% 1.39% 24.00 24.00 $0.60 $0.02 $0.00 (h)
District of Columbia 6.00% n.a. 28.80 28.80 $5.00 $0.72 $6.20

(a) Some state gross sales taxes embody a neighborhood part collected uniformly throughout the state: California (1.25%), Utah (1.25%), and Virginia (1%). We embody these of their state gross sales tax charges.(b) Gross sales tax charges in Hawaii, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota usually are not strictly akin to different states attributable to broad bases that embody many providers.(c) Particular taxes in Montana’s resort areas usually are not included in our evaluation.(d) Some counties in New Jersey usually are not topic to statewide gross sales tax charges and acquire a neighborhood fee of three.3125%. Their common native rating is represented as a destructive.(e) Calculated fee together with excise taxes, further charges levied per gallon (comparable to storage tank and environmental charges), native excise taxes, and gross sales or gross receipts taxes.(f) Features a statewide native tax of 52 cents in Alabama and 53 cents in Georgia.(g) Could embody taxes which can be levied based mostly on container measurement.(h) These states outlaw personal liquor gross sales and make the most of state-run shops. These are known as “management states,” whereas “license states” are those who allow personal wholesale and retail gross sales. All license states have an excise tax fee in regulation, expressed in {dollars} per gallon. Management states levy no statutory tax however often increase comparable income by charging larger costs. The Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. has computed approximate excise tax charges for management states by evaluating costs of typical merchandise bought of their state-run shops to the pre-tax costs of liquor in states the place liquor is privately bought. In New Hampshire, common liquor costs charged in state-run shops are decrease than pre-tax costs in license states. Washington privatized its liquor gross sales however enacted tax will increase as part of the package deal. Supply: Tax Basis; Bloomberg Tax; American Petroleum Institute; Distilled Spirits Council of the USA; Federation of Tax Directors.

Desk 17. State Gross sales Tax Bases: Exemptions for Enterprise-to-Enterprise Transactions (as of July 1, 2021)
  Particular Exemption Farm Tools Workplace Tools Manufacturing Equipment Manufacturing Uncooked Supplies Busines Gasoline & Utilities Enterprise Lease & Leases Info Providers
Alabama No Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable
Alaska n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Arizona No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt
Arkansas No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt
California No Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Colorado No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Connecticut No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable
Delaware n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Florida No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Georgia No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt
Hawaii  No Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable
Idaho No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Illinois No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Indiana No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Iowa No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Kansas No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Kentucky No Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Louisiana No Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Maine No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Maryland No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable
Massachusetts No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Michigan No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Minnesota No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Mississippi No Partial Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt
Missouri No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Montana n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Nebraska No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt
Nevada No Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt
New Hampshire n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
New Jersey No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable
New Mexico  No Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable
New York No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable
North Carolina No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
North Dakota No Partial Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt
Ohio No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable
Oklahoma No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Oregon n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Pennsylvania No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Rhode Island No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
South Carolina No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable
South Dakota No Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable
Tennessee No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt
Texas No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable
Utah No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Vermont No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Virginia No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Washington  No Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable
West Virginia No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable
Wisconsin No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
Wyoming No Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt
District of Columbia No Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable

Be aware: States with no state gross sales tax (AK, DE, MT, NH, and OR) are listed as “not relevant” (n.a.) inside Desk 17, though Alaska has a neighborhood possibility gross sales tax.

Supply: Tax Basis; Bloomberg Tax; state statutes.

