“I believe Alabama is uniquely positioned to be a leader in the EV industry.”
Those were the words of Alabama Governor Kay Ivey delivering the opening remarks at the Drive Electric Alabama EV Summit this past week. She continued, “We need to lean in on this new technology for the sake of our economy tomorrow.”
The two-day summit, which targeted electric vehicle initiatives in Alabama and provided information on charging infrastructure, comes ten months after the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) alongside Governor Ivey launched Alabama Drive Electric, the state’s electric vehicle (EV) education and marketing program.
At the launch in November 2021, ADECA director and state cabinet member Kenneth Boswell stated, “It’s clear electric vehicles represent the next generation of automobile manufacturing.”
In 2021, Governor Ivey awarded 18 grants totaling more than $4.1 million in a combination of legislature-appropriated funds and Volkswagen settlement funds to install electric vehicle charging stations across the state.
According to ADECA, which administers the EV Infrastructure Program, Alabama allocated $1 million for FY2021 and $2 million for FY2022 for charging stations. The state also allocated $1 million both years for EV education.
In addition to state funds, as part of the Biden administration’s Infrastructure Law, Alabama expects to receive $79,308,285 through the five-year National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program with $11,738,801 already apportioned on February 10, 2022.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, in Alabama, “government and non-government entities are eligible to receive up to $500,000 for the installation of direct current fast charging (DCFC) stations along Interstate 22 in Alabama. ADECA also offers grants of up to $250,000 for the installation of Level 2 or DCFC stations along non-interstate corridors.”
Furthermore, under the federal Inflation Reduction Act, the IRS provides EV drivers in Alabama with a commercial EV tax credit, up to $7,500 for smaller vehicles and up to $40,000 for larger vehicles.
A marketing campaign, the creation of a new state department, a summit, grants and subsidies, and millions of federal and state tax dollars have been allocated to the expansion of EVs in Alabama.
The incentive has been created. Why the strong push for electric vehicles in Alabama?
These “incentives,” in the form of government subsidies, have been utilized to create a market for electric vehicles. In reality, the market’s demand for electric vehicles doesn’t match the current interest with government regulation and subsidies. This created demand isn’t a free market exercise, but it is being government manufactured with hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit spending.
According to the Alternative Fuels Data Center, statewide, Alabama had a mere 2,890 EVs in 2020, 0.05 percent of overall vehicle registrations. In 2021, Alabama increased EV registrations to 4,757, but it still represents a negligible presence on our roadways.
There are obvious downsides to EVs in comparison to traditional gas vehicles:
Limited driving range
Limited battery life
High costs (even with tax credits)
Additional demands placed on existing electric grids
Questions about where and how to dispose of old batteries
Questions about the overarching environmental impact of producing EVs
Even if market demand was there, is an exclusive EV option really what’s best for all of us? For example, are EVs feasible in cases of a hurricane or other evacuation scenarios? If there isn’t electricity, EVs cannot charge. In comparison, gas vehicle owners can keep a spare gas can in their garage and fill up the car’s tank to safely leave town in time. Does it make sense to put diesel generators next to all charging stations as a backup?
Would the market support this industry without these incentives? It would probably be a growing industry, but would not look anything like what we are currently witnessing. It is no surprise there would be less of a market for the electric vehicle infrastructure without federal and state incentives.
Electric vehicles have become a government-regulated industry. Do automobile companies and state governments have an opportunity to not invest in electric vehicles?
Last week, Hertz, an American rental car company, agreed to purchase up to 175,000 electric vehicles from General Motors (GM) over the next five years. This contributes to the company’s goal of having one-quarter of its fleet being electric by the end of 2024. Hertz has also teamed up with BP Pulse, the global electrification and charging solution brand of multinational oil and gas company BP, to build electric charging stations for its fleet across North America. Ambitiously, GM, the largest U.S. automaker, announced its plans to sell only vehicles that have zero tailpipe emissions by 2035, phasing out petroleum-powered cars and trucks. This is all part of GM’s plan to be carbon neutral by 2040 in its global products and operations.
As seen by Alabama’s initiatives, major corporations aren’t alone in the shift from gas-powered vehicles to EVs. California is the state with one of the most drastic EV measures. The Golden State is committed to 100% new zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
This is not to say electric vehicles don’t have any advantages. However, the free market should decide the advantages of electric vehicles, not the government through regulations and mandates.
It feels like the entire nation is rushing to transition everyone away from gas to electric cars. The federal government is spending money anywhere and everywhere to make this a reality. At the same time, state governments, utilities, and manufacturing companies are all too excited to spend this money. This is all being done to minimize the amount of carbon dioxide emissions to keep the earth’s temperature from increasing. We are being told we are in a crisis and must act fast. The United Nations’ own climate model claims that the hundreds of billions of dollars allocated for this climate emergency from the Inflation Reduction Act calculates that if no additional funding is provided past 2030, the global temperature will be reduced by .0009 degrees by the end of the century. Is this a good return on investment?
If Alabamians want to buy an electric vehicle they should be free to do so, but the free market should drive the demand. With the federal government’s appetite to spend money it doesn’t have, it is power is powerful enough to influence state governments, utility companies, automobile manufacturers, and ultimately even limit an individual’s freedom to drive the car of their choice.
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Division of Air Quality, has started writing amended regulations to eventually ban new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles from being registered in the state. You will be forced to buy electric vehicles (EVs), currently averaging $14,000 MORE per vehicle than conventional cars and trucks.
The stated legal basis for amending existing regulations is the need to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). However, Delaware already meets the standard by a significant margin.
DNREC’s Division of Air Quality will host a series of public hearings to review the DRAFT AMENDED regulations starting Tuesday, November 15. We encourage you to participate and make public comments to stop these regulations and protect your freedom of choice. Please see below for additional dates.
DELAWARE MEETS THE EPA’S NAAQS FOR OZONE STANDARD: LET’S SUBMIT A NEW APPEAL TO THE EPA TO BE IN “ATTAINMENT”
DNREC’s Division of Air Quality points to a technicality that the EPA includes New Castle County in the greater Philadelphia “non-attainment area.” This argument doesn’t work, either.
They recommended that the EPA allow New Castle County to be out of that regional assignment in 2017. The EPA rejected the recommendation as New Castle County was out of compliance in 2017, and evidence showed Delaware emissions were impacting upwind monitoring stations in the non-attainment area.
Now the ten closest upwind monitoring stations are all meeting the ozone standard.
Motor vehicle emissions in Delaware have fallen about 40% since 2017 and 80% to 90% since 1990. DNREC’s Division of Air Quality could submit a new appeal to the EPA to pull New Castle County out of the greater Philadelphia region, which would most likely succeed, and no EV mandate would be necessary.
The EPA even admits being in “attainment is an economic development advantage as new source permits are easier to obtain.” New Castle County would benefit from such an advantage to expand existing businesses more easily and be more inviting to new businesses.
WE SUSPECT DNREC’S DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY IS NOT BEING HONEST ABOUT ITS REAL GOAL
In a 2019 exchange with the EPA, DNREC focused only on the carbon-cutting benefits of EVs and made no reference to air quality benefits. Now, DNREC’s regulatory effort ignores the carbon-cutting impact. Governor Carney joined the Climate Alliance in 2017 along with seventeen other states, including a promise to follow California motor-vehicle-carbon emission rules instead of national ones. DNREC’s resulting Climate Action Plan, which includes an EV mandate, is clearly aimed at carbon-cutting. The state may find it wise to await the outcome of a robust legal challenge to California’s ability to write such rules.
DNREC’s Division of Air Quality wrote its start of action notice in April 2022, hoping a bill (SB 305) would pass the Delaware legislature authorizing the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions as an executive order alone will probably not survive a legal challenge. The bill failed in June 2022 as legislators noted it could lead to a ban on gasoline-powered vehicles and a ban on natural gas and propane hookups in new construction. After the bill failed, they began this regulatory process in July 2022.
DELAWARE HAS NO ACTION PLAN FOR OFFERING GRANTS TO OFFSET THE HIGH PURCHASE PRICE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES
When California adopted the EV mandate, they began offering up to $14,000 in grants to lower-income people so they could buy an EV. There is no such companion action in Delaware. One estimate suggests the state needs to spend up to $100 million on subsidies on vehicles and chargers to meet the EV mandate.
Over a quarter of families are already in energy poverty. How are they, and even middle-income families, to afford this? Between 2016 and 2021, in-state electric generation fell by 50%. Where is the electric power coming from to charge these EVs, and how much will electric rates increase? Fuel taxes fund highway construction and repair. How will road projects be funded?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WILMINGTON, Del. — David R. Legates, Ph.D. has joined the Advisory Board of A Better Delaware, a non-partisan public policy and political advocacy organization which supports pro-growth, pro-jobs policies and greater transparency and accountability in Delaware’s state government.
Legates is a retired tenured professor of climatology, geography, and spatial sciences in the Department of Geography at the University of Delaware and a retired adjunct professor in the Department of Applied Economics and Statistics. He has served as research scientist at the Southern Regional Climate Center, chief research scientist at the Center for Computational Geosciences, and visiting research scientist at the National Climatic Data Center. He recently served as the Executive Director of the US Global Change Research Program.
Legates has been published more than 125 times in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and monograph series and has made more than 250 professional presentations. A former Delaware state climatologist, in Sept. 2020 Legates was appointed to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Observation and Prediction at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Chris Kenny, Chairman and Founder of A Better Delaware announced the addition of Legates to the Advisory Board last week. “David Legates is a leading voice in the area of climate science who will offer A Better Delaware sound guidance as the First State navigates the many challenges it faces as a coastal state with vast farmlands and open spaces,” Kenny said. “David understands both the science and the regulatory landscape surrounding issues of safe energy generation, efficient transmission, environmental hazard exposure and climate volatility.”
“I’m honored to join the Advisory Board of A Better Delaware,” Legates said. “Our state faces a number of challenges in the area of energy production and requires a pragmatic approach that keeps taxpayers and businesses at the forefront. To that end, I’m eager to share my experience to help advocate for responsible policy”.
“Dr. Legates is a welcome addition to our Advisory Board,” said Kathleen Rutherford, Executive Director of A Better Delaware. “It is imperative that Delaware not follow other states in rapidly moving away from legacy energy production to renewables without adequate intermediate steps. David Legates will guide ABD as we advocate for policy that supports reliable and cost-effective sources of energy for all Delawareans.”
A nationwide recession in the next 12 months is almost a certainty, but Delaware is already suffering from “stagflation” not seen since the 1970s. The Delaware Legislature needs to move very carefully in the 2023 session and stay out of the economy.
Becoming like California and damaging small businesses and employers is not a successful growth strategy during very tumultuous times. Caution should be the watchword.
INFLATION, INTEREST RATE INCREASES & RECESSION
The two charts below are from the St. Louis Federal Reserve. Chart 1 shows the percent change in Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) – The Fed’s preferred inflation measure.
Chart 1 – Personal Consumption Expenditures: Chain-type Price Index
(Shaded areas indicate U.S. recessions.)
(Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Fred.stlouisfed.org)
Chart 2 shows the Federal Funds Rate, the interest rate set by the Fed in response to its perception of the economy. The charts run from January 1959 through August 2022. Recessions are marked in gray.
Chart 2 – Federal Funds Effective Rate
(Shaded areas indicate U.S. recessions.)
(Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Fred.stlouisfed.org)
It is clear that before every recession, the Fed raised interest rates. The rise in rates was commensurate with the rate of inflation. This relationship between the amount of inflation and the size of the interest rate hike implies that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates a lot more in the near future.
With the highest inflation seen in 40 years, a deep recession, like that of the early 1980s, is a strong possibility.
LOCAL EFFECTS OF INFLATION COMBINED WITH BAD GOVERNMENT POLICY
The Atlanta Federal Reservehas a tool, myCPI, which attempts to “personalize” the effects of inflation onto the individual household.
For instance, a 40-year-old single parent with a high-school diploma and two kids earning $50,000 a year is experiencing 25% higher inflation than the National reported inflation – 10% versus 8.2%. The lower the income, the higher the inflation impact.
This Fed data shows that low-income households are being crushed. According to the U.S. Census, 256,408 Delawareans are likely suffering from this “1970s-level inflation,” which is just over 25% of the State’s population.
In addition, in September, workforce participation in Delaware dropped to its lowest level ever (excluding a one-time during COVID-19) to 60.3% (NOTE: This rate was frequently over 70% in the 1980s and 1990s).
Locally, the Delaware Department of Laborreports that Delaware has 1.4% fewer nonfarm jobs today than before the pandemic. Fewer local jobs are also confirmed by the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, which reports that New Castle County’s economy is 2.8% smaller than it was 20 years ago.
In short, in Delaware, there is high inflation while there is no growth – the definition of “stagflation.”
CONCLUSION
While a nationwide recession is likely coming, Delaware already suffers from “1970s-like stagflation” – high inflation and no growth. Now is not the time for big government legislative or regulatory expansions. To the contrary, now is the perfect time to stop killing the economy with “kindness.”
The advice of the Caesar Rodney Institute is that for the 2023 legislative session, the Delaware General Assembly should pause and stop further strangulation of the economy until local stagflation is gone and the national recession ends.
September’s jobs report showed a slowdown in growth. The economy gained 263,000 nonfarm payroll jobs, down from 315,000 the previous month. In September, there were notable gains in sectors including health care and leisure and hospitality.
Now, the U.S. unemployment rate sits at 3.5%. We have come a long way from the nearly historic high of 14.7% in April 2020, due to a combination of vaccinations and states removing restrictions. However, inflation and the potential of a recession threaten to push the unemployment rate higher again if Federal Reserve rate increases are not able to stave them off.
In order to take stock of how unemployment rates are changing throughout the U.S., WalletHub compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia based on six key metrics that compare unemployment rate statistics from the latest month for which data is available (September 2022) to key dates in 2022, 2021, 2020 and 2019.
Main Findings
State
Rank
Minnesota
1
North Dakota
2
Vermont
3
New Hampshire
4
Missouri
5
Florida
6
Utah
7
Virginia
8
South Dakota
9
Nebraska
10
New Jersey
11
Alabama
12
Rhode Island
13
Iowa
14
Georgia
15
Kansas
16
Louisiana
17
Massachusetts
18
Idaho
19
Indiana
20
Montana
21
Wyoming
22
Hawaii
23
Wisconsin
24
Mississippi
25
Maine
26
California
27
South Carolina
28
Connecticut
29
Pennsylvania
30
Oklahoma
31
Tennessee
32
Colorado
33
Washington
34
North Carolina
35
Maryland
36
Arkansas
37
New York
38
Arizona
39
Michigan
40
New Mexico
41
West Virginia
42
Oregon
43
Ohio
44
Kentucky
45
Texas
46
Delaware
47
Nevada
48
District of Columbia
49
Alaska
50
Illinois
51
Unemployment Rate Changes by State
Overall Rank
State
Unemployment Rate (September 2022)
Change in Unemployment (September 2022 vs August 2022)
Change in Unemployment (September 2022 vs September 2021)
Change in Unemployment (September 2022 vs September 2020)
Change in Unemployment (September 2022 vs September 2019)
Not Seasonally Adjusted Continued Claims (September 2022 vs August 2022)
1
Minnesota
2.0%
5.9%
-36.1%
-68.3%
-44.1%
-10.5%
2
North Dakota
2.2%
-1.8%
-30.1%
-60.5%
7.0%
-41.0%
3
Vermont
2.1%
3.0%
-30.8%
-51.6%
-20.4%
-32.6%
4
New Hampshire
2.2%
6.9%
-31.5%
-63.8%
-20.1%
-32.9%
5
Missouri
2.4%
-2.1%
-39.7%
-59.4%
-23.0%
-28.7%
6
Florida
2.5%
-8.9%
-34.0%
-70.0%
-17.1%
-7.1%
7
Utah
2.1%
1.9%
-12.7%
-49.2%
-10.8%
-3.3%
8
Virginia
2.6%
-0.8%
-22.8%
-58.7%
-3.1%
-23.8%
9
South Dakota
2.3%
0.9%
-22.9%
-40.1%
-15.6%
-6.2%
10
Nebraska
2.2%
5.7%
-8.7%
-31.6%
-28.9%
-18.9%
11
New Jersey
3.3%
-18.0%
-43.1%
-59.4%
-6.3%
-18.3%
12
Alabama
2.6%
1.1%
-17.3%
-57.2%
-10.4%
-17.4%
13
Rhode Island
3.1%
8.0%
-42.7%
-67.9%
-15.3%
-33.2%
14
Iowa
2.7%
4.0%
-32.4%
-41.8%
-3.2%
-20.1%
15
Georgia
2.8%
-1.0%
-18.9%
-53.2%
-17.9%
-14.4%
16
Kansas
2.6%
3.4%
-13.2%
-49.1%
-15.8%
-9.0%
17
Louisiana
3.4%
-4.9%
-29.3%
-61.7%
-28.8%
-13.4%
18
Massachusetts
3.4%
-4.1%
-33.2%
-65.3%
12.1%
-20.9%
19
Idaho
2.8%
4.8%
-13.1%
-38.1%
-0.9%
-24.9%
20
Indiana
2.8%
1.7%
-4.5%
-54.2%
-13.0%
-6.7%
21
Montana
2.9%
3.4%
-6.8%
-39.6%
-17.0%
-20.9%
22
Wyoming
3.3%
4.6%
-21.3%
-41.9%
-19.0%
-20.1%
23
Hawaii
3.5%
-13.1%
-26.7%
-73.1%
71.6%
-5.9%
24
Wisconsin
3.2%
3.7%
-5.1%
-43.3%
-2.9%
-27.6%
25
Mississippi
3.6%
1.6%
-26.2%
-47.8%
-36.2%
-16.8%
26
Maine
3.3%
5.1%
-27.7%
-25.0%
11.9%
-23.4%
27
California
3.9%
-4.8%
-38.7%
-61.3%
-5.6%
-5.3%
28
South Carolina
3.2%
1.2%
-15.6%
-45.0%
33.2%
-9.3%
29
Connecticut
4.0%
-0.9%
-26.4%
-54.2%
12.6%
-43.8%
30
Pennsylvania
4.1%
-3.3%
-29.2%
-54.6%
-11.4%
-35.2%
31
Oklahoma
3.2%
5.1%
3.0%
-44.0%
2.7%
-17.8%
32
Tennessee
3.4%
-0.2%
-9.4%
-50.1%
1.6%
-7.2%
33
Colorado
3.4%
-1.9%
-26.8%
-43.8%
40.3%
-5.9%
34
Washington
3.7%
0.6%
-20.7%
-51.2%
-8.8%
-2.9%
35
North Carolina
3.6%
2.6%
-18.8%
-41.7%
-6.6%
-7.1%
36
Maryland
4.0%
-7.0%
-30.2%
-40.6%
5.2%
-10.1%
37
Arkansas
3.5%
3.9%
0.9%
-39.7%
-0.8%
-15.1%
38
New York
4.3%
-8.9%
-28.5%
-58.6%
6.1%
-15.1%
39
Arizona
3.7%
6.8%
-9.7%
-46.7%
-20.3%
-9.4%
40
Michigan
4.1%
0.1%
-26.0%
-52.5%
-2.1%
-12.6%
41
New Mexico
4.2%
-4.3%
-31.9%
-52.7%
-12.1%
-3.5%
42
West Virginia
4.0%
1.7%
-12.5%
-46.8%
-21.2%
-16.8%
43
Oregon
3.8%
2.7%
-13.5%
-47.5%
12.0%
-10.1%
44
Ohio
4.0%
1.3%
-14.2%
-46.9%
-7.8%
-12.6%
45
Kentucky
3.8%
-0.3%
-19.4%
-22.7%
-7.2%
-8.4%
46
Texas
4.0%
-2.3%
-20.3%
-45.9%
16.9%
-5.5%
47
Delaware
4.3%
-4.7%
-14.7%
-43.3%
14.9%
-28.7%
48
Nevada
4.4%
1.2%
-19.7%
-67.5%
15.6%
-4.2%
49
District of Columbia
4.7%
-9.0%
-27.4%
-46.3%
-9.6%
-8.6%
50
Alaska
4.4%
-4.1%
-23.5%
-39.7%
-16.6%
1.7%
51
Illinois
4.5%
0.2%
-17.3%
-49.0%
19.7%
-13.6%
Change in Unemployment (2022 September vs 2022 August)
Biggest Decrease
1. New Jersey
2. Hawaii
3. District of Columbia
4. Florida
5. New York
Smallest Decrease
47. Nebraska
48. Minnesota
49. Arizona
50. New Hampshire
51. Rhode Island
Change in Unemployment (2022 September vs 2021 September)
Discover why there are better and worse ways for governments to raise a dollar of revenue.
Compare the economic impact of the three basic tax types—taxes on what you earn, buy, and own—including three specific taxes within each category.
Learn about the basics of “dynamic scoring,” one tool economists can use to compare the economic and revenue impact of different tax policies.
Introduction
There are better and worse ways to raise a dollar of revenue. That’s because no two taxes impact the economy the same.
One way to think about this is as a hierarchy: Which taxes are most and least harmful for long-term economic growth? This hierarchy is determined by which factors are most mobile, and thus most sensitive to high tax rates—in other words, what economic activities, if taxed, can easily be moved, reduced, or otherwise changed to avoid that tax?
Taxes on the most mobile factors in the economy, such as capital, cause the most distortions and have the most negative impact. Taxes on factors that can’t easily be moved, such as land, are the most stable and least distortive.
It’s relatively easy for someone to invest less to avoid a capital gains tax, for example. It’s much harder for someone to pull up stakes and move their home to avoid a property tax. This difference is why capital gains taxes distort people’s decisions, and thus the economy, more than property taxes.
Taxes on what you earn
Corporate Income Taxes
Corporate income taxes are taxes on business profits earned by C corporations. The corporate income tax directly increases the cost of making investments in capital, like machinery and equipment, which businesses and workers use to be more productive. When businesses and workers are more productive, the economy grows. So, by increasing the cost of making investments, the corporate income tax discourages investment and productivity growth, creating one of the largest negative impacts on economic growth compared to other taxes.
