Lance King / Getty Images
Where you plant your roots matters far more to your annual tax bill than most people realize. A household earning the median U.S. income faces dramatically different financial realities depending on which side of a state line it calls home. Taxpayers in the most expensive states pay more than double what residents of the cheapest states owe — a difference that compounds into hundreds of thousands of dollars over a working lifetime.
Tax burden is not a simple function of income tax rates. It reflects a layered system of real estate taxes, vehicle property taxes, sales levies, and excise charges, each weighted differently by policymakers in each state. Eliminating income taxes entirely does not guarantee a low overall burden.
Cost of living further complicates the picture. A household in a nominally low-tax state with high home values and elevated wages may pay more in absolute dollars than one in a nominally high-tax state where housing and services are cheaper. Raw effective rates and cost-adjusted rates often tell very different stories about where households actually come out ahead.
Every year, WalletHub compares all 50 states and the District of Columbia to measure total effective tax rates on a median U.S. household, accounting for real estate, vehicle property, income, and sales and excise taxes. The analysis applies those rates to a household earning roughly $81,211 a year, owning a home valued at $332,700, and driving a mid-range sedan. The result is a comprehensive picture of what taxes actually cost ordinary Americans across every state.
The gaps are striking. Here are eight things the data reveal.
1 / 8
Wu Xiaoling / Xinhua via Getty Images
Alaska's total effective tax rate for a median U.S. household is just 6.94%, translating to $5,634 a year, around 37% below the national average. The state collects no income tax and no sales tax at the state level, meaning two of the largest tax categories that drain wallets elsewhere simply do not exist for Alaskans. Real estate taxes account for 4.53% of the effective burden, while sales and excise taxes add another 2.41%, primarily reflecting local levies. The result is the lightest combined load in the country.
Delaware and Wyoming follow closely behind, at 7.19% and 7.58% respectively, driven by similarly disciplined revenue structures. Delaware charges no sales tax at all. Wyoming imposes no income tax. Both states keep real estate and vehicle property taxes modest, giving residents a multi-front advantage over higher-burden states.
For a household working from the same income baseline, living in Alaska over Illinois — the most expensive state — means keeping roughly $8,000 more each year. Over a 30-year career, the gap exceeds $240,000 in retained income before any investment returns enter the calculation.
Alaska's fiscal model depends heavily on oil revenue, which creates long-term instability that residents and policymakers must reckon with. State budget cycles can swing sharply with commodity prices, and some analysts question whether the current tax structure is sustainable over the long term. The state has periodically debated introducing a personal income tax to reduce that dependence, but has not reached a consensus.
Still, from a household tax perspective, Alaska residents enjoy advantages unavailable anywhere else in the country — and those advantages show up clearly in every paycheck and annual filing.
2 / 8
Tim Boyle / Getty Images
At an effective rate of 16.87%, Illinois imposes the steepest combined state and local taxes on a median household, withholding $13,699 a year, more than 53% above the national average. No other state comes close. New York ranks second at 14.95%, followed by Connecticut at 14.58%. Each of these states layers high real estate taxes on top of substantial income taxes, creating a compounding burden that households absorb year after year.
Illinois' real estate effective rate of 8.24% for the median U.S. household is the second-highest in the country, trailing only New Jersey at 8.65%. High property taxes affect not just homeowners but also landlords, who pass them on to renters and penalize those who do not even own their homes. Income taxes add 3.43%, and sales and excise taxes contribute another 5.19%, rounding out the picture.
Policymakers in Illinois have faced repeated calls to restructure the state's tax code. Constitutional constraints and legislative gridlock have limited meaningful reform. In 2020, voters rejected a ballot measure that would have shifted the state to a graduated income tax structure, leaving the flat rate intact and the property tax system unchanged.
The cost of Illinois' tax structure shows up in migration data as well. The state has posted net population outflows for several consecutive years, with surveys of departing residents consistently citing taxes as the main reason they relocate to lower-burden states. For a median household, the difference between paying Illinois rates and Alaska rates amounts to over $8,000 annually. Multiply that across a working lifetime, and the stakes of state tax policy become clear.
3 / 8
Thanasis / Getty Images
Several states have built reputations on the absence of any income tax. But that framing obscures a more complicated fiscal reality. Washington state charges residents no income tax whatsoever, yet its overall effective tax rate reaches 12.02%, placing it 36th out of 51 jurisdictions. Sales and excise taxes explain the gap. Washington residents pay an effective rate of 8.72% on those levies — the highest in the country.
Florida also collects no income tax, but its residents shoulder effective sales and excise taxes of 5.65%, putting total burden at 8.76%. Texas, similarly, charges no income tax but levies significant real estate taxes: at an effective rate of 6.11%, those property taxes rank 45th nationally. Nevada, another no-income-tax state, carries sales and excise levies of 5.50% — not the highest, but enough to push its total rate to 8.76%.
Tennessee, which only recently fully phased out its tax on investment income, has an effective sales and excise tax rate of 7.78% — among the top five nationally. For moderate-income earners in Tennessee, consumption taxes can equal or exceed what they would pay under a modest income tax regime elsewhere.
Income tax is the most visible tax because it appears on every paycheck. But visible does not mean largest. Households that spend a large share of earnings on goods and services face substantial levies through sales and excise channels regardless of what the income tax line on their return says. A state's marketing as "no income tax" can obscure the full picture for households that haven't tallied every tax category. No-income-tax branding makes for compelling recruitment material for businesses and retirees. It does not necessarily make for lower bills.