Desk 18. State Gross sales Tax Bases: Client Items and Providers (as of July 1, 2020)
  Items Providers
  Groceries Clothes Prescription Treatment Non-Prescription Treatment Gasoline Authorized Monetary Accounting Medical Landscaping Restore Actual Property Providers Parking Dry Cleansing Health Barber Veterinary
Alabama Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Alaska n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Arizona Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt
Arkansas Alternate Price Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt
California Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Alternate Price Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Colorado Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Connecticut Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt
Delaware n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Florida Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Partial Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt
Georgia Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Hawaii  Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable
Idaho Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt
Illinois Alternate Price Taxable Alternate Price Alternate Price Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Indiana Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Iowa Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt
Kansas Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt
Kentucky Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable
Louisiana Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt
Maine Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt
Maryland Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Massachusetts Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Michigan Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt
Minnesota Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt
Mississippi Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt
Missouri Alternate Price Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt
Montana n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Nebraska Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Nevada Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
New Hampshire n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
New Jersey Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt
New Mexico  Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable
New York Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
North Carolina Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt
North Dakota Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Ohio Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt
Oklahoma Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt
Oregon n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Pennsylvania Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt
Rhode Island Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
South Carolina Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt
South Dakota Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable
Tennessee Alternate Price Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt
Texas Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt
Utah Alternate Price Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt
Vermont Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Virginia Alternate Price Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt
Washington  Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable
West Virginia Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt
Wisconsin Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt
Wyoming Exempt Taxable Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt
District of Columbia Exempt Taxable Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Taxable Taxable Exempt Taxable Taxable Taxable Exempt Exempt

Notes: States with no state gross sales tax (AK, DE, MT, NH, and OR) are listed as “not relevant” (n.a.) inside Desk 18, though Alaska has a neighborhood possibility gross sales tax. New York applies solely native gross sales taxes to gasoline.

Supply: Tax Basis; state statutes.

Desk 19. Gross sales Tax Construction (as of July 1, 2021)
  Uniform Base Definitions Unified Tax Administration Secure Harbor for Distant Sellers
Alabama Sure No Gross Gross sales Threshold
Alaska No No n.a.
Arizona No Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Arkansas Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
California Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Colorado No No Gross Gross sales Threshold
Connecticut Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Delaware n.a. n.a. n.a.
Florida Sure Sure n.a.
Georgia Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Hawaii  Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Idaho No Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Illinois Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Indiana Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Iowa Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Kansas Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Kentucky Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Louisiana No No Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Maine Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Maryland Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Massachusetts Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Michigan Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Minnesota Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Mississippi Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Missouri Sure Sure n.a.
Montana n.a. n.a. n.a.
Nebraska Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Nevada Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
New Hampshire n.a. n.a. n.a.
New Jersey Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
New Mexico  Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
New York Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
North Carolina Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
North Dakota Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Ohio Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Oklahoma Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Oregon Sure n.a. n.a.
Pennsylvania Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Rhode Island Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
South Carolina Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
South Dakota Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Tennessee Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Texas Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Utah Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Vermont Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Virginia Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Washington  Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
West Virginia Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
Wisconsin Sure Sure Gross Gross sales Threshold
Wyoming Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold
District of Columbia Sure Sure Gross sales or Transactions Threshold

Be aware: States which don’t require distant gross sales tax assortment are listed as “not relevant” (n.a.) inside Desk 19.

Supply: Tax Basis; state statutes.