Individual Income Taxes
Individual income taxes are applied to wages and salaries, business income from pass-through businesses like sole proprietorships and LLCs, and investment income. High marginal tax rates, the amount of additional tax paid for every additional dollar earned as income, reduce individual incentives to work and business incentives to invest. That means individual income taxes also have a negative effect on the economy.
Payroll Taxes
Payroll taxes are paid on the wages and salaries of employees to finance social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Payroll taxes apply only to labor income, and not to business income like the previous two forms of tax. For this reason, payroll taxes are one of the least harmful ways to raise revenue, as the supply of labor is less responsive to taxation than the supply of capital. That said, it’s important to note that employees bear the burden of payroll taxes, resulting in lower wages.
Taxes on what you buy
Gross Receipts Taxes
Gross receipts taxes are applied to a company’s gross sales without allowing any deductions for costs. Unlike a sales tax or a value-added tax (VAT), gross receipts taxes are applied to business-to-business transactions and final consumer purchases. Since the tax is applied at each transaction in a production chain, without allowing for any deductions, it leads to tax pyramiding, where the many layers of tax are built into the final price of the good. By providing an advantage to businesses with short production chains, while harming those with long production chains, gross receipts taxes distort business decisions and the economy.
Excise Taxes
Excise taxes are imposed on a specific good or activity, such as cigarettes, alcohol, and fuel. Because of their narrow base (applying a tax to a small selection of goods or services) excise taxes distort production and consumption choices. Sometimes this distortion is by design. For example, a tax on cigarettes to discourage smoking; however, this distortion makes excise taxes an inefficient source of revenue. Excise taxes with broader bases, or those levied in direct connection with the consumption of public goods, like gas taxes paying for road usage, better resemble pure consumption taxes and have less distortive effects.
Sales Taxes
Sales taxes are imposed on retail sales of goods and services. Ideally, sales taxes are imposed on all final retail sales of goods and services, but not on intermediate business-to-business transactions in the production chain, as in the case of gross receipts taxes. Sales taxes are less distortive than capital and income taxes because they do not affect decisions to work or invest, and when appropriately structured, they do not lead to tax pyramiding or changes in consumption.
Taxes on what you own
Wealth Taxes
Wealth taxes are imposed annually on an individual’s net wealth. Net wealth is calculated by taking the market value of their total owned assets—the price those assets would get if sold—and subtracting their liabilities—everything that person owes, including loans, mortgages, and other debts. Wealth taxes place a high tax burden on the normal return to capital (the amount required for an investor to break-even on an investment) and a lighter burden on the supernormal returns to capital (amounts above and beyond the normal return); this is the opposite of ideal tax policy. By placing a higher burden on the normal return to capital, wealth taxes distort investment decisions and can alter entrepreneurship, venture capital funding, and even where talent is located (in Silicon Valley vs. Hong Kong, for example).
Estate Taxes
Estate taxes are levied on the value of property that is transferred to heirs upon the death of the original owner and can be thought of as a one-time wealth tax. These taxes lead to unproductive tax planning, increase the tax burden on investment by encouraging people to consume their income rather than invest it, and may have negative effects on entrepreneurship.
Property Taxes
Property taxes can be levied on immovable or “real” property (i.e., land and buildings) and personal property (i.e., cars, machinery, office equipment, etc.). When properly structured, property taxes can be relatively economically efficient and transparent, such as when they apply to immovable property, like annual taxes on land and buildings. Taxes on immovable property have a relatively small effect on decisions to work and invest, though they can impact where a person or business chooses to locate. Because personal property is much more mobile, and thus more sensitive to taxation, personal property taxes distort investment decisions, complicate business tax compliance, and reduce economic growth.
Bang for Your Buck: Ranking 5 Hypothetical Tax Changes
Instead of focusing on the relative harm of different tax types, think about it in the reverse: Which taxes can be reduced to improve the economy? One way to answer this question is to use dynamic scoring to produce what we refer to as a “bang for your buck” analysis—a ranking of how much economic growth is produced per dollar of revenue forgone by different tax reductions.
The chart below considers five U.S. federal tax policy changes and the resulting effect on the size of long-run economic output, including a change in the corporate income tax base called full expensing; a 1 percentage-point reduction in the corporate income tax; a 1 percentage-point reduction in the individual income tax rate for all tax brackets; an increase in the maximum child tax credit to $2,500; and a decrease in the capital gains tax rate of 5 percentage points.
As you can see below, cutting the capital gains tax rate is the least efficient option to produce economic growth. Dollar-for-dollar, full expensing, which allows companies to fully and immediately deduct the cost of all new investments, is the most efficient way for policymakers to generate economic growth through the tax code.
The relative increase in economic output that tax reductions generate per dollar of lost revenue clearly illustrates that not all taxes (and not all tax cuts) are equal.
The Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index enables business leaders, government policymakers, and taxpayers to gauge how their states’ tax systems compare. While there are many ways to show how much is collected in taxes by state governments, the Index is designed to show how well states structure their tax systems and provides a road map for improvement.
The absence of a major tax is a common factor among many of the top 10 states. Property taxes and unemployment insurance taxes are levied in every state, but there are several states that do without one or more of the major taxes: the corporate income tax, the individual income tax, or the sales tax. Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming have no corporate or individual income tax (though Nevada imposes gross receipts taxes); Alaska has no individual income or state-level sales tax; Florida has no individual income tax; and New Hampshire and Montana have no sales tax.
This does not mean, however, that a state cannot rank in the top 10 while still levying all the major taxes. Indiana and Utah, for example, levy all the major tax types but do so with low rates on broad bases.
The 10 lowest-ranked, or worst, states in this year’s Index are:
The states in the bottom 10 tend to have a number of afflictions in common: complex, nonneutral taxes with comparatively high rates. New Jersey, for example, is hampered by some of the highest property tax burdens in the country, has the highest-rate corporate income taxes in the county, and has one of the highest-rate individual income taxes. Additionally, the state has a particularly aggressive treatment of international income, levies an inheritance tax, and maintains some of the nation’s worst-structured individual income taxes.
Stay informed on the tax policies impacting you.
Subscribe to get insights from our trusted experts delivered straight to your inbox.
Note: A rank of 1 is best, 50 is worst. Rankings do not average to the total. States without a tax rank equally as 1. DC’s score and rank do not affect other states. The report shows tax systems as of July 1, 2022 (the beginning of Fiscal Year 2023).
Arizona transitioned from a four-bracket individual income tax with a top rate of 4.5 percent to a two-bracket system with a top rate of 2.98 percent, a waypoint on the state’s transition to a 2.5 percent single-rate tax. Initially scheduled for 2024, robust revenue growth has led to the certification of the 2.5 percent rate for January 1, 2023, a significant development that will further improve Arizona’s ranking in next year’s Index. This year’s changes, however, were sufficient for Arizona to improve five places overall, from 24th to 19th.
Arkansas
Like many states, Arkansas adopted both corporate and individual income tax rate reductions. In Arkansas’s case, these rate reductions—to a top individual income tax rate of 4.9 percent, down from 5.9 percent, and a corporate rate reduced from 6.2 to 5.9 percent—went into effect for the 2022 tax year. The corporate income tax rate reduction also resulted in the consolidation of an existing bracket. These changes were the primary driver of the state’s improvement from 43rd to 40th overall.
Georgia
Under legislation adopted in 2022, Georgia will adopt a 5.49 percent flat-rate income tax in 2024 and ultimately phase that rate down to 4.99 percent. These changes, however, lie in the future, and for now, improvements in the tax policies of three other states—Mississippi, Nebraska, and South Carolina—saw Georgia slide three places by standing still.
Idaho
Idaho improved two places overall, from 17th to 15th, due to the implementation of individual and corporate income tax rate reductions which took the individual income tax’s top rate, and the corporate income tax’s flat rate, from 6.5 to 6.0 percent. A ballot measure that would have created a new top rate of 10.925 percent to raise additional revenue for public education was taken off the ballot, and a deal was struck instead to provide additional education funding while implanting a 5.8 percent flat individual income tax rate in 2023. This change, which will be reflected in next year’s Index, will result in a further improvement in Idaho’s ranking.
Louisiana
The Bayou state implemented a package of tax reforms resulting in an improvement of three places on the Index, from 42nd to 39th, while improving the state’s individual income tax component by nine places and the corporate and property tax components by two places each. Reforms approved by voters in November 2021 yielded the repeal of the deduction for federal taxes paid, replaced by lower statutory tax rates. The top rate of the individual income tax was cut from 6.0 to 4.25 percent, while the state’s five corporate income tax brackets were consolidated into three, with a reduction in the top rate from 8 to 7.5 percent. Additionally, the capital stock tax rate was reduced from 0.3 percent to 0.275 percent, with the goal of eventual repeal through tax triggers.
Nebraska
Legislative Bill 432, signed into law in 2021, reduced Nebraska’s top marginal corporate income tax rate from 7.81 percent to 7.5 percent on January 1, 2022, and will further reduce the rate to 7.25 percent in January 2023. Additional legislation (LB 873) enacted in 2022 will reduce the state’s top marginal individual income tax rate from 6.84 to 5.84 percent over five years, beginning in 2023. This year’s corporate tax reduction contributed to Nebraska improving one place overall, from 30th to 29th.
New Mexico
Alone among states, New Mexico used recent revenue growth to facilitate a state sales tax rate reduction, from 5.125 to 5.0 percent. New Mexico’s sales tax is a hybrid tax, which the state calls a gross receipts tax, with an overly broad base that includes more business-to-business transactions than most states’ sales taxes. Combined with a modest improvement in unemployment insurance taxes relative to changes in other states, this rate cut propelled New Mexico five places on the Index, from 27th to 22nd overall.
Oklahoma
In a tax package that may be just the beginning, Oklahoma trimmed its top marginal individual income tax rate from 5 to 4.75 percent, cut the corporate rate from 6 to 4 percent (tied for second lowest), and became the first state to make its full expensing policy permanent. Since Oklahoma already had full expensing, the latter policy does not impact the state’s score for now, but with federal bonus depreciation scheduled to phase down beginning in 2023, if other states do not make their own adjustments, their provisions will become less generous while Oklahoma’s pro-investment policies remain Oklahoma improved five places on the Index, from 28th to 23rd.
South Carolina
South Carolina income the top rate from 7.0 to 6.5 percent while consolidating several brackets. The state has long had the highest top rate in the southeast, and while it maintains that distinction under this recent rate reduction, the gap between South Carolina and its neighbors has narrowed. The state improved two places on the Index, from 33rd to 31st, with further improvements anticipated in future years as the tax rate continues to phase down.
Washington
Washington experienced the worst slide in Index ranking this year, falling 13 places from 15th to 28th, primarily due to giving up its status as a state without an income tax. The state adopted a capital gains income tax on high earners which contains a sizeable marriage penalty and is not adjusted for inflation. Washington, with its unenviably aggressive gross receipts tax and high-rate sales tax, has always been buoyed on the Index by forgoing an income tax. With the loss of this distinctive, the state plummeted in our rankings.
Table 2. State Business Tax Climate Index (2014–2023)
Note: A rank of 1 is best, 50 is worst. All scores are for fiscal years. DC’s score and rank do not affect other states.
Source: Tax Foundation.
Recent and Scheduled Changes Not Reflected in the 2023 Index
Georgia
On January 1, 2024, Georgia will transition from a graduated individual income tax with a top rate of 5.75 percent to a flat tax structure with a rate of 5.49 percent. Per HB 1437, the rate could decrease to 4.99 percent by January 1, 2029, if certain revenue conditions are met, paired with substantial increases in personal exemptions.
Indiana
The Hoosier State will cut its flat individual income tax rate from 3.23 to 3.15 percent in 2023. If subsequent triggers are met, the rate could be reduced to 2.9 percent by 2029.
Iowa
In Iowa, a comprehensive tax reform package will see the state’s high graduated rate income tax transformed into a flat tax of 3.9 percent, with the corporate income tax declining to 5.5 percent, among other reforms. These changes are not in effect in 2022, though 2023 will usher in a consolidation of the income tax to four brackets with a top marginal rate of 6.0 percent, heading toward a flat rate tax in 2026. These changes, which accelerate and build upon two previous rounds of tax reform, will dramatically improve Iowa’s ranking.
Kentucky
With the passage of HB 8, Kentucky will use revenue triggers to reduce its individual income tax by 0.5 percentage points in years in which the triggers are met. The use of these triggers could theoretically lead to the phaseout of the individual income tax in its entirety. However, even absent the elimination of the tax, rate reductions will bolster Kentucky’s score in future years.
Mississippi
Under HB 531, Mississippi will eliminate its current 4 percent individual income tax bracket on January 1, 2023. This will transition the state from a graduated income tax structure to a flat rate of 5 percent. The flat rate is scheduled to decrease to 4.7 percent in 2024, 4.4 percent in 2025, and finally 4 percent in 2026.
Montana
Montana adopted structural reforms to both its individual and corporate income taxes in 2021, with the individual income tax rate seeing a modest reduction on January 1, 2022, which was not enough to change the state’s rank on the Index—particularly given similar or larger cuts in many other states. In 2024, however, the seven brackets will be consolidated into two with a top rate of 6.5 percent, which is likely to yield a favorable ranking change. Although the lowest rate will rise to 4.7 percent in 2024, conforming to the federal standard deduction in 2025 will yield tax savings for lower-income taxpayers. This law also doubles the bracket widths for married filers, thereby removing the marriage penalty that currently exists in the state’s income tax code.
New Hampshire
Currently, New Hampshire is the only state that does not impose a tax on wage or salary income but does levy a tax on interest and dividend income. Beginning in tax year 2023, the state will phase out this interest and dividends tax by one percentage point per year until it is fully repealed by 2027. This year, the state reduced the Business Profits Tax (BPT) from 7.7 to 7.6 percent and the Business Enterprise Tax (BET, a value-added tax) from 0.6 to 0.55 percent, though these changes were insufficient to result in an improvement in the state’s rank. The BPT will decline further, to 7.5 percent, in 2024.
Pennsylvania
Under legislation paired with the state budget, Pennsylvania will reduce the corporate net income tax rate from 9.99 percent to 8.99 percent on January 1, 2023. Each year thereafter the rate will decrease 0.5 percentage points until it reaches 4.99 percent at the beginning of 2031, transforming the nation’s second-highest corporate income tax rate into something much more competitive.
Introduction
Taxation is inevitable, but the specifics of a state’s tax structure matter greatly. The measure of total taxes paid is relevant, but other elements of a state tax system can also enhance or harm the competitiveness of a state’s business environment. The State Business Tax Climate Index distills many complex considerations to an easy-to-understand ranking.
The modern market is characterized by mobile capital and labor, with all types of businesses, small and large, tending to locate where they have the greatest competitive advantage. The evidence shows that states with the best tax systems will be the most competitive at attracting new businesses and most effective at generating economic and employment growth. It is true that taxes are but one factor in business decision-making. Other concerns also matter–such as access to raw materials or infrastructure or a skilled labor pool–but a simple, sensible tax system can positively impact business operations with regard to these resources. Furthermore, unlike changes to a state’s health-care, transportation, or education systems, which can take decades to implement, changes to the tax code can quickly improve a state’s business climate.
It is important to remember that even in our global economy, states’ stiffest competition often comes from other states. The Department of Labor reports that most mass job relocations are from one U.S. state to another rather than to a foreign location.[1] Certainly, job creation is rapid overseas, as previously underdeveloped nations enter the world economy, though in the aftermath of federal tax reform, U.S. businesses no longer face the third-highest corporate tax rate in the world, but rather one in line with averages for industrialized nations.[2] State lawmakers are right to be concerned about how their states rank in the global competition for jobs and capital, but they need to be more concerned with companies moving from Detroit, Michigan, to Dayton, Ohio, than from Detroit to New Delhi, India. This means that state lawmakers must be aware of how their states’ business climates match up against their immediate neighbors and to other regional competitor states.
Anecdotes about the impact of state tax systems on business investment are plentiful. In Illinois early last decade, hundreds of millions of dollars of capital investments were delayed when then-Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) proposed a hefty gross receipts tax.[3] Only when the legislature resoundingly defeated the bill did the investment resume. In 2005, California-based Intel decided to build a multibillion-dollar chip-making facility in Arizona due to its favorable corporate income tax system.[4] In 2010, Northrup Grumman chose to move its headquarters to Virginia over Maryland, citing the better business tax climate.[5] In 2015, General Electric and Aetna threatened to decamp from Connecticut if the governor signed a budget that would increase corporate tax burdens, and General Electric actually did so.[6] Anecdotes such as these reinforce what we know from economic theory: taxes matter to businesses, and those places with the most competitive tax systems will reap the benefits of business-friendly tax climates.
Tax competition is an unpleasant reality for state revenue and budget officials, but it is an effective restraint on state and local taxes. When a state imposes higher taxes than a neighboring state, businesses will cross the border to some extent. Therefore, states with more competitive tax systems score well in the Index because they are best suited to generate economic growth.
State lawmakers are mindful of their states’ business tax climates, but they are sometimes tempted to lure business with lucrative tax incentives and subsidies instead of broad-based tax reform. This can be a dangerous proposition, as the example of Dell Computers and North Carolina illustrates. North Carolina agreed to $240 million worth of incentives to lure Dell to the state. Many of the incentives came in the form of tax credits from the state and local governments. Unfortunately, Dell announced in 2009 that it would be closing the plant after only four years of operations.[7] A 2007 USA TODAY article chronicled similar problems other states have had with companies that receive generous tax incentives.[8]
Lawmakers make these deals under the banner of job creation and economic development, but the truth is that if a state needs to offer such packages, it is most likely covering for an undesirable business tax climate. A far more effective approach is the systematic improvement of the state’s business tax climate for the long term to improve the state’s competitiveness. When assessing which changes to make, lawmakers need to remember two rules:
Taxes matter to business. Business taxes affect business decisions, job creation and retention, plant location, competitiveness, the transparency of the tax system, and the long-term health of a state’s economy. Most importantly, taxes diminish profits. If taxes take a larger portion of profits, that cost is passed along to either consumers (through higher prices), employees (through lower wages or fewer jobs), shareholders (through lower dividends or share value), or some combination of the above. Thus, a state with lower tax costs will be more attractive to business investment and more likely to experience economic growth.
States do not enact tax changes (increases or cuts) in a vacuum. Every tax law will in some way change a state’s competitive position relative to its immediate neighbors, its region, and even globally. Ultimately, it will affect the state’s national standing as a place to live and to do business. Entrepreneurial states can take advantage of the tax increases of their neighbors to lure businesses out of high-tax states.
To some extent, tax-induced economic distortions are a fact of life, but policymakers should strive to maximize the occasions when businesses and individuals are guided by business principles and minimize those cases where economic decisions are influenced, micromanaged, or even dictated by a tax system. The more riddled a tax system is with politically motivated preferences, the less likely it is that business decisions will be made in response to market forces. The Index rewards those states that minimize tax-induced economic distortions.
Ranking the competitiveness of 50 very different tax systems presents many challenges, especially when a state dispenses with a major tax entirely. Should Indiana’s tax system, which includes three relatively neutral taxes on sales, individual income, and corporate income, be considered more or less competitive than Alaska’s tax system, which includes a particularly burdensome corporate income tax but no statewide tax on individual income or sales?
The Index deals with such questions by comparing the states on more than 120 variables in the five major areas of taxation (corporate taxes, individual income taxes, sales taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, and property taxes) and then adding the results to yield a final, overall ranking. This approach rewards states on particularly strong aspects of their tax systems (or penalizes them on particularly weak aspects), while measuring the general competitiveness of their overall tax systems. The result is a score that can be compared to other states’ scores. Ultimately, both Alaska and Indiana score well.
Literature Review
Economists have not always agreed on how individuals and businesses react to taxes. As early as 1956, Charles Tiebout postulated that if citizens were faced with an array of communities that offered different types or levels of public goods and services at different costs or tax levels, then all citizens would choose the community that best satisfied their particular demands, revealing their preferences by “voting with their feet.” Tiebout’s article is the seminal work on the topic of how taxes affect the location decisions of taxpayers.
Tiebout suggested that citizens with high demands for public goods would concentrate in communities with high levels of public services and high taxes while those with low demands would choose communities with low levels of public services and low taxes. Competition among jurisdictions results in a variety of communities, each with residents who all value public services similarly.
However, businesses sort out the costs and benefits of taxes differently from individuals. For businesses, which can be more mobile and must earn profits to justify their existence, taxes reduce profitability. Theoretically, businesses could be expected to be more responsive than individuals to the lure of low-tax jurisdictions. Research suggests that corporations engage in “yardstick competition,” comparing the costs of government services across jurisdictions. Shleifer (1985) first proposed comparing regulated franchises in order to determine efficiency. Salmon (1987) extended Shleifer’s work to look at subnational governments. Besley and Case (1995) showed that “yardstick competition” affects voting behavior, and Bosch and Sole-Olle (2006) further confirmed the results found by Besley and Case. Tax changes that are out of sync with neighboring jurisdictions will impact voting behavior.
The economic literature over the past 50 years has slowly cohered around this hypothesis. Ladd (1998) summarizes the post-World War II empirical tax research literature in an excellent survey article, breaking it down into three distinct periods of differing ideas about taxation: (1) taxes do not change behavior; (2) taxes may or may not change business behavior depending on the circumstances; and (3) taxes definitely change behavior.
Period one, with the exception of Tiebout, included the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s and is summarized succinctly in three survey articles: Due (1961), Oakland (1978), and Wasylenko (1981). Due’s was a polemic against tax giveaways to businesses, and his analytical techniques consisted of basic correlations, interview studies, and the examination of taxes relative to other costs. He found no evidence to support the notion that taxes influence business location. Oakland was skeptical of the assertion that tax differentials at the local level had no influence at all. However, because econometric analysis was relatively unsophisticated at the time, he found no significant articles to support his intuition. Wasylenko’s survey of the literature found some of the first evidence indicating that taxes do influence business location decisions. However, the statistical significance was lower than that of other factors such as labor supply and agglomeration economies. Therefore, he dismissed taxes as a secondary factor at most.