4 / 8
MediaNews Group / Boston Herald via Getty Images
Real estate taxes represent a fixed, recurring cost that households cannot easily avoid. Unlike consumption taxes, which vary with spending habits, property taxes arrive regardless of whether incomes rise or fall. In several of the highest-burden states, elevated property taxes drive their overall ranking.
New Jersey leads the country with an effective real estate tax rate of 8.65% on the median U.S. household, contributing the lion's share of its 14.06% overall rate. Connecticut follows with a real estate rate of 7.42%, pushing its total to 14.58%. New Hampshire, despite having no income tax and minimal sales taxes, reaches an overall rate of 9.43% thanks in large part to a 6.79% real estate rate that ranks among the top five nationally.
Illinois, as noted, also depends heavily on property taxes. Wisconsin and Vermont both have real estate rates above 5.5%, placing them among the top 15 states by property tax burden and dragging their overall rankings upward.
States with the lowest overall burdens, by contrast, tend to hold real estate taxes in check. Alabama's effective real estate rate is just 1.54%. Hawaii has the nation's lowest real estate tax rate at 1.09%, not because the state goes easy on property owners, but because its home values are among the highest in the country.
For homeowners planning long-term, property tax trajectories matter as much as income tax rates. Property taxes do not fall when earnings drop. They track assessed home values, which historically trend upward. Even households with stagnant incomes can face rising annual bills.
5 / 8
Yoon S. Byun / Portland Portland Press Herald via Getty Images
Sales and excise taxes are structurally regressive. Households at lower income levels spend a larger share of earnings on goods and services, making these levies proportionally heavier for moderate earners. Several states with no income tax impose high sales and excise taxes that squeeze middle-income families more sharply than the headline tax rate implies.
Washington's effective sales and excise tax rate of 8.72% is the highest in the country. Hawaii sits at 7.55%, Louisiana at 8.01%, and Tennessee at 7.78% — all among the top five nationally. Arkansas, despite its modest income taxes, adds a 7.15% effective sales and excise rate that pushes it into the high-consumption-tax tier as well.
Montana offers a useful counterexample. As it collects no sales tax, limiting its effective rate in that category to just 1.43%, Montana reduces its overall burden at 7.88%. That's the fifth-lowest in the country, even if its income and property tax rates are not especially low. Oregon similarly collects no sales tax, which offsets its relatively high income tax rate of 5.34% and holds its overall burden below the national average.
For households mapping out where to live, the composition of a state's tax revenue matters as much as the total rate. High sales taxes mean every grocery run, utility bill, and retail purchase takes a measurable cut — with the greatest relative impact on those who earn less. Absolute dollar comparisons across states tell part of the story. Distributional impact on earners at different income levels tells the rest. A household earning $40,000 a year in a high-sales-tax state may pay a larger effective share of income to consumption taxes than a high earner in a state with a graduated income tax.
6 / 8
Hispanolistic / Getty Images
Raw tax burden figures measure what a household pays as a share of income. Adjust for local cost of living, and a state's ranking can shift by dozens of positions. A low tax bill means little if housing, food, and services consume an outsized share of what remains.
Idaho ranks fourth-lowest in nominal terms at 7.65%, but factor in the cost of living, and it climbs to first, giving residents more purchasing power than residents of any other state relative to what things actually cost locally. Montana holds fifth on a cost-adjusted basis, matching its nominal rank of fifth. South Carolina, sixth nominally, places fifth on a cost-adjusted basis, reinforcing its position as a genuinely affordable state across both measures.
The District of Columbia sits 10th in nominal terms but falls to 44th once cost of living enters the equation. California, which ranks 14th nominally at 9.83%, drops to 37th on a cost-adjusted basis. A household paying below-average taxes in absolute terms may still find its budget strained when housing, childcare, and services consume a large share of income.
Hawaii ranks last on a cost-adjusted basis, combining an above-average tax burden with the highest cost of living in the country. Connecticut, nominally 49th, stays near the bottom at 50th. Massachusetts, nominally 30th, drops to 46th when accounting for local living expenses. For households weighing a move, the cost-adjusted ranking is the more honest measure of what taxes will actually cost them.
8 / 8
LordHenriVoton / Getty Images
Many states exempt groceries from sales tax entirely. Others apply the full rate to food purchases, hitting low-income families who devote a larger portion of their earnings to basic necessities. Mississippi has the highest food tax rate in the country, ranking last nationally in this category. Tennessee, Idaho, and Missouri are close behind.
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, and Connecticut are among the states that do not collect a food tax, removing one of the most regressive elements of their consumption tax structures. The distinction matters most to households near or below the median income level, where grocery spending represents a meaningful percentage of the total budget.
Effective rate calculations assume average spending patterns, so they can understate the burden on families with large households, lower wages, or high grocery bills.
States that apply broad sales tax bases — including food — typically do so because the revenue stream is stable and predictable. But the distributional consequences are lopsided: the same flat rate takes a larger percentage of income from someone earning $35,000 than from someone earning $100,000. Reforming food taxes ranks among the first legislative proposals state governments advance to shift their tax codes toward greater progressivity. Replacing the lost revenue without raising other taxes elsewhere on moderate-income earners remains a persistent policy obstacle — and a reason why food taxes persist in states that have otherwise modernized significant parts of their fiscal structures.