Desk 20. State Property Tax Charges and Capital Inventory Tax Charges (as of July 1, 2021)
  Property Tax Collections Per Capita Property Tax as a Proportion of Private Earnings Capital Inventory Tax Price Capital Inventory Max Fee Fee Choices for CST and CIT
Alabama $598 1.40% 0.175% $15,000 Pay each
Alaska $2,195 3.64% None n.a. n.a.
Arizona $1,125 2.52% None n.a. n.a.
Arkansas $776 1.79% 0.3% Limitless Pay each
California $1,680 2.64% None n.a. n.a.
Colorado $1,616 2.74% None n.a. n.a.
Connecticut $3,107 4.15% 0.260% $1,000,000 Pay highest
Delaware $931 1.76% 0.04% $250,000 Pay each
Florida $1,377 2.70% None n.a. n.a.
Georgia $1,205 2.57% (a) $5,000 Pay each
Hawaii $1,358 2.46% None n.a. n.a.
Idaho $1,022 2.29% None n.a. n.a.
Illinois $2,277 3.98% 0.1% $2,000,000 Pay each
Indiana $1,033 2.18% None n.a. n.a.
Iowa $1,702 3.39% None n.a. n.a.
Kansas $1,605 3.13% None n.a. n.a.
Kentucky $845 2.00% None n.a. n.a.
Louisiana $894 1.93% 0.3% Limitless Pay each
Maine $2,249 4.61% None n.a. n.a.
Maryland $1,693 2.70% None n.a. n.a.
Massachusetts  $2,565 3.57% 0.26% Limitless Pay highest
Michigan $1,465 3.07% None n.a. n.a.
Minnesota $1,649 2.87% None n.a. n.a.
Mississippi $1,061 2.80% 0.175% Limitless Pay each
Missouri $1,073 2.28% None n.a. n.a.
Montana $1,711 3.55% None n.a. n.a.
Nebraska $2,010 3.80% (a) $11,995 Pay each
Nevada $1,044 2.09% None n.a. n.a.
New Hampshire  $3,362 5.47% None n.a. n.a.
New Jersey $3,378 4.98% None n.a. n.a.
New Mexico $832 2.00% None n.a. n.a.
New York $3,025 4.41% 0.1875% $5,000,000 Pay highest
North Carolina $993 2.15% 0.15% Limitless Pay each
North Dakota $1,649 2.95% None n.a. n.a.
Ohio $1,356 2.78% None n.a. n.a.
Oklahoma $771 1.68% 0.125% $20,000 Pay each
Oregon $1,557 3.02% None n.a. n.a.
Pennsylvania $1,584 2.83% None n.a. n.a.
Rhode Island $2,431 4.47% None n.a. n.a.
South Carolina $1,211 2.76% 0.1% Limitless Pay each
South Dakota $1,586 3.01% None n.a. n.a.
Tennessee $799 1.69% 0.25% Limitless Pay each
Texas  $1,973 3.86% None n.a. n.a.
Utah $1,070 2.28% None n.a. n.a.
Vermont $2,738 5.12% None n.a. n.a.
Virginia $1,699 2.93% None n.a. n.a.
Washington $1,645 2.64% None n.a. n.a.
West Virginia $950 2.31% None n.a. n.a.
Wisconsin $1,680 3.25% None n.a. n.a.
Wyoming $2,012 3.32% 0.02% Limitless Pay each
District of Columbia $3,740 4.60% None n.a. n.a.

(a) Primarily based on a hard and fast greenback cost schedule. Efficient tax charges lower as taxable capital will increase.

Be aware: States with no capital inventory tax are listed as “not relevant” (n.a.) inside Desk 20.

Supply: Tax Basis calculations from U.S. Census Bureau knowledge; Bloomberg Tax; state statutes.