Period two was a brief transition during the early- to mid-1980s. This was a time of great ferment in tax policy as Congress passed major tax bills, including the so-called Reagan tax cut in 1981 and a dramatic reform of the federal tax code in 1986. Articles revealing the economic significance of tax policy proliferated and became more sophisticated. For example, Wasylenko and McGuire (1985) extended the traditional business location literature to nonmanufacturing sectors and found, “Higher wages, utility prices, personal income tax rates, and an increase in the overall level of taxation discourage employment growth in several industries.” However, Newman and Sullivan (1988) still found a mixed bag in “their observation that significant tax effects [only] emerged when models were carefully specified.”
Ladd was writing in 1998, so her “period three” started in the late 1980s and continued up to 1998, when the quantity and quality of articles increased significantly. Articles that fit into period three begin to surface as early as 1985, as Helms (1985) and Bartik (1985) put forth forceful arguments based on empirical research that taxes guide business decisions. Helms concluded that a state’s ability to attract, retain, and encourage business activity is significantly affected by its pattern of taxation. Furthermore, tax increases significantly retard economic growth when the revenue is used to fund transfer payments. Bartik concluded that the conventional view that state and local taxes have little effect on business is false.
Papke and Papke (1986) found that tax differentials among locations may be an important business location factor, concluding that consistently high business taxes can represent a hindrance to the location of industry. Interestingly, they use the same type of after-tax model used by Tannenwald (1996), who reaches a different conclusion.
Bartik (1989) provides strong evidence that taxes have a negative impact on business start-ups. He finds specifically that property taxes, because they are paid regardless of profit, have the strongest negative effect on business. Bartik’s econometric model also predicts tax elasticities of -0.1 to -0.5 that imply a 10 percent cut in tax rates will increase business activity by 1 to 5 percent. Bartik’s findings, as well as those of Mark, McGuire, and Papke (2000), and ample anecdotal evidence of the importance of property taxes, buttress the argument for inclusion of a property index devoted to property-type taxes in the Index.
By the early 1990s, the literature had expanded sufficiently for Bartik (1991) to identify 57 studies on which to base his literature survey. Ladd succinctly summarizes Bartik’s findings:
The large number of studies permitted Bartik to take a different approach from the other authors. Instead of dwelling on the results and limitations of each individual study, he looked at them in the aggregate and in groups. Although he acknowledged potential criticisms of individual studies, he convincingly argued that some systematic flaw would have to cut across all studies for the consensus results to be invalid. In striking contrast to previous reviewers, he concluded that taxes have quite large and significant effects on business activity.
Ladd’s “period three” surely continues to this day. Agostini and Tulayasathien (2001) examined the effects of corporate income taxes on the location of foreign direct investment in U.S. states. They determined that for “foreign investors, the corporate tax rate is the most relevant tax in their investment decision.” Therefore, they found that foreign direct investment was quite sensitive to states’ corporate tax rates.
Mark, McGuire, and Papke (2000) found that taxes are a statistically significant factor in private-sector job growth. Specifically, they found that personal property taxes and sales taxes have economically large negative effects on the annual growth of private employment.
Harden and Hoyt (2003) point to Phillips and Gross (1995) as another study contending that taxes impact state economic growth, and they assert that the consensus among recent literature is that state and local taxes negatively affect employment levels. Harden and Hoyt conclude that the corporate income tax has the most significant negative impact on the rate of growth in employment.
Gupta and Hofmann (2003) regressed capital expenditures against a variety of factors, including weights of apportionment formulas, the number of tax incentives, and burden figures. Their model covered 14 years of data and determined that firms tend to locate property in states where they are subject to lower income tax burdens. Furthermore, Gupta and Hofmann suggest that throwback requirements are the most influential on the location of capital investment, followed by apportionment weights and tax rates, and that investment-related incentives have the least impact.
Other economists have found that taxes on specific products can produce behavioral results similar to those that were found in these general studies. For example, Fleenor (1998) looked at the effect of excise tax differentials between states on cross-border shopping and the smuggling of cigarettes. Moody and Warcholik (2004) examined the cross-border effects of beer excises. Their results, supported by the literature in both cases, showed significant cross-border shopping and smuggling between low-tax states and high-tax states.
Fleenor found that shopping areas sprouted in counties of low-tax states that shared a border with a high-tax state, and that approximately 13.3 percent of the cigarettes consumed in the United States during FY 1997 were procured via some type of cross-border activity. Similarly, Moody and Warcholik found that in 2000, 19.9 million cases of beer, on net, moved from low- to high-tax states. This amounted to some $40 million in sales and excise tax revenue lost in high-tax states.
Although the literature has largely congealed around a general consensus that taxes are a substantial factor in the decision-making process for businesses, disputes remain, and some scholars are unconvinced.
Based on a substantial review of the literature on business climates and taxes, Wasylenko (1997) concludes that taxes do not appear to have a substantial effect on economic activity among states. However, his conclusion is premised on there being few significant differences in state tax systems. He concedes that high-tax states will lose economic activity to average or low-tax states “as long as the elasticity is negative and significantly different from zero.” Indeed, he approvingly cites a State Policy Reports article that finds that the highest-tax states, such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New York, have acknowledged that high taxes may be responsible for the low rates of job creation in those states.[9]
Wasylenko’s rejoinder is that policymakers routinely overestimate the degree to which tax policy affects business location decisions and that as a result of this misperception, they respond readily to public pressure for jobs and economic growth by proposing lower taxes. According to Wasylenko, other legislative actions are likely to accomplish more positive economic results because in reality, taxes do not drive economic growth.
However, there is ample evidence that states compete for businesses using their tax systems. A recent example comes from Illinois, where in early 2011 lawmakers passed two major tax increases. The individual income tax rate increased from 3 percent to 5 percent, and the corporate income tax rate rose from 7.3 percent to 9.5 percent.[10] The result was that many businesses threatened to leave the state, including some very high-profile Illinois companies such as Sears and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. By the end of the year, lawmakers had cut deals with both firms, totaling $235 million over the next decade, to keep them from leaving the state.[11]
A new literature review, Kleven et al. (2019), summarizes recent evidence for tax-driven migration. Meanwhile, Giroud and Rauh (2019) use microdata on multistate firms to estimate the impact of state taxes on business activity, and find that C corporation employment and establishments have short-run corporate tax elasticities of -0.4 to -0.5, while pass-through entities show elasticities of -0.2 to -0.4, meaning that, for each percentage-point increase in the rate, employment decreases by 0.4 to 0.5 percent for C corporations subject to the corporate income tax, and by 0.2 to 0.4 percent within pass-through businesses subject to the individual income tax.
Measuring the Impact of Tax Differentials
Some recent contributions to the literature on state taxation criticize business and tax climate studies in general.[12] Authors of such studies contend that comparative reports like the State Business Tax Climate Index do not take into account those factors which directly impact a state’s business climate. However, a careful examination of these criticisms reveals that the authors believe taxes are unimportant to businesses and therefore dismiss the studies as merely being designed to advocate low taxes.
Peter Fisher’s Grading Places: What Do the Business Climate Rankings Really Tell Us? now published by Good Jobs First, criticizes four indices: The U.S. Business Policy Index published by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, Beacon Hill’s Competitiveness Report, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Rich States, Poor States, and this study. The first edition also critiqued the Cato Institute’s Fiscal Policy Report Card and the Economic Freedom Index by the Pacific Research Institute. In the report’s first edition, published before Fisher summarized his objections: “The underlying problem with the … indexes, of course, is twofold: none of them actually do a very good job of measuring what it is they claim to measure, and they do not, for the most part, set out to measure the right things to begin with” (Fisher 2005). In the second edition, he identified three overarching questions: (1) whether the indices included relevant variables, and only relevant variables; (2) whether these variables measured what they purport to measure; and (3) how the index combines these measures into a single index number (Fisher 2013). Fisher’s primary argument is that if the indexes did what they purported to do, then all five would rank the states similarly.
Fisher’s conclusion holds little weight because the five indices serve such dissimilar purposes, and each group has a different area of expertise. There is no reason to believe that the Tax Foundation’s Index, which depends entirely on state tax laws, would rank the states in the same or similar order as an index that includes crime rates, electricity costs, and health care (the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council’s Small Business Survival Index), or infant mortality rates and the percentage of adults in the workforce (Beacon Hill’s State Competitiveness Report), or charter schools, tort reform, and minimum wage laws (the Pacific Research Institute’s Economic Freedom Index).
The Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index is an indicator of which states’ tax systems are the most hospitable to business and economic growth. The Index does not purport to measure economic opportunity or freedom, or even the broad business climate, but rather the narrower business tax climate, and its variables reflect this focus. We do so not only because the Tax Foundation’s expertise is in taxes, but because every component of the Index is subject to immediate change by state lawmakers. It is by no means clear what the best course of action is for state lawmakers who want to thwart crime, for example, either in the short or long term, but they can change their tax codes now. Contrary to Fisher’s 1970s view that the effects of taxes are “small or non-existent,” our study reflects strong evidence that business decisions are significantly impacted by tax considerations.
Although Fisher does not feel tax climates are important to states’ economic growth, other authors contend the opposite. Bittlingmayer, Eathington, Hall, and Orazem (2005) find in their analysis of several business climate studies that a state’s tax climate does affect its economic growth rate and that several indices are able to predict growth. Specifically, they concluded, “The State Business Tax Climate Index explains growth consistently.” This finding was confirmed by Anderson (2006) in a study for the Michigan House of Representatives, and more recently by Kolko, Neumark, and Mejia (2013), who, in an analysis of the ability of 10 business climate indices to predict economic growth, concluded that the State Business Tax Climate Index yields “positive, sizable, and statistically significant estimates for every specification” they measured, and specifically cited the Index as one of two business climate indices (out of 10) with particularly strong and robust evidence of predictive power.
Bittlingmayer et al. also found that relative tax competitiveness matters, especially at the borders, and therefore, indices that place a high premium on tax policies do a better job of explaining growth. They also observed that studies focused on a single topic do better at explaining economic growth at borders. Lastly, the article concludes that the most important elements of the business climate are tax and regulatory burdens on business (Bittlingmayer et al. 2005). These findings support the argument that taxes impact business decisions and economic growth, and they support the validity of the Index.
Fisher and Bittlingmayer et al. hold opposing views about the impact of taxes on economic growth. Fisher finds support from Robert Tannenwald, formerly of the Boston Federal Reserve, who argues that taxes are not as important to businesses as public expenditures. Tannenwald compares 22 states by measuring the after-tax rate of return to cash flow of a new facility built by a representative firm in each state. This very different approach attempts to compute the marginal effective tax rate of a hypothetical firm and yields results that make taxes appear trivial.
The taxes paid by businesses should be a concern to everyone because they are ultimately borne by individuals through lower wages, increased prices, and decreased shareholder value. States do not institute tax policy in a vacuum. Every change to a state’s tax system makes its business tax climate more or less competitive compared to other states and makes the state more or less attractive to business. Ultimately, anecdotal and empirical evidence, along with the cohesion of recent literature around the conclusion that taxes matter a great deal to business, show that the Index is an important and useful tool for policymakers who want to make their states’ tax systems welcoming to business.
Methodology
The Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index is a hierarchical structure built from five components:
Individual Income Tax
Sales Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Property Tax
Unemployment Insurance Tax
Using the economic literature as our guide, we designed these five components to score each state’s business tax climate on a scale of 0 (worst) to 10 (best). Each component is devoted to a major area of state taxation and includes numerous variables. Overall, there are 125 variables measured in this report.
The five components are not weighted equally, as they are in some indices. Rather, each component is weighted based on the variability of the 50 states’ scores from the mean. The standard deviation of each component is calculated and a weight for each component is created from that measure. The result is a heavier weighting of those components with greater variability. The weighting of each of the five major components is:
30.6% — Individual Income Tax
23.5% — Sales Tax
21.1% — Corporate Tax
15.0% — Property Tax
9.8% — Unemployment Insurance Tax
This improves the explanatory power of the State Business Tax Climate Index as a whole because components with higher standard deviations are those areas of tax law where some states have significant competitive advantages. Businesses that are comparing states for new or expanded locations must give greater emphasis to tax climates when the differences are large. On the other hand, components in which the 50 state scores are clustered together, closely distributed around the mean, are those areas of tax law where businesses are more likely to de-emphasize tax factors in their location decisions. For example, Delaware is known to have a significant advantage in sales tax competition, because its tax rate of zero attracts businesses and shoppers from all over the Mid-Atlantic region. That advantage and its drawing power increase every time another state raises its sales tax.
In contrast with this variability in state sales tax rates, unemployment insurance tax systems are similar around the nation, so a small change in one state’s law could change its component ranking dramatically.
Within each component are two equally weighted subindices devoted to measuring the impact of the tax rates and the tax bases. Each subindex is composed of one or more variables. There are two types of variables: scalar variables and dummy variables. A scalar variable is one that can have any value between 0 and 10. If a subindex is composed only of scalar variables, then they are weighted equally. A dummy variable is one that has only a value of 0 or 1. For example, a state either indexes its brackets for inflation or does not. Mixing scalar and dummy variables within a subindex is problematic because the extreme valuation of a dummy can overly influence the results of the subindex. To counter this effect, the Index generally weights scalar variables at 80 percent and dummy variables at 20 percent.
Relative versus Absolute Indexing
The State Business Tax Climate Index is designed as a relative index rather than an absolute or ideal index. In other words, each variable is ranked relative to the variable’s range in other states. The relative scoring scale is from 0 to 10, with zero meaning not “worst possible” but rather worst among the 50 states.
Many states’ tax rates are so close to each other that an absolute index would not provide enough information about the differences among the states’ tax systems, especially for pragmatic business owners who want to know which states have the best tax system in each region.
Comparing States without a Tax. One problem associated with a relative scale is that it is mathematically impossible to compare states with a given tax to states that do not have the tax. As a zero rate is the lowest possible rate and the most neutral base, since it creates the most favorable tax climate for economic growth, those states with a zero rate on individual income, corporate income, or sales gain an immense competitive advantage. Therefore, states without a given tax generally receive a 10, and the Index measures all the other states against each other.
Three notable exceptions to this rule exist. The first is in Washington, Tennessee, and Texas, which do not have taxes on wage income but do apply their gross receipts taxes to S corporations. (Washington and Texas also apply these to limited liability corporations.) Because these entities are generally taxed through the individual code, do not score perfectly in the individual income tax component. The second exception is found in Nevada, where a payroll tax (for purposes other than unemployment insurance) is also included in the individual income tax component. The final exception is in zero sales tax states–Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Delaware–which do not have general sales taxes but still do not score a perfect 10 in that component section because of excise taxes on gasoline, beer, spirits, and cigarettes, which are included in that section. Alaska, moreover, forgoes a state sales tax, but does permit local option sales taxes.
Normalizing Final Scores. Another problem with using a relative scale within the components is that the average scores across the five components vary. This alters the value of not having a given tax across major indices. For example, the unadjusted average score of the corporate income tax component is
In order to solve this problem, scores on the five major components are “normalized,” which brings the average score for all of them to 5.00, excluding states that do not have the given tax. This is accomplished by multiplying each state’s score by a constant value.
Once the scores are normalized, it is possible to compare states across indices. For example, because of normalization, it is possible to say that Connecticut’s score of 5.10 on corporate income taxes is better than its score of 4.80 on the sales tax.
Time Frame Measured by the Index (Snapshot Date)
Starting with the 2006 edition, the Index has measured each state’s business tax climate as it stands at the beginning of the standard state fiscal year, July 1. Therefore, this edition is the 2023 Index and represents the tax climate of each state as of July 1, 2022, the first day of fiscal year 2023 for most states.
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia (D.C.) is only included as an exhibit and its scores and “phantom ranks” offered do not affect the scores or ranks of other states.
Past Rankings and Scores
This report includes 2014-2021 Index rankings that can be used for comparison with the 2022 rankings and scores. These can differ from previously published Index rankings and scores due to the enactment of retroactive statutes, backcasting of the above methodological changes, and corrections to variables brought to our attention since the last report was published. The scores and rankings in this report are definitive.
Corporate Tax
This component measures the impact of each state’s principal tax on business activities and accounts for 21.1 percent of each state’s total score. It is well established that the extent of business taxation can affect a business’s level of economic activity within a state. For example, Newman (1982) found that differentials in state corporate income taxes were a major factor influencing the movement of industry to Southern states. Two decades later, with global investment greatly expanded, Agostini and Tulayasathien (2001) determined that a state’s corporate tax rate is the most relevant tax in the investment decisions of foreign investors.
Most states levy standard corporate income taxes on profit (gross receipts minus expenses). Some states, however, problematically impose taxes on the gross receipts of businesses with few or no deductions for expenses. Between 2005 and 2010, for example, Ohio phased in the Commercial Activities Tax (CAT), which has a rate of 0.26 percent. Washington has the Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax, which is a multi-rate tax (depending on industry) on the gross receipts of Washington businesses. Delaware has a similar Manufacturers’ and Merchants’ License Tax, as does Tennessee with its Business Tax, Virginia with its locally-levied Business/Professional/Occupational License (BPOL) tax, and West Virginia with its local Business & Occupation (B&O) tax. Texas also added the Margin Tax, a complicated gross receipts tax, in 2007, Nevada adopted the gross receipts-based multi-rate Commerce Tax in 2015, and Oregon implemented a new modified gross receipts tax in 2020. However, in 2011, Michigan passed a significant corporate tax reform that eliminated the state’s modified gross receipts tax and replaced it with a 6 percent corporate income tax, effective January 1, 2012.[13] The previous tax had been in place since 2007, and Michigan’s repeal followed others in Kentucky (2006) and New Jersey (2006). Several states contemplated gross receipts taxes in 2017, but none were adopted.
Since gross receipts taxes and corporate income taxes are levied on different bases, we separately compare gross receipts taxes to each other, and corporate income taxes to each other, in the Index.
For states with corporate income taxes, the corporate tax rate subindex is calculated by assessing three key areas: the top tax rate, the level of taxable income at which the top rate kicks in, and the number of brackets. States that levy neither a corporate income tax nor a gross receipts tax achieve a perfectly neutral system in regard to business income and thus receive a perfect score.
States that do impose a corporate tax generally will score well if they have a low rate. States with a high rate or a complex and multiple-rate system score poorly.
To calculate the parallel subindex for the corporate tax base, three broad areas are assessed: tax credits, treatment of net operating losses, and an “other” category that includes variables such as conformity to the Internal Revenue Code, protections against double taxation, and the taxation of “throwback” income, among others. States that score well on the corporate tax base subindex generally will have few business tax credits, generous carryback and carryforward provisions, deductions for net operating losses, conformity to the Internal Revenue Code, and provisions that alleviate double taxation.
Table 3. Corporate Tax Component of the State Business Tax Climate Index (2014–2023)
Prior Year Ranks
2022
2023
2022-2023 Change
State
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Alabama
23
24
22
14
21
22
23
23
17
5.53
18
5.52
-1
-0.01
Alaska
25
26
26
25
26
25
25
25
27
5.10
28
5.09
-1
-0.01
Arizona
22
22
20
19
14
16
21
22
23
5.31
23
5.29
0
-0.02
Arkansas
36
36
38
38
38
39
33
33
29
4.90
29
4.96
0
0.06
California
29
31
33
32
31
37
27
27
46
4.06
46
4.05
0
-0.01
Colorado
19
13
15
18
18
6
7
9
6
6.03
7
6.00
-1
-0.03
Connecticut
27
29
31
31
30
33
26
26
26
5.10
27
5.09
-1
-0.01
Delaware
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
2.41
50
2.41
0
0.00
Florida
13
14
16
19
19
11
9
6
7
5.99
10
5.77
-3
-0.22
Georgia
9
10
10
11
10
8
6
7
8
5.92
8
5.90
0
-0.02
Hawaii
5
5
4
6
11
12
17
19
19
5.48
19
5.46
0
-0.02
Idaho
17
21
21
23
23
27
28
28
28
5.02
26
5.10
2
0.08
Illinois
43
44
32
24
35
36
35
35
38
4.48
38
4.47
0
-0.01
Indiana
28
27
23
22
22
19
11
12
11
5.75
11
5.74
0
-0.01
Iowa
48
48
48
48
48
46
48
46
33
4.86
34
4.85
-1
-0.01
Kansas
35
35
37
37
37
31
34
30
21
5.39
21
5.38
0
-0.01
Kentucky
24
25
25
26
24
15
13
15
15
5.62
15
5.60
0
-0.02
Louisiana
16
20
35
39
39
34
36
34
34
4.76
32
4.87
2
0.11
Maine
41
42
41
40
40
32
37
36
35
4.59
35
4.58
0
-0.01
Maryland
14
15
17
21
20
26
31
32
32
4.87
33
4.86
-1
-0.01
Massachusetts
32
34
36
35
34
38
38
37
36
4.56
36
4.55
0
-0.01
Michigan
8
8
8
9
8
13
18
20
20
5.44
20
5.42
0
-0.02
Minnesota
40
40
42
42
41
43
45
43
43
4.15
43
4.13
0
-0.02
Mississippi
10
11
12
12
12
14
10
13
13
5.66
13
5.64
0
-0.02
Missouri
4
4
3
5
5
4
3
3
3
6.79
3
6.77
0
-0.02
Montana
15
16
18
13
13
9
20
21
22
5.35
22
5.34
0
-0.01
Nebraska
34
28
27
27
27
28
30
31
31
4.88
30
4.92
1
0.04
Nevada
1
1
24
33
32
21
24
24
25
5.19
25
5.18
0
-0.01
New Hampshire
47
47
47
47
43
45
42
44
44
4.10
44
4.10
0
0.00
New Jersey
37
37
39
41
44
49
49
48
48
3.51
48
3.50
0
-0.01
New Mexico
33
33
30
29
25
23
22
11
12
5.74
12
5.72
0
-0.02
New York
21
19
11
8
7
18
14
16
24
5.21
24
5.19
0
-0.02
North Carolina
26
23
7
4
3
3
4
4
4
6.17
5
6.15
-1
-0.02
North Dakota
20
18
14
16
16
17
19
8
9
5.91
9
5.90
0
-0.01
Ohio
45
43
46
46
47
42
41
40
39
4.44
39
4.43
0
-0.01
Oklahoma
11
9
9
10
9
20
8
10
10
5.82
4
6.20
6
0.38
Oregon
30
32
34
34
33
29
32
49
49
2.80
49
2.79
0
-0.01
Pennsylvania
42
41
43
43
42
44
44
42
42
4.16
42
4.15
0
-0.01
Rhode Island
38
38
29
30
29
35
40
39
40
4.41
40
4.39
0
-0.02
South Carolina
12
12
13
15
15
5
5
5
5
6.07
6
6.05
-1
-0.02
South Dakota
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.00
1
10.00
0
0.00
Tennessee
44
45
44
44
45
48
47
45
45
4.08
45
4.07
0
-0.01
Texas
49
49
49
49
49
47
46
47
47
4.00
47
3.98
0
-0.02
Utah
6
6
5
3
4
7
12
14
14
5.63
14
5.63
0
0.00
Vermont
39
39
40
36
36
40
43
41
41
4.33
41
4.31
0
-0.02
Virginia
7
7
6
7
6
10
15
17
16
5.56
17
5.54
-1
-0.02
Washington
46
46
45
45
46
41
39
38
37
4.49
37
4.47
0
-0.02
West Virginia
18
17
19
17
17
24
16
18
18
5.48
16
5.60
2
0.12
Wisconsin
31
30
28
28
28
30
29
29
30
4.89
31
4.88
-1
-0.01
Wyoming
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.00
1
10.00
0
0.00
District of Columbia
37
37
37
26
26
24
27
27
28
5.05
29
5.04
-1
-0.01
Note: A rank of 1 is best, 50 is worst. All scores are for fiscal years. DC’s score and rank do not affect other states.
Source: Tax Foundation.
Corporate Tax Rate
The corporate tax rate subindex is designed to gauge how a state’s corporate income tax top marginal rate, bracket structure, and gross receipts rate affect its competitiveness compared to other states, as the extent of taxation can affect a business’s level of economic activity within a state (Newman 1982).
A state’s corporate tax is levied in addition to the federal corporate income tax of 21 percent, substantially reduced by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 from a graduated-rate tax with a top rate of 35 percent, the highest rate among industrialized nations. Two states levy neither a corporate income tax nor a gross receipts tax: South Dakota and Wyoming. These states automatically score a perfect 10 on this subindex. Therefore, this section ranks the remaining 48 states relative to each other.
Top Tax Rate. New Jersey’s 11.5 percent rate (including a temporary and retroactive surcharge from 2020 to 2023) qualifies for the worst ranking among states that levy one, followed by Pennsylvania’s 9.99 percent rate. Other states with comparatively high corporate income tax rates are Iowa and Minnesota (both at 9.8 percent), Alaska (9.4 percent), Maine (8.93 percent), and California (8.84 percent). By contrast, North Carolina’s rate of 2.5 percent is the lowest nationally, followed by Missouri’s and Oklahoma’s (both at 4 percent), North Dakota’s at 4.31 percent, and Florida’s at 4.458 percent. Other states with comparatively low top corporate tax rates are Colorado (4.55 percent), Arizona and Indiana (both at 4.9 percent), Utah (4.95 percent), and Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina, all at 5 percent.
Graduated Rate Structure. Two variables are used to assess the economic drag created by multiple-rate corporate income tax systems: the income level at which the highest tax rate starts to apply and the number of tax brackets. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have single-rate systems, and they score best. Single-rate systems are consistent with the sound tax principles of simplicity and neutrality. In contrast to the individual income tax, there is no meaningful “ability to pay” concept in corporate taxation. Jeffery Kwall, the Kathleen and Bernard Beazley Professor of Law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, notes that
graduated corporate rates are inequitable—that is, the size of a corporation bears no necessary relation to the income levels of the owners. Indeed, low-income corporations may be owned by individuals with high incomes, and high-income corporations may be owned by individuals with low incomes.[14]
A single-rate system minimizes the incentive for firms to engage in expensive, counterproductive tax planning to mitigate the damage of higher marginal tax rates that some states levy as taxable income rises.
The Top Bracket. This variable measures how soon a state’s tax system applies its highest corporate income tax rate. The highest score is awarded to a single-rate system that has one bracket that applies to the first dollar of taxable income. Next best is a two-bracket system where the top rate kicks in at a low level of income, since the lower the top rate kicks in, the more the system is like a flat tax. States with multiple brackets spread over a broad income spectrum are given the worst score.
Number of Brackets. An income tax system creates changes in behavior when the taxpayer’s income reaches the end of one tax rate bracket and moves into a higher bracket. At such a break point, incentives change, and as a result, numerous rate changes are more economically harmful than a single-rate structure. This variable is intended to measure the disincentive effect the corporate income tax has on rising incomes. States that score the best on this variable are the 29 states–and the District of Columbia–that have a single-rate system. Alaska’s 10-bracket system earns the worst score in this category. Other states with multi-bracket systems include Arkansas (five brackets) and Maine and New Jersey (four brackets).
Corporate Tax Base
This subindex measures the economic impact of each state’s definition of what should be subject to corporate taxation.
The three criteria used to measure the competitiveness of each state’s corporate tax base are given equal weight: the availability of certain credits, deductions, and exemptions; the ability of taxpayers to deduct net operating losses; and a host of smaller tax base issues that combine to make up the other third of the corporate tax base subindex.
Under a gross receipts tax, some of these tax base criteria (net operating losses and some corporate income tax base variables) are replaced by the availability of deductions from gross receipts for employee compensation costs and cost of goods sold. States are rewarded for granting these deductions because they diminish the greatest disadvantage of using gross receipts as the base for corporate taxation: the uneven effective tax rates that various industries pay, depending on how many levels of production are hit by the tax.
Net Operating Losses. The corporate income tax is designed to tax only the profits of a corporation. However, a yearly profit snapshot may not fully capture a corporation’s true profitability. For example, a corporation in a highly cyclical industry may look very profitable during boom years but lose substantial amounts during bust years. When examined over the entire business cycle, the corporation may actually have an average profit margin.
The deduction for net operating losses (NOL) helps ensure that, over time, the corporate income tax is a tax on average profitability. Without the NOL deduction, corporations in cyclical industries pay much higher taxes than those in stable industries, even assuming identical average profits over time. Simply put, the NOL deduction helps level the playing field among cyclical and noncyclical industries. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal government allows losses to be carried forward indefinitely, though they may only reduce taxable income by 80 percent in any given year. Because gross receipts taxes inherently preclude the possibility of carrying net operating losses backward or forward, the Index treats states with statewide gross receipts taxes as having the equivalent of no NOL carryback or carryforward provisions.
California has temporarily suspended its net operating loss provisions as a revenue-raising measure during the pandemic despite the state posting record surpluses. It is the only state without an active NOL provision and is assigned the worst score across all NOL variables.
Number of Years Allowed for Carryback and Carryforward. This variable measures the number of years allowed on a carryback or carryforward of an NOL deduction. The longer the overall time span, the higher the probability that the corporate income tax is being levied on the corporation’s average profitability. Generally, states entered FY 2022 with better treatment of the carryforward (up to a maximum of 20 years) than the carryback (up to a maximum of three years). States score well on the Index if they conform to the new federal provisions or provide their own robust system of carryforwards and carrybacks.
Caps on the Amount of Carryback and Carryforward. When companies have a larger NOL than they can deduct in one year, most states permit them to carry deductions of any amount back to previous years’ returns or forward to future returns. States that limit those amounts are ranked lower in the Index. Two states, Idaho and Montana, limit the number of carrybacks, though they do better than many of their peers in offering any carryback provisions at all. Of states that allow a carryforward of losses, only Illinois, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania limit carryforwards. Illinois’ cap is a recent addition, intended to only apply to tax years 2021 through 2024. As a result, these states score poorly on this variable.
Gross Receipts Tax Deductions. Proponents of gross receipts taxation invariably praise the steadier flow of tax receipts into government coffers in comparison with the fluctuating revenue generated by corporate income taxes, but this stability comes at a great cost. The attractively low statutory rates associated with gross receipts taxes are an illusion. Since gross receipts taxes are levied many times in the production process, the effective tax rate on a product is much higher than the statutory rate would suggest. Effective tax rates under a gross receipts tax vary dramatically by industry or individual business, a stark departure from the principle of tax neutrality. Firms with few steps in their production chain are relatively lightly taxed under a gross receipts tax, and vertically-integrated, high-margin firms prosper, while firms with longer production chains are exposed to a substantially higher tax burden. The pressure of this economic imbalance often leads lawmakers to enact separate rates for each industry, an inevitably unfair and inefficient process.
Two reforms that states can make to mitigate this damage are to permit deductions from gross receipts for employee compensation costs and cost of goods sold, effectively moving toward a regular corporate income tax.
Delaware, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington score the worst, because their gross receipts taxes do not offer full deductions for either the cost of goods sold or employee compensation. Texas offers a deduction for either the cost of goods sold or employee compensation but not both. The Virginia BPOL tax, the West Virginia B&O, and the Pennsylvania business privilege tax are not included in this survey, because they are assessed at the local level and not levied uniformly across the state.
Federal Income Used as State Tax Base. States that use federal definitions of income reduce the tax compliance burden on their taxpayers. Two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) do not conform to federal definitions of corporate income and they score poorly.
Allowance of Federal ACRS and MACRS Depreciation. The vast array of federal depreciation schedules is, by itself, a tax complexity nightmare for businesses. The specter of having 50 different schedules would be a disaster from a tax complexity standpoint. This variable measures the degree to which states have adopted the federal Accelerated Cost Recovery System (ACRS) and Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) depreciation schedules. One state (California) adds complexity by failing to fully conform to the federal system.
Deductibility of Depletion. The deduction for depletion works similarly to depreciation, but it applies to natural resources. As with depreciation, tax complexity would be staggering if all 50 states imposed their own depletion schedules. This variable measures the degree to which states have adopted the federal depletion schedules. Thirteen states are penalized because they do not fully conform to the federal system: Alaska, California, Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Tennessee.
Alternative Minimum Tax. The federal Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was created to ensure that all taxpayers paid some minimum level of taxes every year. Unfortunately, it does so by creating a parallel tax system to the standard corporate income tax code. Evidence shows that the AMT does not increase efficiency or improve fairness in any meaningful way. It nets little money for the government, imposes compliance costs that in some years are actually larger than collections, and encourages firms to cut back or shift their investments (Chorvat and Knoll, 2002). As such, states that have mimicked the federal AMT put themselves at a competitive disadvantage through needless tax complexity.
Five states have an AMT on corporations and thus score poorly: California, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.
Deductibility of Taxes Paid. This variable measures the extent of double taxation on income used to pay foreign taxes, i.e., paying a tax on money the taxpayer has already mailed to foreign taxing authorities. States can avoid this double taxation by allowing the deduction of taxes paid to foreign jurisdictions. Twenty-three states allow deductions for foreign taxes paid and score well. The remaining states with corporate income taxation do not allow deductions for foreign taxes paid and thus score poorly.
Indexation of the Tax Code. For states that have multiple-bracket corporate income taxes, it is important to index the brackets for inflation. That prevents de facto tax increases on the nominal increase in income due to inflation. Put simply, this “inflation tax” results in higher tax burdens on taxpayers, usually without their knowledge or consent. All 15 states with graduated corporate income 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 reduce the double taxation of corporate income, states use apportionment formulas that seek to determine how much of a company’s income a state can properly tax. Generally, states require a company with nexus (that is, sufficient connection to the state to justify the state’s power to tax its income) to apportion its income to the state based on some ratio of the company’s in-state property, payroll, and sales compared to its total property, payroll, and sales.
Among the 50 states, there is little harmony in apportionment formulas. Many states weight the three factors equally while others weight the sales factor more heavily (a recent trend in state tax policy). Since many businesses make sales into states where they do not have nexus, businesses can end up with “nowhere income,” income that is not taxed by any state. To counter this phenomenon, many states have adopted what are called throwback rules because they identify nowhere income and throw it back into a state where it will be taxed, even though it was not earned in that state.
Throwback and throwout rules for sales of tangible property add yet another layer of tax complexity. Since two or more states can theoretically lay claim to “nowhere” income, rules have to be created and enforced to decide who gets to tax it. States with corporate income taxation are almost evenly divided between those with and without throwback rules. , while 22 states and the District of Columbia do.
Section 168(k) Expensing. Because corporate income taxes are intended to fall on net income, they should include deductions for business expenses—including investment in machinery and equipment. Historically, however, businesses have been required to depreciate the value of these purchases over time. In recent years, the federal government offered “bonus depreciation” to accelerate the deduction for these investments, and under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, investments in machinery and equipment are fully deductible in the first year, a policy known as “full expensing.” Nineteen states follow the federal government in offering full expensing, while two offer “bonus depreciation” short of full expensing.
Net Interest Limitation. Federal law now restricts the deduction of business interest, limiting the deduction to 30 percent of modified income, with the ability to carry the remainder forward to future tax years. This change was intended to eliminate the bias in favor of debt financing (over equity financing) in the federal code, but particularly when states adopt this limitation without incorporating its counterbalancing provision, full expensing, the result is higher investment costs.
Inclusion of GILTI. Historically, states have largely avoided taxing international income. Following federal tax reform, however, some states have latched onto the federal provision for the taxation of Global Low-Taxed Intangible Income (GILTI), intended as a guardrail for the new federal territorial system of taxation, as a means to broaden their tax bases to include foreign business activity. States that tax GILTI are penalized in the Index, while states receive partial credit for moderate taxation of GILTI (for instance, by adopting the Section 250 deduction) and are rewarded for decoupling or almost fully decoupling from GILTI (by, for instance, treating it as largely-deductible foreign dividend income in addition to providing the Section 250 deduction).
Tax Credits
Many states provide tax credits that lower the effective tax rates for certain industries and investments, often for large firms from out of state that are considering a move. Policymakers create these deals under the banner of job creation and economic development, but the truth is that if a state needs to offer such packages, it is most likely covering for a bad business tax climate. Economic development and job creation tax credits complicate the tax system, narrow the tax base, drive up tax rates for companies that do not qualify, distort the free market, and often fail to achieve economic growth.[15]
A more effective approach is to systematically improve the business tax climate for the long term. Thus, this component rewards those states that do not offer the following tax credits, with states that offer them scoring poorly.
Investment Tax Credits. Investment tax credits typically offer an offset against tax liability if the company invests in new property, plants, equipment, or machinery in the state offering the credit. Sometimes, the new investment will have to be “qualified” and approved by the state’s economic development office. Investment tax credits distort the market by rewarding investment in new property as opposed to the renovation of old property.
Job Tax Credits. Job tax credits typically offer an offset against tax liability if the company creates a specified number of jobs over a specified period of time. Sometimes, the new jobs will have to be “qualified” and approved by the state’s economic development office, allegedly to prevent firms from claiming that jobs shifted were jobs added. Even if administered efficiently, job tax credits can misfire in a number of ways. They induce businesses whose economic position would be best served by spending more on new equipment or marketing to hire new employees instead. They also favor businesses that are expanding anyway, punishing firms that are already struggling. Thus, states that offer such credits score poorly on the Index.
Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credits. Research and development tax credits reduce the amount of tax due by a company that invests in “qualified” research and development activities. The theoretical argument for R&D tax credits is that they encourage the kind of basic research that is not economically justifiable in the short run but that is better for society in the long run. In practice, their negative side effects–greatly complicating the tax system and establishing a government agency as the arbiter of what types of research meet a criterion so difficult to assess–far outweigh the potential benefits. Thus, states that offer such credits score poorly on the Index.
Individual Income Tax
The individual income tax component, which accounts for 30.6 percent of each state’s total Index score, is important to business because a significant number of businesses, including sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations, report their income through the individual income tax code.
Taxes can have a significant impact on an individual’s decision to become a self-employed entrepreneur. Gentry and Hubbard (2004) found, “While the level of the marginal tax rate has a negative effect on entrepreneurial entry, the progressivity of the tax also discourages entrepreneurship, and significantly so for some groups of households.” Using education as a measure of potential for innovation, Gentry and Hubbard found that a progressive tax system “discourages entry into self-employment for people of all educational backgrounds.” Moreover, citing Carroll, Holtz-Eakin, Rider, and Rosen (2000), Gentry and Hubbard contend, “Higher tax rates reduce investment, hiring, and small business income growth” (p. 7). Less neutral individual income tax systems, therefore, hurt entrepreneurship and a state’s business tax climate.
Another important reason individual income tax rates are critical for businesses is the cost of labor. Labor typically constitutes a major business expense, so anything that hurts the labor pool will also affect business decisions and the economy. Complex, poorly designed tax systems that extract an inordinate amount of tax revenue reduce both the quantity and quality of the labor pool. This is consistent with the findings of Wasylenko and McGuire (1985), who found that individual income taxes affect businesses indirectly by influencing the location decisions of individuals. A progressive, multi-rate income tax exacerbates this problem by increasing the marginal tax rate at higher levels of income, continually reducing the value of work vis-à-vis the value of leisure.
For example, suppose a worker has to choose between one hour of additional work worth $10 and one hour of leisure which to him is worth $9.50. A rational person would choose to work for another hour. But if a 10 percent income tax rate reduces the after-tax value of labor to $9, then a rational person would stop working and take the hour to pursue leisure. Additionally, workers earning higher wages–$30 per hour, for example–who face progressively higher marginal tax rates–20 percent, for instance–are more likely to be discouraged from working additional hours. In this scenario, the worker’s after-tax wage is $24 per hour; therefore, those workers who value leisure more than $24 per hour will choose not to work. Since the after-tax wage is $6 lower than the pretax wage in this example, compared to only $1 lower in the previous example, more workers will choose leisure. In the aggregate, the income tax reduces the available labor supply.[16]
The individual income tax rate subindex measures the impact of tax rates on the marginal dollar of individual income using three criteria: the top tax rate, the graduated rate structure, and the standard deductions and exemptions which are treated as a zero percent tax bracket. The rates and brackets used are for a single taxpayer, not a couple filing a joint return.
The individual income tax base subindex takes into account measures enacted to prevent double taxation, whether the code is indexed for inflation, and how the tax code treats married couples compared to singles. States that score well protect married couples from being taxed more severely than if they had filed as two single individuals. They also protect taxpayers from double taxation by recognizing LLCs and S corporations under the individual tax code and indexing their brackets, exemptions, and deductions for inflation.
States that do not impose an individual income tax generally receive a perfect score, and states that do impose an individual income tax will generally score well if they have a flat, low tax rate with few deductions and exemptions. States that score poorly have complex, multiple-rate systems.
The seven states without an individual income tax or non-UI payroll tax are, not surprisingly, the highest scoring states on this component: Alaska, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. Nevada, which taxes wage income (but not unearned income) at a low rate under a non-UI payroll tax, also does extremely well in this component of the Index. New Hampshire also scores well, because while the state levies a tax on individual income in the form of interest and dividends, it does not tax wages and salaries.[17] Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah score highly because they have a single, low tax rate.
Scoring near the bottom of this component are states that have high tax rates and very progressive bracket structures. They generally fail to index their brackets, exemptions, and deductions for inflation, do not allow for deductions of foreign or other state taxes, penalize married couples filing jointly, and do not recognize LLCs and S corporations.