Desk 21. State Property Tax Bases (as of July 1, 2021)
  Tangible Private Property Tax Intangible Property Tax Stock Tax Actual Property Switch Tax Cut up Roll Ratio Property Tax Inheritance Tax Reward Tax
Alabama Sure Sure No Sure 2.00 No No No
Alaska Sure No Partial No No Cut up Roll No No No
Arizona Sure No No No 1.80 No No No
Arkansas Sure No Sure Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
California Sure No No Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
Colorado Sure No No Sure 4.03 No No No
Connecticut Sure No No Sure 2.17 Sure No Sure
Delaware No No No Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
Florida Sure No No Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
Georgia Sure No Partial Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
Hawaii No No No Sure 3.54 Sure No No
Idaho Sure No No No No Cut up Roll No No No
Illinois No No No Sure 2.50 Sure No No
Indiana Sure No No No No Cut up Roll No No No
Iowa No Sure No Sure 1.60 No Sure No
Kansas Sure Sure No No 2.17 No No No
Kentucky Sure Sure Sure Sure No Cut up Roll No Sure No
Louisiana Sure Sure Sure No No Cut up Roll No No No
Maine Sure No No Sure No Cut up Roll Sure No No
Maryland Sure No Sure Sure No Cut up Roll Sure Sure No
Massachusetts  Sure No Partial Sure No Cut up Roll Sure No No
Michigan Sure No Partial Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
Minnesota Partial No No Sure 1.60 Sure No No
Mississippi Sure Sure Sure No 1.50 No No No
Missouri Sure No No No 1.75 No No No
Montana Sure No No No 1.40 No No No
Nebraska Sure No No Sure No Cut up Roll No Sure No
Nevada Sure No No Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
New Hampshire  Partial No No Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
New Jersey No No No Sure No Cut up Roll No Sure No
New Mexico Sure No No No No Cut up Roll No No No
New York No No No Sure No Cut up Roll Sure No No
North Carolina Sure No No Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
North Dakota Partial No No No 1.11 No No No
Ohio No No No Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
Oklahoma Sure No Sure Sure 1.23 No No No
Oregon Sure No No No No Cut up Roll Sure No No
Pennsylvania No No No Sure No Cut up Roll No Sure No
Rhode Island Sure No No Sure No Cut up Roll Sure No No
South Carolina Sure No No Sure 1.50 No No No
South Dakota Partial Sure No Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
Tennessee Sure Sure No Sure 1.60 No No No
Texas  Sure Sure Sure No No Cut up Roll No No No
Utah Sure No No No 1.82 No No No
Vermont Sure No Partial Sure No Cut up Roll Sure No No
Virginia Sure No Sure Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
Washington Sure No No Sure No Cut up Roll Sure No No
West Virginia Sure No Sure Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
Wisconsin Sure No No Sure No Cut up Roll No No No
Wyoming Sure No No No 1.21 No No No
District of Columbia Sure No No Sure 2.10 Sure No No

Be aware: Cut up roll ratio represents the ratio between industrial and residential property taxes. 

Supply: Tax Basis; Bloomberg Tax; state statutes.