Table 4. Individual Income Tax Component of the State Business Tax Climate Index (2014–2023)
Prior Year Ranks
2022
2023
2022-2023 Change
State
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Alabama
23
25
25
25
25
31
31
29
28
4.90
30
4.89
-2
-0.01
Alaska
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.00
1
10.00
0
0.00
Arizona
22
24
18
19
19
19
17
18
18
5.35
16
5.84
2
0.49
Arkansas
34
36
37
40
40
40
40
42
38
4.32
37
4.48
1
0.16
California
50
50
50
50
50
49
49
50
49
2.06
49
2.06
0
0.00
Colorado
15
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
14
5.90
14
5.89
0
-0.01
Connecticut
42
42
46
47
47
43
45
47
47
3.41
47
3.41
0
0.00
Delaware
43
43
42
44
44
44
44
44
44
3.81
44
3.81
0
0.00
Florida
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.00
1
10.00
0
0.00
Georgia
33
35
35
35
35
37
36
36
35
4.72
35
4.72
0
0.00
Hawaii
47
47
47
38
38
47
47
46
46
3.46
46
3.46
0
0.00
Idaho
20
21
23
24
24
23
25
24
20
5.20
19
5.32
1
0.12
Illinois
10
15
11
11
13
14
14
12
13
5.91
13
5.90
0
-0.01
Indiana
14
13
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
5.85
15
5.84
0
-0.01
Iowa
41
41
41
42
42
42
41
40
40
4.27
40
4.26
0
-0.01
Kansas
16
17
17
17
18
21
22
21
22
5.10
22
5.10
0
0.00
Kentucky
36
38
38
37
37
17
18
17
17
5.54
18
5.54
-1
0.00
Louisiana
32
33
32
32
31
35
35
35
34
4.73
25
5.02
9
0.29
Maine
26
28
34
31
32
25
20
22
23
5.09
23
5.08
0
-0.01
Maryland
44
44
43
46
46
45
43
45
45
3.66
45
3.66
0
0.00
Massachusetts
12
11
12
12
11
11
11
16
11
6.00
11
6.10
0
0.10
Michigan
13
12
13
13
12
12
12
11
12
5.98
12
5.97
0
-0.01
Minnesota
45
45
44
45
45
46
46
43
43
3.90
43
3.89
0
-0.01
Mississippi
21
22
24
23
23
28
28
27
26
4.96
26
4.99
0
0.03
Missouri
31
32
31
33
33
27
23
20
21
5.14
21
5.15
0
0.01
Montana
18
19
20
20
20
22
24
23
24
5.05
24
5.07
0
0.02
Nebraska
38
34
33
34
34
30
30
30
29
4.87
32
4.87
-3
0.00
Nevada
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
8.51
5
8.50
0
-0.01
New Hampshire
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
6.36
9
6.35
0
-0.01
New Jersey
48
48
48
48
48
50
50
49
48
2.09
48
2.09
0
0.00
New Mexico
19
20
22
22
22
26
27
26
36
4.54
36
4.54
0
0.00
New York
49
49
49
49
49
48
48
48
50
1.88
50
1.88
0
0.00
North Carolina
37
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
16
5.76
17
5.76
-1
0.00
North Dakota
27
23
21
21
21
18
19
25
25
4.98
27
4.97
-2
-0.01
Ohio
46
46
45
43
43
41
42
41
41
4.23
41
4.23
0
0.00
Oklahoma
29
30
29
28
28
32
32
31
30
4.85
31
4.88
-1
0.03
Oregon
35
37
36
36
36
38
39
38
42
4.00
42
4.00
0
0.00
Pennsylvania
17
18
19
18
17
20
21
19
19
5.22
20
5.18
-1
-0.04
Rhode Island
25
27
27
27
27
24
26
32
31
4.83
33
4.82
-2
-0.01
South Carolina
30
31
30
30
30
34
34
34
33
4.79
28
4.89
5
0.10
South Dakota
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.00
1
10.00
0
0.00
Tennessee
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8.29
6
8.28
0
-0.01
Texas
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
8.00
7
7.99
0
-0.01
Utah
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
6.10
10
6.11
0
0.01
Vermont
40
40
40
41
41
36
38
39
39
4.32
39
4.30
0
-0.02
Virginia
28
29
28
29
29
33
33
33
32
4.79
34
4.79
-2
0.00
Washington
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
8.00
8
6.87
-1
-1.13
West Virginia
24
26
26
26
26
29
29
28
27
4.90
29
4.89
-2
-0.01
Wisconsin
39
39
39
39
39
39
37
37
37
4.38
38
4.35
-1
-0.03
Wyoming
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10.00
1
10.00
0
0.00
District of Columbia
47
47
46
49
49
47
47
48
48
2.87
48
2.62
0
-0.25
Note: A rank of 1 is best, 50 is worst. All scores are for fiscal years. DC’s score and rank do not affect other states.
Source: Tax Foundation.
Individual Income Tax Rate
The rate subindex compares the states that tax individual income after setting aside the five states that do not and therefore receive perfect scores: Alaska, Florida, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Tennessee, Texas, and Washington do not have an individual income tax, but they do tax S corporation income—and Texas and Washington tax LLC income—through their gross receipts taxes and thus do not score perfectly in this component. Nevada has a low-rate payroll tax on wage income. New Hampshire, meanwhile, does not tax wage and salary income but does tax interest and dividend income.
Top Marginal Tax Rate. California has the highest top income tax rate of 13.3 percent. Other states with high top rates include Hawaii (11.0 percent), New York (10.9 percent), New Jersey (10.75 percent), Oregon (9.9 percent), Minnesota (9.85 percent), Vermont (8.75 percent), and Iowa (8.53 percent).
States with the lowest top statutory rates are North Dakota (2.9 percent), Arizona (2.98 percent), Pennsylvania (3.07 percent), Indiana (3.23 percent), Ohio (3.99 percent), Michigan and Louisiana (both at 4.25 percent), Colorado (4.55 percent), and Utah (4.85 percent). Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and New Hampshire all impose a top statutory rate of 5 percent.[18] Illinois and Kansas, which previously boasted rates below 5 percent, both adopted rate increases in recent years. (Although Illinois’ statutory rate is 4.95 percent, it also imposes an additional 1.5 percent tax on pass-through businesses, discussed elsewhere, bringing the rate for these entities to 6.45 percent.)
In addition to statewide income tax rates, some states allow local-level income taxes.[19] We represent these as the mean between the rate in the capital city and most populous city. In some cases, states authorizing local-level income taxes still keep the level of income taxation modest overall. For instance, Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania allow local income add-ons, but are still among the states with the lowest overall rates.
Top Tax Bracket Threshold. This variable assesses the degree to which pass-through businesses are subject to reduced after-tax return on investment as net income rises. States are rewarded for a top rate that kicks in at lower levels of income, because doing so approximates a less distortionary flat-rate system. For example, Alabama has a progressive income tax structure with three income tax rates. However, because Alabama’s top rate of 5 percent applies to all taxable income over $3,000, the state’s income tax rate structure is nearly flat.
States with flat-rate systems score the best on this variable because their top rate kicks in at the first dollar of income (after accounting for the standard deduction and personal exemption). They are Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah. States with high kick-in levels score the worst. These include New York ($25 million), New Jersey ($1 million of taxable income), California ($1 million), Connecticut ($500,000), and North Dakota ($445,000 of taxable income).
Number of Brackets. The Index converts exemptions and standard deductions to a zero bracket before tallying income tax brackets. From an economic perspective, standard deductions and exemptions are equivalent to an additional tax bracket with a zero tax rate.
For example, Kansas has a standard deduction of $3,500 and a personal exemption of $2,250, for a combined value of $5,750. Statutorily, Kansas has a top rate on all taxable income over $30,000 and two lower brackets, one beginning at the first dollar of income and another at $15,000, so it has an average bracket width of $10,000. Because of its deduction and exemption, however, Kansas’s top rate actually kicks in at $35,750 of income, and it has three tax brackets below that with an average width of $11,917. The size of allowed standard deductions and exemptions varies considerably.[20]
Pennsylvania scores the best in this variable by having only one tax bracket (that is, a flat tax with no standard deduction). States with only two brackets (that is, flat taxes with a standard deduction) are Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Utah. On the other end of the spectrum, Hawaii scores worst with 12 brackets, followed by California with 10 brackets, and Iowa and Missouri with 9 brackets.
Average Width of Brackets. Many states have several narrow tax brackets close together at the low end of the income scale, including a zero bracket created by standard deductions and exemptions. Most taxpayers never notice them, because they pass so quickly through those brackets and pay the top rate on most of their income. On the other hand, some states impose ever-increasing rates throughout the income spectrum, causing individuals and noncorporate businesses to alter their income-earning and tax-planning behavior. This subindex penalizes the latter group of states by measuring the average width of the brackets, rewarding those states where the average width is small, since in these states the top rate is levied on most income, acting more like a flat rate on all income.
Income Recapture. Connecticut and New York apply the rate of the top income tax bracket to previous taxable income after the taxpayer crosses the top bracket threshold, while Arkansas imposes different tax tables depending on the filer’s level of income. New York’s recapture provision is the most damaging and results in an approximately $22,000 penalty for reaching the top bracket. Income recapture provisions are poor policy, because they result in dramatically high marginal tax rates at the point of their kick-in, and they are nontransparent in that they raise tax burdens substantially without being reflected in the statutory rate.
Individual Income Tax Base
States have different definitions of taxable income, and some create greater impediments to economic activity than others. The base subindex gives a 40 percent weight to the double taxation of taxable income and a 60 percent weight to an accumulation of other base issues, including indexation and marriage penalties.
The states with no individual income tax of any kind achieve perfect neutrality. Tennessee and Texas, however, are docked slightly because they do not recognize LLCs or S corporations, and Nevada’s payroll tax keeps the state from achieving a perfect store. New Hampshire only taxes interest and dividend income, while Washington only taxes capital gains income. Of the other 43 states, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, and Utah have the best scores, avoiding many problems with the definition of taxable income that plague other states. Meanwhile, states where the tax base is found to cause an unnecessary drag on economic activity include New Jersey, Delaware, New York, California, Connecticut, and Ohio.
Marriage Penalty. A marriage penalty exists when a state’s standard deduction and tax brackets for married taxpayers filing jointly are not double those for single filers. As a result, two singles (if combined) can have a lower tax bill than a married couple filing jointly with the same income. This is discriminatory and has serious business ramifications. The top-earning 20 percent of taxpayers are dominated (85 percent) by married couples. This same 20 percent also have the highest concentration of business owners of all income groups (Hodge 2003A, Hodge 2003B). Because of these concentrations, marriage penalties have the potential to affect a significant share of pass-through businesses. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have marriage penalties built into their income tax brackets.
Some states attempt to get around the marriage penalty problem by allowing married couples to file as if they were singles or by offering an offsetting tax credit. While helpful in offsetting the dollar cost of the marriage penalty, these solutions come at the expense of added tax complexity. Still, states that allow married couples to file as singles do not receive a marriage penalty score reduction.
Double Taxation of Capital Income. Since most states with an individual income tax system mimic the federal income tax code, they also possess its greatest flaw: the double taxation of capital income. Double taxation is brought about by the interaction between the corporate income tax and the individual income tax. The ultimate source of most capital income–interest, dividends, and capital gains–is corporate profits. The corporate income tax reduces the level of profits that can eventually be used to generate interest or dividend payments or capital gains.[21] This capital income must then be declared by the receiving individual and taxed. The result is the double taxation of this capital income—first at the corporate level and again on the individual level.
All states that tax wage income score poorly by this criterion. New Hampshire, which taxes individuals on interest and dividends, scores somewhat better because it does not tax capital gains. Washington scores even better on this metric because it taxes certain capital gains income but does not have a corporate income tax, nor does it tax wage and salary income. Nevada’s payroll tax does not apply to capital income, and thus scores perfectly on this measure, along with states that forgo all income taxation.
Federal Income Used as State Tax Base. Despite the shortcomings of the federal government’s definition of income, states that use it reduce the tax compliance burden on taxpayers. Five states score poorly because they do not conform to federal definitions of individual income: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
At the federal level, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was created in 1969 to ensure that all taxpayers paid some minimum level of taxes every year. Unfortunately, it does so by creating a parallel tax system to the standard individual income tax code. AMTs are an inefficient way to prevent tax deductions and credits from totally eliminating tax liability. As such, states that have mimicked the federal AMT put themselves at a competitive disadvantage through needless tax complexity. Five states score poorly for imposing an AMT on individuals: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, and Minnesota.
Credit for Taxes Paid
This variable measures the extent of double taxation on income used to pay foreign and state taxes, i.e., paying the same taxes twice. States can avoid double taxation by allowing a credit for state taxes paid to other jurisdictions.
Recognition of Limited Liability Corporation and S Corporation Status
One important development in the federal tax system was the creation of the limited liability corporation (LLC) and the S corporation. LLCs and S corporations provide businesses some of the benefits of incorporation, such as limited liability, without the overhead of becoming a traditional C corporation. The profits of these entities are taxed under the individual income tax code, which avoids the double taxation problems that plague the corporate income tax system. Every state with a full individual income tax recognizes LLCs to at least some degree, and all but Louisiana recognize S corporations in some fashion, but those that require additional state election or make the entity file through the state’s gross receipts tax (as in Delaware, Ohio, Texas, and Washington) score poorly in this variable.
Indexation of the Tax Code
Indexing the tax code for inflation is critical in order to prevent de facto tax increases on the nominal increase in income due to inflation. This “inflation tax” results in higher tax burdens on taxpayers, usually without their knowledge or consent. Three areas of the individual income tax are commonly indexed for inflation: the standard deduction, personal exemptions, and tax brackets. Twenty-five states index all three or do not impose an individual income tax; 15 states and the District of Columbia index one or two of the three; and 10 states do not index at all.
Sales Taxes
Sales tax makes up 23.7 percent of each state’s Index score. The type of sales tax familiar to taxpayers is a tax levied on the purchase price of a good at the point of sale. Due to the inclusion of some business inputs in most states’ sales tax bases, the rate and structure of the sales tax is an important consideration for many businesses. The sales tax can also hurt the business tax climate because as the sales tax rate climbs, customers make fewer purchases or seek low-tax alternatives. As a result, business is lost to lower-tax locations, causing lost profits, lost jobs, and lost tax revenue.[22] The effect of differential sales tax rates among states or localities is apparent when a traveler crosses from a high-tax state to a neighboring low-tax state. Typically, a vast expanse of shopping malls springs up along the border in the low-tax jurisdiction.
On the positive side, sales taxes levied on goods and services at the point of sale to the end-user have at least two virtues. First, they are transparent: the tax is never confused with the price of goods by customers. Second, since they are levied at the point of sale, they are less likely to cause economic distortions than taxes levied at some intermediate stage of production (such as a gross receipts tax or sales taxes on business-to-business transactions).
The negative impact of sales taxes is well documented in the economic literature and through anecdotal evidence. For example, Bartik (1989) found that high sales taxes, especially sales taxes levied on equipment, had a negative effect on small business start-ups. Moreover, companies have been known to avoid locating factories or facilities in certain states because the factory’s machinery would be subject to the state’s sales tax.[23]
States that create the most tax pyramiding and economic distortion, and therefore score the worst, are states that levy a sales tax that generally allows no exclusions for business inputs.[24] Hawaii, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Washington are examples of states that tax many business inputs. The ideal base for sales taxation is all goods and services at the point of sale to the end-user.
Excise taxes are sales taxes levied on specific goods. Goods subject to excise taxation are typically (but not always) perceived to be luxuries or vices, the latter of which are less sensitive to drops in demand when the tax increases their price. Examples typically include tobacco, liquor, and gasoline. The sales tax component of the Index takes into account the excise tax rates each state levies.
The five states without a state sales tax–Alaska,[25] Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon–achieve the best sales tax component scores. Among states with a sales tax, those with low general rates and broad bases, and which avoid tax pyramiding, do best. Wyoming, Wisconsin, Maine, Nebraska, Idaho, Michigan, and Virginia all do well, with well-structured sales taxes and modest excise tax rates.
At the other end of the spectrum, Alabama, Washington, Louisiana, California, and Tennessee fare the worst, imposing high rates and taxing a range of business inputs, such as utilities, services, manufacturing, and leases—and maintaining relatively high excise taxes. Louisiana and Tennessee have the highest combined state and local rates of 9.55 percent. In general, these states levy high sales tax rates that apply to a wide range of business input items.
Table 5. Sales Tax Component of the State Business Tax Climate Index (2014–2023)
Prior Year Ranks
2022
2023
2022-2023 Change
State
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Alabama
50
50
50
49
49
50
50
50
50
2.56
50
2.54
0
-0.02
Alaska
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8.07
5
8.04
0
-0.03
Arizona
43
43
43
43
43
40
40
40
40
4.06
41
4.06
-1
0.00
Arkansas
44
45
46
44
44
43
45
45
45
3.73
45
3.74
0
0.01
California
46
46
45
45
46
47
47
47
47
3.37
47
3.36
0
-0.01
Colorado
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
36
38
4.26
40
4.22
-2
-0.04
Connecticut
34
34
32
32
29
29
26
25
23
4.80
23
4.80
0
0.00
Delaware
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
9.01
2
8.98
0
-0.03
Florida
23
23
23
29
30
22
23
23
21
4.94
21
4.93
0
-0.01
Georgia
27
27
34
31
32
30
30
29
29
4.61
31
4.58
-2
-0.03
Hawaii
31
31
27
26
26
32
29
28
28
4.63
27
4.63
1
0.00
Idaho
14
12
15
15
15
12
12
10
10
5.40
10
5.39
0
-0.01
Illinois
35
35
33
27
27
35
34
39
39
4.22
38
4.28
1
0.06
Indiana
21
22
18
9
9
13
20
20
19
5.01
19
5.01
0
0.00
Iowa
18
18
20
20
19
18
15
15
15
5.17
15
5.17
0
0.00
Kansas
24
25
29
28
28
27
38
37
26
4.72
25
4.70
1
-0.02
Kentucky
11
19
14
13
14
19
14
14
14
5.21
14
5.20
0
-0.01
Louisiana
48
47
48
50
50
48
48
48
48
3.04
48
3.03
0
-0.01
Maine
7
8
8
8
8
9
8
8
8
5.64
8
5.83
0
0.19
Maryland
12
16
17
18
18
17
19
18
27
4.64
30
4.58
-3
-0.06
Massachusetts
19
21
19
19
11
11
13
13
13
5.23
13
5.22
0
-0.01
Michigan
10
10
9
10
12
14
11
11
11
5.38
11
5.38
0
0.00
Minnesota
30
33
26
25
25
26
28
27
31
4.60
29
4.59
2
-0.01
Mississippi
38
39
39
39
39
36
33
32
33
4.49
33
4.47
0
-0.02
Missouri
22
24
25
23
24
25
24
24
25
4.78
26
4.70
-1
-0.08
Montana
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
8.94
3
8.92
0
-0.02
Nebraska
15
13
12
12
21
8
9
9
9
5.50
9
5.52
0
0.02
Nevada
41
41
41
41
42
45
44
44
44
3.81
44
3.81
0
0.00
New Hampshire
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
9.05
1
9.02
0
-0.03
New Jersey
40
40
40
40
41
42
42
42
43
3.96
42
3.97
1
0.01
New Mexico
42
42
42
42
40
41
41
41
41
4.05
35
4.39
6
0.34
New York
45
44
44
46
45
44
43
43
42
3.96
43
3.90
-1
-0.06
North Carolina
26
17
21
21
20
24
21
21
20
4.97
20
4.95
0
-0.02
North Dakota
33
32
35
35
35
31
27
30
30
4.60
28
4.59
2
-0.01
Ohio
29
29
30
33
31
28
32
34
35
4.39
36
4.38
-1
-0.01
Oklahoma
36
36
36
36
36
39
39
38
37
4.27
39
4.24
-2
-0.03
Oregon
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
8.83
4
8.82
0
-0.01
Pennsylvania
20
20
22
22
22
21
17
17
17
5.13
16
5.15
1
0.02
Rhode Island
28
28
24
24
23
23
25
26
24
4.79
24
4.79
0
0.00
South Carolina
32
30
31
30
33
34
31
31
32
4.51
32
4.49
0
-0.02
South Dakota
25
26
28
34
34
33
35
33
34
4.43
34
4.42
0
-0.01
Tennessee
47
48
47
47
47
46
46
46
46
3.53
46
3.53
0
0.00
Texas
39
38
38
38
38
38
36
35
36
4.37
37
4.36
-1
-0.01
Utah
17
14
13
17
17
15
22
22
22
4.93
22
4.93
0
0.00
Vermont
16
15
16
16
16
20
16
16
16
5.13
17
5.10
-1
-0.03
Virginia
9
9
10
11
10
10
10
12
12
5.25
12
5.24
0
-0.01
Washington
49
49
49
48
48
49
49
49
49
2.95
49
2.97
0
0.02
West Virginia
13
11
11
14
13
16
18
19
18
5.04
18
5.02
0
-0.02
Wisconsin
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6.02
7
6.01
0
-0.01
Wyoming
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6.03
6
6.03
0
0.00
District of Columbia
34
34
34
35
35
32
36
34
37
4.33
39
4.28
-2
-0.05
Note: A rank of 1 is best, 50 is worst. All scores are for fiscal years. DC’s score and rank do not affect other states.
Source: Tax Foundation.
Sales Tax Rate
The tax rate itself is important, and a state with a high sales tax rate reduces demand for in-state retail sales. Consumers will turn more frequently to cross-border or certain online purchases, leaving less business activity in the state. This subindex measures the highest possible sales tax rate applicable to in-state retail shopping and taxable business-to-business transactions. Four states–Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon–do not have state or local sales taxes and thus are given a rate of zero. Alaska is sometimes counted among states with no sales tax since it does not levy a statewide sales tax. However, Alaska localities are allowed to levy sales taxes and the weighted statewide average of these taxes is 1.76 percent.
The Index measures the state and local sales tax rate in each state. A combined rate is computed by adding the general state rate to the weighted average of the county and municipal rates.
State Sales Tax Rate. Of the 45 states (and the District of Columbia) with a statewide sales tax, Colorado’s 2.9 percent rate is the lowest. Five states have a 4 percent state-level sales tax: Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, New York, and Wyoming. At the other end is California with a 7.25 percent state sales tax, including a mandatory statewide local add-on tax. Tied for second-highest are Indiana, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Tennessee (all at 7 percent). Other states with high statewide rates include Minnesota (6.88 percent) and Nevada (6.85 percent).
Local Option Sales Tax Rates. Thirty-eight states authorize the use of local option sales taxes at the county and/or municipal level, and in some states, the local option sales tax significantly increases the tax rate faced by consumers.[26] Local jurisdictions in Colorado, for example, add an average of 4.87 percent in local sales taxes to the state’s 2.9 percent state-level rate, bringing the total average sales tax rate to 7.77 percent. This may be an understatement in some localities with much higher local add-ons, but by weighting each locality’s rate, the Index computes a statewide average of local rates that is comparable to the average in other states.
Alabama and Louisiana have the highest average local option sales taxes (5.24 and 5.10 percent, respectively), and in both states the average local option sales tax is higher than the state sales tax rate. Other states with high local option sales taxes include Colorado (4.87 percent), New York (4.52 percent), and Oklahoma (4.49 percent).
States with the highest combined state and average local sales tax rates are Louisiana and Tennessee (both at 9.55 percent), Arkansas (9.47 percent), Washington (9.29 percent), and Alabama (9.24 percent). At the low end are Alaska (1.76 percent), Hawaii (4.44 percent), Wyoming (5.36 percent), Wisconsin (5.43 percent), and Maine (5.5 percent).
Remote Seller Protections. With the Supreme Court’s elimination of the physical presence requirement for imposing sales tax collection obligations, all states with sales taxes are now requiring remote sellers to collect and remit sales tax. While most states have adopted safe harbors for small sellers and have a single point of administration for all state and local sales taxes, a few diverge from these practices, imposing substantial compliance costs on out-of-state retailers. Alabama, Alaska (which only has local sales taxes), Colorado, and Louisiana lack uniform administration, while Kansas does not offer a safe harbor for small sellers.
Sales Tax Base
The sales tax base subindex is computed according to five features of each state’s sales tax:
whether the base includes a variety of business-to-business transactions such as machinery, raw materials, office equipment, farm equipment, and business leases;
whether the base includes goods and services typically purchased by consumers, such as groceries, clothing, and gasoline;
whether the base includes services, such as legal, financial, accounting, medical, fitness, landscaping, and repair;
whether the state leans on sales tax holidays, which temporarily exempt select goods from the sales tax; and
the excise tax rate on products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, tobacco, spirits, and beer.
The top five states on this subindex—New Hampshire, Delaware, Montana, Oregon, and Alaska—are the five states without a general state sales tax. However, none receives a perfect score because each levies gasoline, diesel, tobacco, and beer excise taxes. States like Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Idaho, and Missouri achieve high scores on their tax base by avoiding the problems of tax pyramiding and adhering to low excise tax rates, though of these, Colorado receives poor marks for a lack of local base conformity.
States with the worst scores on the base subindex are Hawaii, Alabama, Washington, California, South Dakota, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Maryland. Their tax systems hamper economic growth by including too many business inputs, excluding too many consumer goods and services, and imposing excessive rates of excise taxation.
Sales Tax on Business-to-Business Transactions (Business Inputs). When a business must pay sales taxes on manufacturing equipment and raw materials, then that tax becomes part of the price of whatever the business makes with that equipment and those materials. The business must then collect sales tax on its own products, with the result that a tax is being charged on a price that already contains taxes. This tax pyramiding invariably results in some industries being taxed more heavily than others, which violates the principle of neutrality and causes economic distortions.
These variables are often inputs to other business operations. For example, a manufacturing firm will count the cost of transporting its final goods to retailers as a significant cost of doing business. Most firms, small and large alike, hire accountants, lawyers, and other professional service providers. If these services are taxed, then it is more expensive for every business to operate.
To understand how business-to-business sales taxes can distort the market, suppose a sales tax were levied on the sale of flour to a bakery. The bakery is not the end-user because the flour will be baked into bread and sold to consumers. Economic theory is not clear as to which party will ultimately bear the burden of the tax. The tax could be “passed forward” onto the customer or “passed backward” onto the bakery.[27] Where the tax burden falls depends on how sensitive the demand for bread is to price changes. If customers tend not to change their bread-buying habits when the price rises, then the tax can be fully passed forward onto consumers. However, if the consumer reacts to higher prices by buying less, then the tax will have to be absorbed by the bakery as an added cost of doing business.
The hypothetical sales tax on all flour sales would distort the market, because different businesses that use flour have customers with varying price sensitivity. Suppose the bakery is able to pass the entire tax on flour forward to the consumer but the pizzeria down the street cannot. The owners of the pizzeria would face a higher cost structure and profits would drop. Since profits are the market signal for opportunity, the tax would tilt the market away from pizza-making. Fewer entrepreneurs would enter the pizza business, and existing businesses would hire fewer people. In both cases, the sales tax charged to purchasers of bread and pizza would be partly a tax on a tax because the tax on flour would be built into the price. Economists call this tax pyramiding, and public finance scholars overwhelmingly oppose applying the sales tax to business inputs due to the resulting pyramiding and lack of transparency.
Besley and Rosen (1998) found that for many products, the after-tax price of the good increased by the same amount as the tax itself. That means a sales tax increase was passed along to consumers on a one-for-one basis. For other goods, however, they found that the price of the good rose by twice the amount of the tax, meaning that the tax increase translates into an even larger burden for consumers than is typically thought. Note that these inputs should only be exempt from sales tax if they are truly inputs into the production process. If they are consumed by an end-user, they are properly includable in the state’s sales tax base.
States that create the most tax pyramiding and economic distortion, and therefore score the worst, are states that levy a sales tax that generally allows no exclusions for business inputs. Hawaii, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Washington are examples of states that tax many business inputs.
Sales Tax Breadth. An economically neutral sales tax base includes all final retail sales of goods and services purchased by the end-users. In practice, however, states tend to include most goods, but relatively few services, in their sales tax bases, a growing issue in an increasingly service-oriented economy. Professor John Mikesell of Indiana University estimates that, nationwide, sales taxes extend to about 36 percent of all final consumer transactions.[28] Exempting any goods or services narrows the tax base, drives up the sales tax rate on those items still subject to tax, and introduces unnecessary distortions into the market. A well-structured sales tax, however, does not fall upon business inputs. Therefore, states that tax services that are business inputs score poorly on the Index, while states are rewarded for expanding their base to include more final retail sales of goods and services.
Sales Tax on Gasoline. There is no economic reason to exempt gasoline from the sales tax, as it is a final retail purchase by consumers. However, all but seven states do so. While all states levy an excise tax on gasoline, these funds are often dedicated for transportation purposes, making them a form of user tax distinct from the general sales tax. The five states that fully include gasoline in their sales tax base (Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan) get a better score. Several other states receive partial credit for applying an ad valorem tax to gasoline sales, but at a different rate than the general sales tax. New York currently applies local sales taxes only.
Sales Tax on Groceries. A well-structured sales tax includes all end-user goods in the tax base, to keep the base broad, rates low, and prevent distortions in the marketplace. Many states exempt groceries to reduce the incidence of the sales tax on low-income residents. Such an exemption, however, also benefits grocers and higher-income residents, and creates additional compliance costs due to the necessity of maintaining complex, ever-changing lists of exempt and nonexempt products. Public assistance programs such as the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program or the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provide more targeted assistance than excluding groceries from the sales tax base. Thirteen states include or partially include groceries in their sales tax base.
Excise Taxes
Excise taxes are single-product sales taxes. Many of them are intended to reduce consumption of the product bearing the tax. Others, like the gasoline tax, are often used to fund specific projects such as road construction.
Gasoline and diesel excise taxes (levied per gallon) are usually justified as a form of user tax paid by those who benefit from road construction and maintenance. Though gas taxes–along with tolls–are one of the best ways to raise revenue for transportation projects (roughly approximating a user fee for infrastructure use), gasoline represents a large input for most businesses, so states that levy higher rates have a less competitive business tax climate. State excise taxes on gasoline range from 70.95 cents in California (although this tax is suspended from June through December 2022) to 15.13 cents per gallon in Alaska. The Index relies upon calculated rates from the American Petroleum Institute, capturing states’ base excise taxes in addition to other gallonage-based fees and ad valorem taxes placed upon gasoline. General sales tax rates that apply to gasoline are included in this calculated rate, but states which include, or partially include, gasoline in the sales tax base are rewarded in the sales tax breadth measure.
Tobacco, spirits, and beer excise taxes can discourage in-state consumption and encourage consumers to seek lower prices in neighboring jurisdictions (Moody and Warcholik, 2004). This impacts a wide swath of retail outlets, such as convenience stores, that move large volumes of tobacco and beer products. The problem is exacerbated for those retailers located near the border of states with lower excise taxes as consumers move their shopping out of state—referred to as cross-border shopping.
There is also the growing problem of cross-border smuggling of products from states and areas that levy low excise taxes on tobacco into states that levy high excise taxes on tobacco. This both increases criminal activity and reduces taxable sales by legitimate retailers.[29]
States with the highest tobacco taxes per pack of 20 cigarettes are New York and Connecticut (at $4.35 each), Rhode Island ($4.25), Minnesota ($3.70), and Massachusetts ($3.51), while states with the lowest 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 highest beer taxes on a per gallon basis are Tennessee ($1.29), Alaska ($1.07), Alabama ($1.05), Georgia ($1.01), and Hawaii ($0.93), while states with the lowest beer taxes are Wyoming (2 cents), Missouri and Wisconsin (6 cents), and Colorado, Oregon, and Pennsylvania (each at 8 cents). States with the highest spirits taxes per gallon are Washington ($37.81), Oregon ($21.95), and Virginia ($19.89).
Property Tax
The property tax component, which includes taxes on real and personal property, net worth, and the transfer of assets, accounts for 14.4 percent of each state’s Index score.
When properly structured, property taxes exceed most other taxes in comporting with the benefit principle and can be fairly economically efficient. In the realm of public finance, they are often also prized for their comparative transparency among taxes, though that transparency may contribute to the public’s generally low view of property taxes. The Tax Foundation’s Survey of Tax Attitudes found that local property taxes are perceived as the second most unfair state or local tax.[30]
Property taxes matter to businesses, and the tax rate on commercial property is often higher than the tax on comparable residential property. Additionally, many localities and states levy taxes on the personal property or equipment owned by a business. They can be on assets ranging from cars to machinery and equipment to office furniture and fixtures, but are separate from real property taxes, which are taxes on land and buildings.
Businesses remitted over $839 billion in state and local taxes in fiscal year 2020, of which $330 billion (39.2 percent) was for property taxes. The property taxes included tax on real, personal, and utility property owned by businesses (Phillips et al. 2021). Since property taxes can be a large burden on business, they can have a significant effect on location decisions.
Mark, McGuire, and Papke (2000) find taxes that vary from one location to another within a region could be uniquely important determinants of intraregional location decisions. They find that higher rates of two business taxes–the sales tax and the personal property tax–are associated with lower employment growth. They estimate that a tax hike on personal property of one percentage point reduces annual employment growth by 2.44 percentage points.
Bartik (1985), finding that property taxes are a significant factor in business location decisions, estimates that a 10 percent increase in business property taxes decreases the number of new plants opening in a state by between 1 and 2 percent. Bartik (1989) backs up his earlier findings by concluding that higher property taxes negatively affect the establishment of small businesses. He elaborates that the particularly strong negative effect of property taxes occurs because they are paid regardless of profits, and many small businesses are not profitable in their first few years, so high property taxes would be more influential than profit-based taxes on the start-up decision.
States which keep statewide property taxes low better position themselves to attract business investment. Localities competing for business can put themselves at a greater competitive advantage by keeping personal property taxes low.
Taxes on capital stock, tangible and intangible property, inventory, real estate transfers, estates, inheritance, and gifts are also included in the property tax component of the Index. The states that score the best on property tax are New Mexico, Indiana, Idaho, Delaware, Nevada, and Ohio. These states generally have low rates of property tax, whether measured per capita or as a percentage of income. They also avoid distortionary taxes like estate, inheritance, gift, and other wealth taxes. States that score poorly on the property tax component are Connecticut, New York, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Illinois. These states generally have high property tax rates and levy several wealth-based taxes.
The property tax portion of the Index is composed of two equally weighted subindices devoted to measuring the economic impact of both rates and bases. The rate subindex consists of property tax collections (measured both per capita and as a percentage of personal income) and capital stock taxes. The base portion consists of dummy variables detailing whether each state levies wealth taxes such as inheritance, estate, gift, inventory, intangible property, and other similar taxes.[31]
Table 6. Property Tax Component of the State Business Tax Climate Index (2014–2023)
Prior Year Ranks
2022
2023
2022-2023 Change
State
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Alabama
13
13
21
17
16
19
19
21
20
5.31
18
5.33
2
0.02
Alaska
29
30
19
25
40
23
25
25
26
5.18
26
5.17
0
-0.01
Arizona
11
11
12
11
11
11
11
10
11
5.68
11
5.76
0
0.08
Arkansas
23
24
27
24
24
27
27
28
29
5.12
27
5.17
2
0.05
California
16
16
13
14
14
13
15
14
14
5.44
19
5.33
-5
-0.11
Colorado
39
39
34
33
32
33
33
33
34
4.70
36
4.51
-2
-0.19
Connecticut
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
2.32
50
2.27
0
-0.05
Delaware
5
5
5
7
7
4
4
4
4
6.31
4
6.28
0
-0.03
Florida
22
23
17
13
12
12
12
12
12
5.58
12
5.55
0
-0.03
Georgia
28
28
25
26
27
30
31
27
27
5.15
28
5.11
-1
-0.04
Hawaii
20
20
16
18
19
22
28
30
31
5.00
32
4.86
-1
-0.14
Idaho
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
6.47
3
6.45
0
-0.02
Illinois
45
45
47
46
47
45
44
45
45
3.87
44
3.96
1
0.09
Indiana
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
6.51
2
6.46
-1
-0.05
Iowa
37
37
38
39
37
38
38
38
39
4.35
40
4.30
-1
-0.05
Kansas
26
26
29
30
30
31
18
19
19
5.35
17
5.35
2
0.00
Kentucky
17
17
23
22
20
24
23
24
24
5.20
24
5.23
0
0.03
Louisiana
19
19
18
27
22
28
29
26
25
5.19
23
5.26
2
0.07
Maine
38
38
39
40
39
40
40
40
41
4.24
47
3.72
-6
-0.52
Maryland
41
41
41
41
42
41
41
43
43
4.12
42
4.15
1
0.03
Massachusetts
44
44
45
45
45
46
45
46
46
3.73
46
3.81
0
0.08
Michigan
27
27
28
28
26
26
26
22
23
5.22
25
5.22
-2
0.00
Minnesota
30
31
32
32
31
32
32
32
32
4.93
31
4.91
1
-0.02
Mississippi
34
34
37
37
36
37
37
37
38
4.43
37
4.45
1
0.02
Missouri
12
12
14
10
9
9
9
8
7
5.99
7
6.03
0
0.04
Montana
15
15
22
19
28
20
21
20
22
5.23
21
5.31
1
0.08
Nebraska
36
36
35
38
38
39
39
41
40
4.28
39
4.34
1
0.06
Nevada
7
7
7
6
6
5
6
5
5
6.17
5
6.19
0
0.02
New Hampshire
43
43
44
44
44
47
46
47
47
3.70
43
4.01
4
0.31
New Jersey
48
48
48
47
49
44
47
44
44
3.87
45
3.87
-1
0.00
New Mexico
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
6.50
1
6.51
1
0.01
New York
47
47
46
48
46
48
48
49
49
2.89
49
2.83
0
-0.06
North Carolina
10
10
26
29
29
14
13
13
13
5.52
13
5.53
0
0.01
North Dakota
4
4
4
4
4
6
7
11
10
5.70
9
5.91
1
0.21
Ohio
8
8
6
5
5
7
5
6
6
6.12
6
6.13
0
0.01
Oklahoma
21
22
24
21
21
29
30
31
30
5.06
30
5.02
0
-0.04
Oregon
18
18
11
16
17
16
20
16
17
5.37
20
5.31
-3
-0.06
Pennsylvania
32
32
30
15
15
17
16
15
15
5.43
16
5.46
-1
0.03
Rhode Island
46
46
43
43
43
42
42
42
42
4.19
41
4.28
1
0.09
South Carolina
35
35
36
36
35
36
35
35
36
4.60
35
4.60
1
0.00
South Dakota
9
9
10
12
13
15
14
23
18
5.36
14
5.53
4
0.17
Tennessee
40
40
40
35
34
35
34
34
33
4.73
33
4.76
0
0.03
Texas
33
33
33
34
33
34
36
36
37
4.47
38
4.35
-1
-0.12
Utah
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
5.98
8
5.94
0
-0.04
Vermont
49
49
49
49
48
49
49
48
48
3.24
48
3.23
0
-0.01
Virginia
24
25
20
23
23
25
24
29
28
5.14
29
5.11
-1
-0.03
Washington
14
14
15
20
18
18
17
18
21
5.27
22
5.30
-1
0.03
West Virginia
25
21
9
9
10
10
10
9
9
5.77
10
5.80
-1
0.03
Wisconsin
31
29
31
31
25
21
22
17
16
5.40
15
5.47
1
0.07
Wyoming
42
42
42
42
41
43
43
39
35
4.61
34
4.60
1
-0.01
District of Columbia
46
50
40
47
48
48
48
49
49
2.95
49
2.84
0
-0.11
Note: A rank of 1 is best, 50 is worst. All scores are for fiscal years. DC’s score and rank do not affect other states.
Source: Tax Foundation.
Property Tax Rate
The property tax rate subindex consists of property tax collections per capita (40 percent of the subindex score), property tax collections as a percent of personal income (40 percent of the subindex score), and capital stock taxes (20 percent of the subindex score). The heavy weighting of tax collections is due to their importance to businesses and individuals and their increasing size and visibility to all taxpayers. Both are included to gain a better understanding of how much each state collects in proportion to its population and its income. Tax collections as a percentage of personal income forms an effective rate that gives taxpayers a sense of how much of their income is devoted to property taxes, and the per capita figure lets them know how much in actual dollar terms they pay in property taxes compared to residents of other states.
While these measures are not ideal–having effective tax rates of personal and real property for both businesses and individuals would be preferable–they are the best measures available due to the significant data constraints posed by property tax collections. Since a high percentage of property taxes are levied on the local level, there are countless jurisdictions. The sheer number of different localities makes data collection almost impossible. The few studies that tackle the subject use representative towns or cities instead of the entire state. Thus, the best source for data on property taxes is the Census Bureau, because it can compile the data and reconcile definitional problems.
States that maintain low effective rates and low collections per capita are more likely to promote growth than states with high rates and collections.
Property Tax Collections Per Capita. Property tax collections per capita are calculated by dividing property taxes collected in each state (obtained from the Census Bureau) by population. The states with the highest property tax collections per capita are New Jersey ($3,513), New Hampshire ($3,246), Connecticut ($3,215), New York ($3,180), and Vermont ($2,938). The states that collect the least per capita are Alabama ($620), Arkansas ($788), Oklahoma ($826), Tennessee ($834), and Kentucky ($873).
Effective Property Tax Rate. Property tax collections as a percent of personal income are derived by dividing the Census Bureau’s figure for total property tax collections by personal income in each state. This provides an effective property tax rate. States with the highest effective rates and therefore the worst scores are Maine (5.21 percent), Vermont (4.82 percent), New Jersey (4.80 percent), New Hampshire (4.79 percent), New York (4.36 percent), and Connecticut (4.20 percent). States that score well with low effective tax rates are Alabama (1.37 percent), Tennessee (1.61 percent), Arkansas (1.69 percent), Oklahoma (1.75 percent), Louisiana (1.80 percent), and Delaware (1.86 percent).
Capital Stock Tax Rate. Capital stock taxes (sometimes called franchise taxes) are levied on the wealth of a corporation, usually defined as net worth. They are often levied in addition to corporate income taxes, adding a duplicate layer of taxation and compliance for many corporations. Corporations that find themselves in financial trouble must use their limited cash flow to pay their capital stock tax. In assessing capital stock taxes, the subindex accounts for three variables: the capital stock tax rate; the maximum payment; and whether any capital stock tax is imposed in addition to a corporate income tax, or whether the business is liable for the higher of the two. The capital stock tax subindex is 20 percent of the total rate subindex.
This variable measures the rate of taxation as levied by the 16 states with a capital stock tax. Legislators have come to realize the damaging effects of capital stock taxes, and a handful of states are reducing or repealing them. Kansas completed the phaseout of its tax in 2011. West Virginia and Rhode Island fully phased out their capital stock taxes as of January 1, 2015, and Pennsylvania phased out its capital stock tax in 2016. New York finished a phaseout of the state’s capital stock tax as of January 1, 2021, but the legislature decided to temporarily reinstate the tax due to coronavirus-related budget concerns. Similarly, Illinois had plans to begin a phaseout in 2020, completing the process in 2024. After two years, Illinois reversed its phaseout plan and opted instead to freeze the franchise tax exemption at $1,000. Connecticut plans to phase out its tax by January 1, 2024. States with the highest capital stock tax rates include Arkansas (0.30 percent), Louisiana (0.275 percent), Massachusetts (0.26 percent), Connecticut (0.21 percent), Tennessee (0.25 percent), and New York (0.1875 percent).
Maximum Capital Stock Tax Payment. Eight states mitigate the negative economic impact of the capital stock tax by placing a cap on the maximum capital stock tax payment. These states are Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, and Oklahoma, and among states with a capital stock tax, they receive the highest score on this variable.
Capital Stock Tax versus Corporate Income Tax. Some states mitigate the negative economic impact of the capital stock tax by allowing corporations to pay the higher of their capital stock tax or their corporate tax. These states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York) are given credit for this provision. States that do not have a capital stock tax get the best scores in this subindex while the states that force companies to pay both score the worst.
Property Tax Base
This subindex is composed of dummy variables listing the different types of property taxes each state levies. Seven taxes are included and each is equally weighted. Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Ohio, Alaska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania score the best because they each only levy one of the seven taxes. Connecticut, Maryland, and Kentucky receive the worst scores because they impose many of these taxes.
Business Tangible Property Tax. This variable rewards states which remove, or substantially remove, business tangible personal property from their tax base. Taxes on tangible personal property, meaning property that can be touched or moved (as opposed to real estate), are a source of tax complexity and nonneutrality, incentivizing firms to change their investment decisions and relocate to avoid the tax. Eight states (Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) exempt all tangible personal property from taxation, while another four states (Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota) exempt most such property from taxation except for select industries that are centrally assessed.
Intangible Property Tax. This dummy variable gives low scores to those states that impose taxes on intangible personal property. Intangible personal property includes stocks, bonds, and other intangibles such as trademarks. This tax can be highly detrimental to businesses that hold large amounts of their own or other companies’ stock and that have valuable trademarks. Eight states levy this tax in various degrees: Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.[32]
Inventory Tax. Levied on the value of a company’s inventory, the inventory tax is especially harmful to large retail stores and other businesses that store large amounts of merchandise. Inventory taxes are highly distortionary, because they force companies to make decisions about production that are not entirely based on economic principles but rather on how to pay the least amount of tax on goods produced. Inventory taxes also create strong incentives for companies to locate inventory in states where they can avoid these harmful taxes. Fourteen states levy some form of inventory tax.
Split Roll Taxation. In some states, different classes of property—like residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural property—face distinct tax burdens, either because they are taxed at different rates or are exposed to different assessment ratios. When such distinctions exist, the state is said to have a split (rather than unified) property tax roll. The Index assesses whether states utilize split roll taxation, which tends to discriminate against business property, and what ratio exists between commercial and residential property taxation.