Desk 22. State Unemployment Insurance coverage Tax Charges (as of July 1, 2021)
  Most Favorable Schedule Least Favorable Schedule
State Minimal Price Most Price Taxable Wage Base Minimal Price Most Price Minimal Price Most Price
Alabama 1.15% 7.30% $8,000 0.14% 5.40% 0.65% 6.80%
Alaska 1.00% 5.40% $43,600 1.00% 6.50% 1.00% 6.50%
Arizona 0.08% 20.60% $7,000 0.02% 5.40% 0.02% 5.40%
Arkansas 0.30% 14.20% $10,000 0.80% 6.00% 0.80% 6.00%
California  1.60% 6.20% $7,000 0.10% 5.40% 1.50% 6.20%
Colorado 0.71% 9.64% $13,600 0.51% 6.28% 0.75% 10.39%
Connecticut 1.90% 6.80% $15,000 0.50% 5.40% 0.50% 5.40%
Delaware 0.30% 8.20% $16,500 0.10% 8.00% 0.10% 8.00%
Florida 0.29% 5.40% $7,000 0.10% 5.40% 0.10% 5.40%
Georgia 0.04% 8.10% $9,500 0.01% 5.40% 0.04% 8.10%
Hawaii 0.20% 5.80% $47,500 0.00% 5.40% 2.40% 6.60%
Idaho  0.21% 5.40% $43,000 0.18% 5.40% 0.96% 6.80%
Illinois 0.48% 6.88% $12,960 0.02% 6.40% 0.02% 6.40%
Indiana 0.50% 7.40% $9,500 0.00% 5.40% 0.75% 10.20%
Iowa 0.00% 7.50% $32,400 0.00% 7.00% 0.00% 9.00%
Kansas 0.20% 7.60% $14,000 0.20% 7.60% 0.20% 7.60%
Kentucky 1.00% 10.00% $11,100 0.00% 9.00% 1.00% 10.00%
Louisiana 0.09% 6.20% $7,700 0.09% 6.00% 0.09% 6.00%
Maine 0.07% 6.01% $12,000 0.00% 5.40% 0.00% 5.40%
Maryland 2.20% 13.50% $8,500 0.30% 7.50% 2.20% 13.50%
Massachusetts 1.00% 14.43% $15,000 0.56% 8.62% 1.21% 18.55%
Michigan  0.06% 10.30% $9,000 0.00% 6.30% 0.00% 6.30%
Minnesota 0.20% 9.46% $35,000 0.10% 9.00% 0.40% 9.40%
Mississippi 0.20% 5.60% $14,000 0.00% 5.40% 0.00% 5.40%
Missouri 0.00% 6.75% $11,000 0.00% 5.40% 0.00% 7.80%
Montana 0.13% 6.30% $35,300 0.00% 6.12% 1.62% 6.12%
Nebraska 0.00% 5.40% $9,000 0.00% 5.40% 0.00% 5.40%
Nevada 0.30% 5.40% $33,400 0.25% 5.40% 0.25% 5.40%
New Hampshire 0.60% 9.00% $14,000 0.10% 7.00% 0.10% 8.50%
New Jersey 0.40% 5.40% $36,200 0.30% 5.40% 1.30% 7.70%
New Mexico 0.33% 6.40% $27,000 0.33% 5.40% 0.33% 5.40%
New York 1.30% 9.10% $11,800 0.00% 5.90% 1.50% 8.90%
North Carolina 0.06% 5.76% $26,000 0.06% 5.76% 0.06% 5.76%
North Dakota 0.08% 9.69% $38,500 0.01% 5.40% 0.01% 5.40%
Ohio 0.80% 9.80% $9,000 0.00% 6.30% 0.30% 6.70%
Oklahoma 0.30% 7.50% $24,000 0.01% 5.50% 0.30% 9.20%
Oregon 1.20% 5.40% $43,800 0.50% 5.40% 2.20% 5.40%
Pennsylvania 1.29% 9.93% $10,000 0.00% 8.95% 0.00% 8.95%
Rhode Island 1.20% 9.80% $24,600 0.21% 7.40% 1.20% 10.00%
South Carolina 0.06% 5.46% $14,000 0.00% 5.40% 0.00% 5.40%
South Dakota 0.00% 9.85% $15,000 0.00% 9.30% 0.00% 9.45%
Tennessee 0.01% 10.00% $7,000 0.01% 10.00% 0.50% 10.00%
Texas 0.31% 6.31% $9,000 0.00% 6.00% 0.00% 6.00%
Utah 0.20% 7.20% $38,900 0.00% 7.00% 0.00% 7.00%
Vermont 0.40% 6.50% $14,100 0.40% 5.40% 1.30% 8.40%
Virginia 0.33% 6.43% $8,000 0.00% 6.00% 0.10% 6.20%
Washington 0.52% 6.03% $56,500 0.00% 5.40% 0.00% 5.40%
West Virginia 1.50% 8.50% $12,000 0.00% 7.50% 1.50% 7.50%
Wisconsin 0.00% 12.00% $14,000 0.00% 10.70% 0.07% 10.70%
Wyoming 0.48% 9.78% $27,300 0.00% 8.50% 0.00% 8.50%
District of Columbia 2.10% 7.60% $9,000 0.10% 5.40% 0.10% 1.90%

Supply: Nationwide Basis for Unemployment Compensation & Employees’ Compensation, Highlights of State Unemployment Compensation Legal guidelines (2021); U.S. Division of Labor, Comparability of State Unemployment Insurance coverage Legal guidelines (2020).