Property Tax Limitation Regimes. Most states limit the degree to which localities can raise property taxes, but these property tax limitation regimes vary dramatically. Broadly speaking, there are three types of property tax limitations. Assessment limits restrict the rate at which a given property’s assessed value can increase each year. (It often, but not always, resets upon sale or change of use, and sometimes resets when substantial improvements are made.) Rate limits, as the name implies, either cap the allowable rate or restrict the amount by which the rate can be raised in a given year. Finally, levy limits impose a restriction on the growth of total collections (excluding those from new construction), implementing or necessitating rate reductions if revenues exceed the allowable growth rate. Most limitation regimes permit voter overrides. The Index penalizes states for imposing assessment limitations, which distort property taxation, leading to similar properties facing highly disparate effective rates of taxation and influencing decisions about property utilization. It also rewards states for adopting either a rate or levy limit, or both.
Asset Transfer Taxes (Estate, Inheritance, and Gift Taxes). Four taxes levied on the transfer of assets are part of the property tax base. These taxes, levied in addition to the federal estate tax, all increase the cost and complexity of transferring wealth and hurt a state’s business climate. These harmful effects can be particularly acute in the case of small, family-owned businesses if they do not have the liquid assets necessary to pay the estate’s tax liability.[33] The four taxes are real estate transfer taxes, estate taxes, inheritance taxes, and gift taxes. Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia levy taxes on the transfer of real estate, adding to the cost of purchasing real property and increasing the complexity of real estate transactions. This tax is harmful to businesses that transfer real property often.
The federal Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) lowered the federal estate tax rate through 2009 and eliminated it entirely in 2010. Prior to 2001, most states levied an estate tax that piggybacked on the federal system, because the federal tax code allowed individuals to take a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for state estate taxes paid. In other words, states essentially received free tax collections from the estate tax, and individuals did not object because their total tax liability was unchanged. EGTRRA eliminated this dollar-for-dollar credit system, replacing it with a tax deduction.
Consequently, over the past decade, some states enacted their own estate tax while others repealed their estate taxes. Some states have provisions reintroducing the estate tax if the federal dollar-for-dollar credit system is revived. This would have happened in 2011, as EGTRRA expired and the federal estate tax returned to pre-2001 levels. However, in late 2010, Congress reenacted the estate tax for 2011 and 2012 but with higher exemptions and a lower rate than pre-2001 law and maintained the deduction for state estate taxes. The tax reform law of 2017 raised the federal exemption still further. Thirty-eight states receive a high score for either (1) remaining coupled to the federal credit and allowing their state estate tax to expire or (2) not enacting their own estate tax, including two which repealed their estate tax this year. Twelve states and the District of Columbia have maintained an estate tax either by linking their tax to the pre-EGTRRA credit or by creating their own stand-alone system. These states score poorly.
Each year, some businesses, especially those that have not spent a sufficient sum on estate tax planning and on large insurance policies, find themselves unable to pay their estate taxes, either federal or state. Usually they are small- to medium-sized family-owned businesses where the death of the owner occasions a surprisingly large tax liability.
Inheritance taxes are similar to estate taxes, but they are levied on the heir of an estate instead of on the estate itself. Therefore, a person could inherit a family-owned company from his or her parents and be forced to downsize it, or sell part or all of it, in order to pay the heir’s inheritance tax. Six states have inheritance taxes and are punished in the Index, because the inheritance tax causes economic distortions. Maryland has both an estate tax and an inheritance tax, the only state to impose both after New Jersey completed the repeal of its estate tax.
Connecticut is the only state with a gift tax, and it scores poorly. Gift taxes are designed to stop individuals’ attempts to avoid the estate tax by giving their estates away before they die. Gift taxes have a negative impact on a state’s business tax climate because they also heavily impact individuals who have sole proprietorships, S corporations, and LLCs.
Unemployment Insurance Taxes
Unemployment insurance (UI) is a social insurance program jointly operated by the federal and state governments. Taxes are paid by employers into the UI program to finance benefits for workers recently unemployed. Compared to the other major taxes assessed in the State Business Tax Climate Index, UI taxes are much less well-known. Every state has one, and all 50 of them are complex, variable-rate systems that impose different rates on different industries and different bases depending upon such factors as the health of the state’s UI trust fund.[34]
One of the worst aspects of the UI tax system is that financially troubled businesses, for which layoffs may be a matter of survival, actually pay higher marginal rates as they are forced into higher tax rate schedules. In the academic literature, this has long been called the “shut-down effect” of UI taxes: failing businesses face climbing UI taxes, with the result that they fail sooner.
The unemployment insurance tax component of the Index consists of two equally weighted subindices, one that measures each state’s rate structure and one that focuses on the tax base. Unemployment insurance taxes comprise 9.8 percent of a state’s final Index score.
Overall, the states with the least damaging UI taxes are Oklahoma, Florida, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Michigan. Comparatively speaking, these states have rate structures with lower minimum and maximum rates and a wage base at the federal level. In addition, they have simpler experience formulas and charging methods, and they have not complicated their systems with benefit add-ons and surtaxes.
Conversely, the states with the worst UI taxes are Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Kentucky, Idaho, and Maryland. These states tend to have rate structures with high minimum and maximum rates and wage bases above the federal level. They also tend to feature more complicated experience formulas and charging methods, and have added benefits and surtaxes to their systems.
Table 7. Unemployment Insurance Tax Component of the State Business Tax Climate Index (2014–2023)
Prior Year Ranks
2022
2023
2022-2023 Change
State
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Alabama
23
25
26
14
11
12
18
15
18
5.16
19
5.15
-1
-0.01
Alaska
26
24
22
29
24
34
45
44
44
4.31
44
4.33
0
0.02
Arizona
2
4
5
11
15
13
6
8
14
5.50
14
5.47
0
-0.03
Arkansas
28
40
43
30
31
33
23
23
20
5.13
20
5.14
0
0.01
California
14
14
13
16
13
17
22
21
24
5.07
24
5.03
0
-0.04
Colorado
38
35
34
42
34
39
42
40
40
4.52
42
4.45
-2
-0.07
Connecticut
21
20
20
21
19
23
21
22
23
5.09
23
5.07
0
-0.02
Delaware
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
5.96
2
5.99
0
0.03
Florida
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
5.87
3
5.92
1
0.05
Georgia
39
39
39
35
37
37
38
38
37
4.69
35
4.70
2
0.01
Hawaii
32
28
24
24
26
26
28
25
31
4.88
30
4.90
1
0.02
Idaho
47
46
45
46
45
47
47
47
46
4.05
47
4.04
-1
-0.01
Illinois
41
37
37
38
41
41
39
42
42
4.50
43
4.41
-1
-0.09
Indiana
10
9
15
10
10
11
25
27
26
4.93
27
4.93
-1
0.00
Iowa
33
33
35
34
33
32
34
36
34
4.80
33
4.81
1
0.01
Kansas
7
8
11
12
12
15
14
14
16
5.41
15
5.42
1
0.01
Kentucky
46
45
46
48
47
46
48
48
48
3.87
48
4.01
0
0.14
Louisiana
5
5
4
9
4
4
4
4
6
5.73
6
5.73
0
0.00
Maine
37
42
41
44
43
24
31
32
35
4.79
38
4.60
-3
-0.19
Maryland
31
21
28
26
23
28
32
33
47
4.03
41
4.46
6
0.43
Massachusetts
48
48
47
49
49
50
50
50
50
3.41
50
3.32
0
-0.09
Michigan
44
47
48
47
48
48
17
18
7
5.66
8
5.66
-1
0.00
Minnesota
34
29
29
28
36
25
33
31
28
4.90
34
4.80
-6
-0.10
Mississippi
8
7
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5.79
5
5.80
0
0.01
Missouri
13
13
12
7
7
8
9
7
3
5.91
4
5.92
-1
0.01
Montana
20
18
18
19
20
21
20
20
19
5.15
18
5.16
1
0.01
Nebraska
12
12
10
8
9
9
11
11
11
5.56
11
5.56
0
0.00
Nevada
43
43
42
43
44
44
46
46
45
4.19
46
4.19
-1
0.00
New Hampshire
45
44
44
41
42
43
44
43
43
4.32
45
4.32
-2
0.00
New Jersey
30
32
32
25
35
31
30
30
33
4.86
32
4.85
1
-0.01
New Mexico
11
10
7
17
16
10
8
9
8
5.64
9
5.65
-1
0.01
New York
24
31
33
32
29
30
37
37
36
4.76
40
4.50
-4
-0.26
North Carolina
9
11
9
6
6
7
10
10
10
5.58
10
5.59
0
0.01
North Dakota
16
16
16
15
14
14
13
13
9
5.63
7
5.68
2
0.05
Ohio
6
6
6
4
8
6
7
6
13
5.54
13
5.52
0
-0.02
Oklahoma
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6.05
1
6.07
0
0.02
Oregon
29
30
27
33
30
36
35
35
39
4.62
36
4.69
3
0.07
Pennsylvania
50
50
50
45
50
45
41
39
22
5.09
22
5.08
0
-0.01
Rhode Island
49
49
49
50
46
49
49
49
49
3.76
49
3.77
0
0.01
South Carolina
35
36
31
37
28
27
26
24
29
4.90
29
4.91
0
0.01
South Dakota
40
41
40
40
38
38
43
41
38
4.67
37
4.68
1
0.01
Tennessee
25
26
25
23
22
22
24
26
21
5.09
21
5.10
0
0.01
Texas
15
15
14
13
25
18
12
12
12
5.55
12
5.55
0
0.00
Utah
19
22
19
22
21
16
15
17
17
5.39
16
5.40
1
0.01
Vermont
17
17
17
20
18
20
16
16
15
5.48
17
5.36
-2
-0.12
Virginia
42
38
38
39
40
42
40
45
41
4.52
39
4.52
2
0.00
Washington
18
19
21
18
17
19
19
19
25
5.02
25
5.02
0
0.00
West Virginia
22
23
23
27
27
29
29
28
27
4.93
26
4.95
1
0.02
Wisconsin
27
27
36
36
39
40
36
34
30
4.88
31
4.90
-1
0.02
Wyoming
36
34
30
31
32
35
27
29
32
4.86
28
4.92
4
0.06
District of Columbia
25
27
27
27
29
32
34
36
39
4.66
38
4.64
1
-0.02
Note: A rank of 1 is best, 50 is worst. All scores are for fiscal years. DC’s score and rank do not affect other states.
Source: Tax Foundation.
Unemployment Insurance Tax Rate
UI tax rates in each state are based on a schedule of rates ranging from a minimum rate to a maximum rate. The rate for any particular business is dependent upon the business’s experience rating: businesses with the best experience ratings will pay the lowest possible rate on the schedule while those with the worst ratings pay the highest. The rate is applied to a taxable wage base (a predetermined fraction of an employee’s wage) to determine UI tax liability.
Multiple rates and rate schedules can affect neutrality as states attempt to balance the dual UI objectives of spreading the cost of unemployment to all employers and ensuring high-turnover employers pay more.
Overall, the states with the best score on this rate subindex are Florida, Nebraska, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Georgia. Generally, these states have low minimum and maximum tax rates on each schedule and a wage base at or near the federal level. The states with the worst scores are New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Rhode Island, Alaska, and Oregon.
The subindex gives equal weight to two factors: the actual rate schedules in effect in the most recent year, and the statutory rate schedules that can potentially be implemented at any time depending on the state of the economy and the UI fund.
Tax Rates Imposed in the Most Recent Year
Minimum Tax Rate. States with lower minimum rates score better. The minimum rates in effect in the most recent year range from zero percent (in Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) to 2.10 percent (in New York).
Maximum Tax Rate. States with lower maximum rates score better. The maximum rates in effect in the most recent year range from 5.4 percent (in Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, and Oregon) to 20.93 percent (in Arizona).
Taxable Wage Base. California, Florida, and Tennessee receive the best scores in this variable with a taxable wage base of $7,000—in line with the federal taxable wage base. The state with the highest taxable bases and, thus, the worst score on this variable, is Washington ($62,500).
Potential Rates
Due to the effect of business and seasonal cycles on UI funds, states will sometimes change UI tax rate schedules. When UI trust funds are flush, states will trend toward their lower rate schedules (“most favorable schedules”); however, when UI trust funds are low, states will trend toward their higher rate schedules (“least favorable schedules”).
Most Favorable Schedule: Minimum Tax Rate. States receive the best score in this variable with a minimum tax rate of zero, which they implement when unemployment is low and the UI fund is flush. The minimum rate on the most favorable schedule ranges from zero in 22 states to 1.0 percent in Alaska.
Most Favorable Schedule: Maximum Tax Rate. The lowest maximum rate of 5.4 percent is imposed by 22 states and the District of Columbia. The state with the highest maximum tax rate and, thus, the worst maximum tax score, is Wisconsin (10.7 percent).
Least Favorable Schedule: Minimum Tax Rate. Thirteen states receive the best score on this variable with a minimum tax rate of zero percent. The state with the highest minimum tax rate and, thus, the worst minimum tax score, is Hawaii (2.4 percent).
Least Favorable Schedule: Maximum Tax Rate. Twelve states receive the best score in this variable with a comparatively low maximum tax rate of 5.4 percent. The state with the highest maximum tax rate and, thus, the worst maximum tax score, is Massachusetts (18.55 percent).
Unemployment Insurance Tax Base
The UI base subindex scores states on how they determine which businesses should pay the UI tax and how much, as well as other UI-related taxes for which businesses may also be liable.
The states that receive the best scores on this subindex are Oklahoma, Delaware, Vermont, New Mexico, and North Dakota. In general, these states have relatively simple experience formulas, they exclude more factors from the charging method, and they enforce fewer surtaxes.
States that receive the worst scores are Virginia, Nevada, Idaho, Maine, and Georgia. In general, they have more complicated experience formulas, exclude fewer factors from the charging method, and have complicated their systems with add-ons and surtaxes. The three factors considered in this subindex are experience rating formulas (40 percent of the subindex score), charging methods (40 percent of the subindex score), and a host of smaller factors aggregated into one variable (20 percent of the subindex score).
Experience Rating Formula. A business’s experience rating formula determines the rate the firm must pay—whether it will lean toward the minimum rate or maximum rate of the particular rate schedule in effect in the state at that time.
There are four basic experience formulas: contribution, benefit, payroll, and state experience. The first three experience formulas–contribution, benefit, and payroll–are based solely on the business’s experience and are therefore nonneutral by design.[35] However, the final variable–state experience–is a positive mitigating factor because it is based on statewide experience. In other words, the state experience is not tied to the experience of any one business; therefore, it is a more neutral factor. This subindex penalizes states that depend on the contribution, benefit, and payroll experience variables while rewarding states with the state experience variable.
Charging Methods and Benefits Excluded from Charging. A business’s experience rating will vary depending on which charging method the state government uses. When a former employee applies for unemployment benefits, the benefits paid to the employee must be charged to a previous employer. There are three basic charging methods:
Charging Most Recent or Principal Employer: Nine states charge all the benefits to one employer, usually the most recent.
Charging Base-Period Employers in Inverse Chronological Order: Six states charge all base-period employers in inverse chronological order. This means that all employers within a base period of time (usually the last year, sometimes longer) will have the benefits charged against them, with the most recent employer being charged the most.
Charging in Proportion to Base-Period Wages: Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia charge in proportion to base-period wages. This means that all employers within a base period of time (usually the last year, sometimes longer) will have the benefits charged against them in proportion to the wages they paid.
None of these charging methods could be called neutral, but at the margin, charging the most recent or principal employer is the least neutral because the business faced with the necessity of laying off employees knows it will bear the full benefit charge. The most neutral of the three is the “charging in proportion to base-period wages” since there is a higher probability of sharing the benefit charges with previous employers.
As a result, the states that charge in proportion to base-period wages receive the best score. The states that charge the most recent or principal employer receive the worst score. The states that charge base-period employers in inverse chronological order receive a median score.
Many states also recognize that certain benefit costs should not be charged to employers, especially if the separation is beyond the employer’s control. Therefore, this subindex also accounts for six types of exclusions from benefit charges:
Benefit award reversed
Reimbursements on combined wage claims
Voluntary leaving
Discharge for misconduct
Refusal of suitable work
Continues to work for employer on part-time basis
States are rewarded for each of these exclusions because they nudge a UI system toward neutrality. For instance, if benefit charges were levied for employees who voluntarily quit, then industries with high turnover rates, such as retail, would be hit disproportionately harder. States that receive the best scores in this category are Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Vermont. On the other hand, the states that receive the worst scores are Virginia, Nevada, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Most states charge the most recent or principal employer and forbid most benefit exclusions.
Solvency Tax. These taxes are levied on employers when a state’s unemployment fund falls below some defined level. Twenty-seven states have a solvency tax on the books, though they fall under different names, such as solvency adjustment tax (Alaska), supplemental assessment tax (Delaware), subsidiary tax (New York), and fund balance factor (Virginia).
Taxes for Socialized Costs or Negative Balance Employer. These are levied on employers when the state desires to recover benefit costs above and beyond the UI tax collections based on the normal experience rating process. Nine states have these taxes on the books, though they fall under different names, such as shared cost assessment tax (Alabama) and social cost factor tax (Washington).
Loan and Interest Repayment Surtaxes. Levied on employers when a loan is taken from the federal government or when bonds are sold to pay for benefit costs, these taxes are of two general types. The first is a tax to pay off the federal loan or bond issue. The second is a tax to pay the interest on the federal loan or bond issue. States are not allowed to pay interest costs directly from the state’s unemployment trust fund. Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have these taxes on the books, though they fall under several names, such as advance interest tax and bond assessment tax (Colorado) and temporary emergency assessment tax (Delaware).
Reserve Taxes. Reserve taxes are levied on employers, to be deposited in a reserve fund separate from the unemployment trust fund. Since the fund is separate, the interest earned on it is often used to create other funds for purposes such as job training and paying the costs of the reserve tax’s collection. Four 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 Purposes. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia levy surtaxes on employers, usually to fund administration but sometimes for job training or special improvements in technology. They are often deposited in a fund outside of the state’s unemployment fund. Some of the names they go by are the state training and employment program (Arkansas), reemployment service fund tax (New York), wage security tax (Oregon), and investment in South Dakota future fee (South Dakota).
Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI). A handful of states–California, Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York–have established a temporary disability insurance (TDI) program that augments the UI program by extending benefits to those unable to work because of sickness or injury. No separate tax funds these programs; the money comes right out of the states’ unemployment funds. Because the balance of the funds triggers various taxes, the TDIs are included as a negative factor in the calculation of this subindex.
Voluntary Contributions. Twenty-six states allow businesses to make voluntary contributions to the unemployment trust fund. In most cases, these contributions are rewarded with a lower rate schedule, often saving the business more money in taxes than was paid through the contribution. The Index rewards states that allow voluntary contributions because firms are able to pay when they can best afford to instead of when they are struggling. This provision helps to mitigate the nonneutralities of the UI tax.
Time Period to Qualify for Experience Rating. Newly formed businesses, naturally, do not qualify for an experience rating because they have no significant employment history on which to base the rating. Federal rules stipulate that states can levy a “new employer” rate for one to three years, but no less than one year. From a neutrality perspective, however, this new employer rate is nonneutral in almost all cases since the rate is higher than the lowest rate schedule. The longer this rate is in effect, the worse the nonneutrality. As such, the Index rewards states with the minimum one year required to earn an experience rating and penalizes states that require the full three years.
References
Agostini, Claudio and Soraphol Tulayasathien. “Tax Effects on Investment Location: Evidence for Foreign Direct Investment in the United States,” Office of Tax Policy Research, University of Michigan Business School (2001).
Anderson, Patrick. “Benchmarking for Success: A Comparison of State Business Taxes,” Anderson Economic Group (2006), 19-20.
Bartik, Timothy J. Who Benefits from State and Local Economic Development Policies? (Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1991).
Bartik, Timothy J. “Small Business Start-Ups in the United States: Estimates of the Effects of Characteristics of States,” Southern Economic Journal (April 1989): 1004-1018.
Bartik, Timothy J. “Business Location Decisions in the United States: Estimates of the Effects of Unionization, Taxes, and Other Characteristics of States,” Journal of Business and Economics Statistics 3:1 (January 1985): 14-22.
Besley, Timothy J. and Anne Case. “Does Electoral Accountability Affect Economic Policy Choices? Evidence from Gubernatorial Term Limits,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110:1 (August 1995): 769–798.
Besley, Timothy J. and Harvey S. Rosen. “Sales Taxes and Prices: An Empirical Analysis,” NBER Working Paper No. 6667 (July 1998).
Bishop-Henchman, Joseph. “Unemployment Insurance Taxes: Options for Program Design and Insolvent Trust Funds,” Tax Foundation (Oct. 17, 2011).
Bishop-Henchman, Joseph and Jason Sapia. “Local Income Taxes: City- and County-Level Income and Wage Taxes Continue to Wane,” Tax Foundation (Aug. 31, 2011).
Bittlingmayer, Gregory, Liesel Eathington, Arthur Hall and Peter F. Orazem. “Business Climate Indexes: Which Work, Which Don’t, and What Can They Say about the Kansas Economy?” The Center for Applied Economics, Kansas University (June 2005).
Bosch, Nuria and Albert Sole-Olle. “Yardstick competition and the political costs of raising taxes: An empirical analysis of Spanish municipalities,” International Tax and Public Finance 14:1 (February 2007): 71-92.
Brueckner, Jan and Luz A. Saavedra. “Do Local Governments Engage in Strategic Property-Tax Competition?” National Tax Journal 54 (June 2001): 203–229.
Brunori, David. State Tax Policy: A Political Perspective (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, September 2011).
Brunori, David. Local Tax Policy: A Federalist Perspective (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, December 2007).
Byars, Jon, Bobby McCormick, and Bruce Yandle. “Economic Freedom in America’s 50 States: a 1999 Analysis,” Center for Policy and Legal Studies, Department of Economics, Clemson University (March 1, 1999).
Carroll, Robert, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mark Rider, and Harvey S. Rosen. “Income Taxes and Entrepreneurs’ Use of Labor,” Journal of Labor Economics 18 (April 2000): 324-351.