Desk 23. State Unemployment Insurance coverage Tax Bases: Expertise Formulation and Charging Strategies (as of July 1, 2021)
  Firm Charged for Advantages If
State Expertise Formulation Primarily based On Advantages Are Charged to Employers in Proportion to Base Interval Wages Worker’s Profit Award Reversed Reimbursements on Mixed Wage Claims Worker Left Voluntarily Worker Discharged for Misconduct Worker Refused Appropriate Work Worker Continues to Work for Employer Half-Time
Alabama Advantages Ratio Sure No Sure No No Sure No
Alaska Payroll Decline n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. n.a.
Arizona Reserve Ratio Sure No No No No Sure No
Arkansas Reserve Ratio Sure No Sure No No Sure No
California  Reserve Ratio Sure No Sure No No Sure No
Colorado Reserve Ratio No (a) No No No No Sure No
Connecticut Advantages Ratio Sure No No No No No No
Delaware Profit Wage Ratio Sure No No No No No No
Florida Advantages Ratio Sure No Sure No No No No
Georgia Reserve Ratio No (b) No No No No No Sure
Hawaii Reserve Ratio Sure Sure No No No No No
Idaho  Reserve Ratio No (c)  No No No No Sure No
Illinois Advantages Ratio No (b) No No No No No No
Indiana Reserve Ratio No (a) No No No No Sure No
Iowa Advantages Ratio No (a) No No No No No No
Kansas Reserve Ratio Sure Sure Sure No No Sure No
Kentucky Reserve Ratio No (b) No No No No No No
Louisiana Reserve Ratio Sure No No No No No No
Maine Reserve Ratio No (b) No Sure No No No No
Maryland Advantages Ratio Sure No Sure No Sure Sure No
Massachusetts Reserve Ratio No (a) No Sure Sure Sure Sure No
Michigan  Advantages Ratio Sure Sure No No No No No
Minnesota Advantages Ratio Sure No No No No Sure No
Mississippi Advantages Ratio Sure Sure Sure No No No No
Missouri Reserve Ratio Sure No No No No No No
Montana Reserve Ratio Sure No Sure No No Sure No
Nebraska Reserve Ratio No (a) No Sure No No Sure No
Nevada Reserve Ratio No (c)  Sure No No No Sure Sure
New Hampshire Reserve Ratio No (b) No No No No No No
New Jersey Reserve Ratio Sure No Sure No No No Sure
New Mexico Advantages Ratio Sure No Sure No No No No
New York Reserve Ratio Sure No Sure No No Sure No
North Carolina Reserve Ratio Sure Sure Sure No No Sure No
North Dakota Reserve Ratio Sure No Sure No No Sure No
Ohio Reserve Ratio Sure No No No No No No
Oklahoma Profit Wage Ratio Sure No Sure No No No No
Oregon Advantages Ratio Sure No No No No Sure No
Pennsylvania Advantages Ratio Sure No No No No Sure No
Rhode Island Reserve Ratio Sure No No No No No No
South Carolina Advantages Ratio No (b) No No No No No No
South Dakota Reserve Ratio No (a) No Sure No No Sure Sure
Tennessee Reserve Ratio Sure No No No No Sure No
Texas Advantages Ratio Sure No Sure No No Sure Sure
Utah Advantages Ratio Sure No No No No Sure No
Vermont Advantages Ratio Sure No No No No No No
Virginia Advantages Ratio No (b) Sure No Sure Sure Sure Sure
Washington Advantages Ratio Sure Sure Sure No No Sure No
West Virginia Reserve Ratio Sure No Sure No No Sure No
Wisconsin Reserve Ratio Sure Sure No No No No Sure
Wyoming Advantages Ratio Sure No Sure No No Sure No
District of Columbia Reserve Ratio Sure Sure Sure No No Sure No

(a) Advantages charged to base-period employers, most up-to-date first (inverse order).

(b) Advantages charged to most up-to-date employer.

(c) Advantages charged to employer who paid largest quantity of wages.

Be aware: Alaska makes use of a payroll decline expertise method, so different options are listed as not relevant (n.a.).

Supply: Nationwide Basis for Unemployment Compensation & Employees’ Compensation, Highlights of State Unemployment Compensation Legal guidelines (2018)



Supply hyperlink