Chamberlain, Andrew and Patrick Fleenor. “Tax Pyramiding: The Economic Consequences of Gross Receipts Taxes,” Tax Foundation (Dec. 4, 2006).
Chorvat, Terrence R. and Michael S. Knoll. “The Economic and Policy Implications of Repealing the Corporate Alternative Tax,” Tax Foundation (Feb. 1, 2002).
Due, John F. “Studies of State-Local Tax Influences on Location of Industry,” National Tax Journal 14 (June 1961): 163-173.
Drenkard, Scott, Liz Emanuel, and Yordan Yahiro. “State and Local Sales Taxes at Midyear 2014,” Tax Foundation (Sept. 16, 2014).
Errecart, Joyce, Ed Gerrish, and Scott Drenkard. “States Moving Away from Taxes on Tangible Personal Property,” Tax Foundation (Oct. 4, 2012).
Fetting, David. “Thomas J. Holmes on Walmart’s Location Strategy,” Fedgazette (March 1, 2006).
Fisher, Peter. Grading Places: What do the Business Climate Rankings Really Tell Us? (Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, June 2005).
Fisher, Peter. Grading Places: What Do the Business Climate Rankings Really Tell Us?Second Edition (Washington, D.C.: Good Jobs First, May 2013).
Fleenor, Patrick. “How Excise Tax Differentials Affect Interstate Smuggling and Cross-Border Sales of Cigarettes in the United States,” Tax Foundation (Oct. 1, 1998).
Fleenor, Patrick and J. Scott Moody. “A Primer on the Economic Implications of Marginal Tax Rates,” Tax Foundation (Nov. 1, 1999).
Fox, William F. and Matthew N. Murray. “Do Economic Effects Justify the Use of Fiscal Incentives?” Southern Economic 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 Business Activity: Evidence from Establishment-Level Data,” Journal of Political Economy 127:3 (June 2019).
Goolsbee, Austan (2004). “The impact of the corporate income tax: evidence from state organizational form data,” Journal of Public Economics 88, issue 11 (Sept. 2004): 2283-2299.
Goolsbee, Austan and Edward L. Maydew. “Coveting Thy Neighbor’s Manufacturing: The Dilemma of State Income Apportionment,” Journal of Public Economics 75:1 (January 2000).
Gupta, Sanjya and Mary Ann Hofmann. “The Effect of State Income Tax Apportionment and Tax Incentives on New Capital Expenditures,” Journal of the American Taxation Association 25, Supplement 2003 (May 2003): 1–25.
Harden, J. William and Hoyt, William H. “Do States Choose their Mix of Taxes to Minimize Employment Losses?” National Tax Journal 56 (March 2003): 7–26.
Haughton, Jonathan and Vadym Slobodyanyuk. State Competitiveness Report 2001 (Boston: Beacon Hill Institute, Suffolk University, December 2001).
Helms, L. Jay. “The Effect of State and Local Taxes on Economic Growth: A Time Series – Cross Section Approach,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 67:4 (November 1985): 574-582.
Hodge, Scott A. “Married Couples File Less Than Half of All Tax Returns, But Pay 74 Percent of all Income Taxes,” Tax Foundation, (Mar. 25, 2003).
Hodge, Scott A. “Own a Business? You May be Rich: Two-Thirds of Taxpayers Hit by Highest Tax Rate Have Business Income,” Tax Foundation (May 5, 2003).
Hodge, Scott A. and J. Scott Moody. “Wealthy American and Business Activity,” Tax Foundation (Aug. 1, 2004).
Hodge, Scott A. and Andre Dammert. “U.S. Lags while Competitors Accelerate Corporate Income Tax Reform,” Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 184 (Aug. 5, 2009).
Internal Revenue Service. “Individual Income Tax Returns 2013,” Rev. 08-2015.
Kleven, Henrik, Camille Landais, Mathilde Muñoz, and Stefanie Stantcheva. “Taxation and Migration: Evidence and Policy Implications,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 25740 (April 2019).
Kolko, Jed, David Neumark, and Marisol Cuellar Meija. (2013). “What Do Business Climate Indexes Teach Us About State Policy and Economic Growth?” Journal of Regional Science 53:2 (Apr. 28, 2013): 220-255.
Kwall, Jeffrey K. “The Repeal of Graduated Corporate Tax Rates,” Tax Notes (June 27, 2011).
Ladd, Helen F. Local Government Tax and Land Use Policies in the United States: Understanding the Links. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Feb. 1998.
Ladd, Helen F. (1992). “Mimicking of Local Tax Burdens Among Neighboring Counties,” Public Finance Review 20:4 (Oct. 1, 1992): 450-467.
Mark, Stephen T., Therese J. Mc Quire, and Leslie E. Papke. “The Influence of Taxes on Employment and Population Growth: Evidence from the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area,” National Tax Journal 53 (March 2000): 105-123.
McQuire, Therese J. and Michael Wasylenko. “Jobs and Taxes: The Effects of Business Climate on States’ Employment Growth Rates,” National Tax Journal 38 (December 1985): 497–511.
Mikesell, John L. “Gross Receipts Taxes in State Government Finance: A Review of Their History and Performance,” Tax Foundation (Jan. 31, 2007).
Mikesell, John L. “State Retail Taxes in 2012: The Recovery Continues,” State Tax Notes (Dec. 26, 2012).
Miles, Marc A., Edwin J. Feulner, and Mary Anastasia Miles O’Grady. The 2004 Index of Economic Freedom: Establishing the Link Between Economic Freedom and Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal (January 2004).
Moody, J., and Scott and Wendy P. Warcholik. “How Tax Competition Affects Cross-Border Sales of Beer in the United States,” Tax Foundation (March 2004).
Moon, Matt. (2009). “How Do Americans Feel About Taxes Today? Tax Foundation’s 2009 Survey of U.S. Attitudes on Taxes, Government Spending, and Wealth Distribution,” Tax Foundation (Apr. 8, 2009).
Newman, Robert J. (1983). “Industry Migration and Growth in the South,” TheReview of Economics and Statistics 65:1 (February 1983): 76-86.
Newman, Robert and Dennis Sullivan. “Econometric Analysis of Business Tax Impacts on Industrial Location: What do we know and how do we know it?” Journal of Urban Economics 23:2 (March 1988): 215–234.
Oakland, William H. “Econometric Analysis of Business Tax Impacts on Industrial Location: A Survey,” Metropolitan Financing and Growth Management Policies, Committee on Taxation, Resources and Economic Development, University of Wisconsin, Madison (1978): 13–30.
Papke, James A. and Leslie E. Papke. “Measuring Differential State-Local Tax Liabilities and Their Implications for Business Investment Location,” National Tax Journal 39:3 (September 1986): 357–366.
Peters, Alan and Peter Fisher. “The Failure of Economic Development Incentives,” Journal of the American Planning Association 70:27 (2004).
Phillips, Andrew and Caroline Sallee, “Total State and Local Business Taxes: State-by-State Estimates for Fiscal Year 2020,” Council On State Taxation (COST) with Ernst and Young LLP and the State Tax Research Institute (October 2021).
Poletti, Therese. “Incentive-rich Arizona to House New Intel Plant,” The (San Jose) Mercury News (July 26, 2005).
Pomp, Richard. “Reforming a State Corporate Income Tax,” Albany Law Review 51:3/4 (Spring/Summer 1987).
Plaut, Thomas R. and Joseph E. Pluta. “Business Climate, Taxes and Expenditures, and State Industrial Growth in the United States,” Southern Economic Journal 50:1 (July 1983): 99–119.
Robyn, Mark A. and Gerald T. Prante. “State-Local Tax Burdens Fall in 2009 as Tax Revenues Shrink Faster than Income,” Tax Foundation (Feb. 23, 2011).
Salmon, Pierre. “Decentralisation as an Incentive Scheme,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 3:2 (1987): 24–43.
Shleifer, Andrei. “A theory of yardstick competition,” Rand Journal of Economics 16:3 (Autumn 1985): 320–328.
Sullivan, Martin. “The States’ Fiscal Mess: How Bad Is It?” Tax Notes, 98:4 (2003), 482-486.
Tannenwald, Robert. “State Business Tax Climate: How Should it be Measured and How Important is it?” New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (January/February 1996): 23-38.
Tax Foundation. Location Matters: A Comparative Analysis of State Tax Costs on Business (2012).
Tax Foundation. Facts & Figures: How Does Your State Compare? (2015).
Tiebout, Charles. “A Pure Theory of Local Public Expenditures,” Journal of Political Economy 64:5 (1956): 416–424.
Vedder, Richard. “Taxes and Economic Growth,” The Taxpayers Network, Inc. (2001).
Wasylenko, Michael. “Taxation and Economic Development: The State of Economic Literature,” New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (March/April 1997): 37–52.
Wasylenko, Michael. “The Location of Firms: The Role of Taxes and Fiscal Incentives,” Urban Affairs Annual Review 20 (1981): 155-189.
[1] See U.S. Department of Labor, “Extended Mass Layoffs, First Quarter 2013,” Table 10, May 13, 2013.
[8] Dennis Cauchon, “Business Incentives Lose Luster for States,” USA TODAY, Aug. 22, 2007.
[9]State Policy Reports, Vol. 12, No. 11, Issue 1, p. 9, June 1994.
[10] Both rate increases had a temporary component and were allowed to partially expire before legislators overrode a gubernatorial veto to increase rates above where they would have been should they have been allowed to sunset.
[11] Benjamin Yount, “Tax increase, impact, dominate Illinois Capitol in 2011,” Illinois Statehouse News, Dec. 27, 2011.
[12] A trend in tax literature throughout the 1990s was the increasing use of indices to measure a state’s general business climate. These include the Center for Policy and Legal Studies’ Economic Freedom in America’s 50 States: A 1999 Analysis and the Beacon Hill Institute’s State Competitiveness Report 2001. Such indexes even exist on the international level, including the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal’s 2004 Index of Economic Freedom. Plaut and Pluta (1983) examined the use of business climate indices as explanatory variables for business location movements. They found that such general indices do have a significant explanatory power, helping to explain, for example, why businesses have moved from the Northeast and Midwest toward the South and Southwest. In turn, they also found that high taxes have a negative effect on employment growth.
[13] See Mark Robyn, “Michigan Implements Positive Corporate Tax Reform,” Tax Foundation, Feb. 10, 2012.
[14] Jeffrey L. Kwall, “The Repeal of Graduated Corporate Tax Rates,” Tax Notes, June 27, 2011, 1395.
[15] For example, see Alan Peters and Peter Fisher, “The Failures of Economic Development Incentives,” Journal of the American Planning Association 70(1), Winter 2004, 27; and William F. Fox and Matthew N. Murray, “Do Economic Effects Justify the Use of Fiscal Incentives?” Southern Economic Journal 71(1), July 2004, 78.
[16] See Edward C. Prescott, “Why Do Americans Work So Much More than Europeans?” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, July 2004. See also J. Scott Moody and Scott A. Hodge, “Wealthy Americans and Business Activity,” Tax Foundation, Aug. 1, 2004.
[17] Tennessee has begun the process of phasing out its tax on interest and dividend income.
[18] New Hampshire taxes only interest and dividends. To account for this, the Index converts the statutory tax rate into an effective rate as measured against the typical state income tax base that includes wages. Under a typical income tax base with a flat rate and no tax preferences, this is the statutory rate that would be required to raise the same amount of revenue as the current system. Nationally, dividends and interest account for 19.6 percent of income. For New Hampshire, its 5 percent rate was multiplied by 19.6 percent, yielding the equivalent rate of 0.98 percent.
[19] See Jared Walczak, “Local Income Taxes in 2019,” Tax Foundation, July 30, 2019.
[20] Some states offer tax credits in lieu of standard deductions or personal exemptions. Rather than reducing a taxpayer’s taxable income before the tax rates are applied, tax credits are subtracted from a taxpayer’s tax liability. Like deductions and exemptions, the result is a lower final income tax bill. In order to maintain consistency within the component score, tax credits are converted into equivalent income exemptions or deductions.
[21] Equity-related capital gains are not created directly by a corporation. Rather, they are the result of stock appreciations due to corporate activity such as increasing retained earnings, increasing capital investments, or issuing dividends. Stock appreciation becomes taxable realized capital gains when the stock is sold by the holder.
[22] States have sought to limit this sales tax competition by levying a “use tax” on goods purchased out of state and brought into the state, typically at the same rate as the sales tax. Few consumers comply with use tax obligations.
[23] For example, in early 1993, Intel Corporation was considering California, New Mexico, and four other states as the site of a new billion-dollar factory. California was the only one of the six states that levied its sales tax on machinery and equipment, a tax that would have cost Intel roughly $80 million. As Intel’s Bob Perlman explained in testimony before a committee of the California state legislature, “There are two ways California’s not going to get the $80 million: with the factory or without it.” California would not repeal the tax on machinery and equipment; New Mexico got the plant.
[24] Sales taxes, which are ideally levied only on sales to final-users, are a form of consumption tax. Consumption taxes that are levied instead at each stage of production are known as value-added taxes (VAT) and are popular internationally. Theoretically a VAT can avoid the economically damaging tax pyramiding effect. The VAT has never gained wide acceptance in the U.S., and only two states (Michigan and New Hampshire) have even attempted a VAT-like tax.
[25] Alaska does authorize local governments to levy their own sales taxes, however, which is reflected in the state’s sales tax component score.
[26] The average local option sales tax rate is calculated as an average of local statutory rates, weighted by population. See Jared Walczak and Scott Drenkard, “State and Local Sales Tax Rates, Midyear 2016,” Tax Foundation, July 5, 2016.
[27] See Timothy J. Besley and Harvey S. Rosen, “Sales Taxes and Prices: An Empirical Analysis,” NBER Working Paper No. 6667, July 1998.
[29] See Scott Drenkard and Joseph Bishop-Henchman, “Cigarette Taxes and Cigarette Smuggling by State, 2014” Tax Foundation, Jan. 17, 2017.
[30] See Matt Moon, “How do Americans Feel about Taxes Today?” Tax Foundation’s 2009 Survey of U.S. Attitudes on Taxes, Government Spending and Wealth Distribution, Tax Foundation, Apr. 8, 2009.
[31] Though not included directly in this Index for data availability reasons, tangible personal property taxes can also affect business decisions. For a comprehensive review of these taxes and reform recommendations, see Joyce Errecart, Ed Gerrish, and Scott Drenkard, “States Moving Away from Taxes on Tangible Personal Property,” Tax Foundation, Oct. 4, 2012.
[32] Some states, like Kentucky, are often considered not to impose an intangible property tax but continue to levy a low millage on financial deposits.
[33] For a summary of the effects of the estate tax on business, see Congressional Budget Office, “Effects of the Federal Estate Tax on Farms and Small Businesses,” July 2005. For a summary on the estate tax in general, see David Block and Scott Drenkard, “The Estate Tax: Even Worse Than Republicans Say,” Tax Foundation, Sept. 4, 2012.
[34] See generally Joseph Bishop-Henchman, “Unemployment Insurance Taxes: Options for Program Design and Insolvent Trust Funds,” Tax Foundation, Oct. 17, 2011.
[35] Alaska is the only state to use the payroll experience method. This method does not use benefit payments in the formula but instead the variation in an employer’s payroll from quarter to quarter. This is a violation of tax neutrality since any decision by the employer or employee that would affect payroll may trigger higher UI tax rates.
(The Center Square) – Maryland is using nearly $32 million to support affordable rental housing.
Through the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development application for federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits and Rental Housing Funds, 12 projects will be funded through a competitive process to create or preserve 1,340 high-quality, energy-efficient affordable rental units, Gov. Larry Hogan said.
“During our administration, the state of Maryland has provided financing and tax credits to create or preserve an unprecedented more than 28,000 affordable rental units,” Hogan said in a release. “The projects selected in this year’s application round will further expand affordable housing opportunities for Maryland’s working families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities.”
According to the release, 21 applications were received and reviewed by the Department of Housing and Community Development requesting $23.7 million in Rental Housing Funds from the states and $30.1 million in federal funding.
Tax credits valued at close to $17 million, according to the release, will be combined with $15 million in Rental Housing Funds will be administered by the department among nine counties and the city of Baltimore.
The department, since 2019, has used 9% competitive tax credits and 4% noncompetitive tax credits under the program to preserve housing.
“The creativity and dedication of our team has helped our financing tools go further to house more people and create even more positive economic impact in Maryland,” DHCD Secretary Kenneth C. Holt said in a release. “Each project financed creates more jobs and adds to the tens of thousands of units preserved.”
Associated Builders and Contractors analyzed the unemployment rate for construction, and found two states with a rock-bottom low of just 0.9% in June.
The construction unemployment rate hovered in June below 2% in 10 states, but was at a high of 6.5% in New Mexico, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by the Associated Builders and Contractors.
Overall, the national unemployment rate for construction was 3.7% in June, slightly higher than the 3.6% unemployment rate in the overall workforce for the same time period.
Within the construction industry, the residential sector continued to outpace nonresidential for employment, and had 112,000 more workers than before the pandemic, despite recent pullbacks in the housing market. Nonresidential employment was still 66,000 jobs below its pre-pandemic peak though, according to ABC.
ABC segmented the employment numbers by state, and highlighted the top and bottom five.
These five states had the lowest construction unemployment rates in June 2022:
Idaho, 0.9%.
Nebraska, 0.9%.
South Dakota, 1.3%.
Utah, 1.5%.
Minnesota, 1.6%.
Idaho, Minnesota and Nebraska each posted their lowest June estimated, non-seasonally adjusted construction unemployment rates on record, according to ABC.
These five states had the highest construction unemployment rates in June 2022:
Delaware, 5.4%.
Michigan, 5.7%.
New York, 5.8%.
West Virginia, 6.3%.
New Mexico, 6.5%.
While New Mexico had the highest unemployment rate, it also had the largest year-over-year improvement, down from 7.9% in June of 2021, ABC said.
Orange County is facing a lawsuit from The Florida Apartment Association and the Florida Association of Realtors over its decision to add a rent control proposal to the 2022 November ballot. The proposal, which aims to selectively cap rent increases for a year, is the latest revival of the classic price-control method policymakers have used to stabilize the prices of amenities and goods. Rent control places limits (or price “ceilings”) on the amount a landlord may charge a tenant for rent. While rent control has historically been promoted to improve housing affordability for low-income families, its unintended consequences tend to harm the very families it aims to assist.
Despite well-documented negative effects of rent control—and a Florida statute that restricts its practice within the state—some state lawmakers and local commissioners are pushing for its revival. With the cost of housing rapidly increasing within the Sunshine State, policymakers must focus on reducing barriers to housing market entry for developers. This approach would increase the housing supply and thus reduce costs for inhabitants rather than exacerbate the crisis using the same counteractive initiatives that have failed in the past. Rent control has proved to cause a multiplicity of adverse effects, including decreased affordability, gentrification, and an increase in the migration of urban issues into suburbs. Problems that rent regulation aims to fix end up becoming amplified.
The practice of capping rent prices has a long history within the United States and continues to incite debate among lawmakers. Amongst economists, however, the policy is not very popular because it merely imposes a price ceiling on the housing market. As demonstrated by the fundamental supply/demand model pictured below, a price ceiling creates an imbalance between the quantity of supplied housing and the quantity of demanded housing. In other words, the amount of individuals/families seeking rent-controlled units exceeds the number of rent-controlled units available in a given area, causing a shortage in affordable housing. Price ceilings create the illusion of lower rent prices, but only a select few benefit from such a policy.
Affordable housing shortages encouraged by rent control occur because landlords are unable to charge rent prices that would otherwise prevail under an area’s housing market equilibrium. Rent control incentivizes—or financially forces— them to sell, demolish, or convert their rental properties to recover their losses. This is what economists Rebecca Diamond, Timothy McQuade, and Franklin Qian found when examining the effect of rent control policies on San Francisco’s housing market from 1990 to 2016. Like Florida, the city of San Francisco had been experiencing high housing costs, and its local officials sought to relieve this by implementing rent control policies. Diamond and her colleagues reported a 15% decrease in the supply of rental housing caused by these laws and noted a city-wide rent increase of 5.1% due to the reduction of overall housing supply. These affordable housing shortages displace many low-income families from their communities, which can have detrimental impacts on their health, transportation options, and education access.
There are ways that lawmakers can effectively address Florida’s housing and cost-of-living crises without stalling the housing market and displacing communities. One avenue would be to ease zoning and land-use regulations in high-demand areas. These laws, which regulate everything from the size and use of land to historic preservation requirements, can be costly and daunting for developers to comply with. Strict zoning laws are proven to make new development close to impossible. In fact, “in nearly every major U.S. city, apartments are banned in at least 70 percent of residential areas.” Such laws deter—or prevent—new housing development, thus stagnating supply and causing housing costs to rise. These high costs are passed down to tenants in the form of higher rent and outprice many households from their communities.
In removing tedious zoning and land-use provisions, Florida’s state and local governments would drastically reduce the barriers of entry for housing developers. The result is increased housing construction within high-demand areas and decreased rent prices for residents. Additionally, tax breaks could incentivize owners of single-family residences to turn their homes and properties into multi-family dwellings. This would also work to increase the supply of properties available for rent.
The high housing costs experienced throughout the Sunshine State are a result of a skyrocketing demand for housing, exacerbated by unprecedented migration patterns. This has prompted many state lawmakers, like those in Orange County, to propose a classic price-control restraint on rents to “stabilize” affordable housing options. However, this outdated method of placing a price ceiling on rental rates will not fix the housing crisis but merely create further imbalances within the state’s housing market. As seen in its previous implementations, rent control decreases the number of properties available for rent and displaces the families it intends to help. Instead of repeating a historic mistake, Florida lawmakers should take steps to reduce tedious barriers of entry—such as unnecessary zoning and land-use laws—to increase the supply of housing. This way, housing supply will be able to satisfy high housing demand and reduce the cost of living for all Florida residents.
