Connect with us

Money

Visualizing Unequal State Tax Burdens Across America

Published

on

Three U.S. maps with the states colored according to the effective tax rate for the top 1%, middle and low income households to show unequal state tax burdens.

Can I share this graphic?
Yes. Visualizations are free to share and post in their original form across the web—even for publishers. Please link back to this page and attribute Visual Capitalist.
When do I need a license?
Licenses are required for some commercial uses, translations, or layout modifications. You can even whitelabel our visualizations. Explore your options.
Interested in this piece?
Click here to license this visualization.

Visualizing Unequal State Tax Burdens Across America

What percentage of your income goes into Uncle Sam’s pocket?

Your answer will vary depending on how much you earn. Data shows that low and middle-income families pay a much greater share of their income towards state and local taxes than wealthy families.

Today’s visualization uses data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) to map the effective tax rates—or taxes paid as a share of family income—across income groups at the state and local level.

Crunching the Numbers

The data reflects the effect of tax changes enacted through September 10, 2018, using 2015 income levels (the latest year for available, detailed income data). Both single and married tax filers are included, while elderly taxpayers, dependent filers, and those with negative incomes are excluded.

Taxes Included
The report includes the state and local taxes for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Taxes are broken into 3 broad groups:

  • Consumption taxes – general sales taxes and specialized excise taxes
  • Property taxes – including taxes on homes, businesses, and motor vehicles
  • Income taxes – paid by individuals and businesses

Federal taxes are not considered.

Editor’s note: It’s worth noting that federal personal income tax has progressive rates, with the lowest earning bracket at 10% and the highest earning bracket at 37% in 2019. At a national level, property taxes are not charged and there is a very low reliance on excise taxes—both of which tend to be regressive as outlined below.

Income Included
The report includes both taxable and tax-exempt income such as worker’s compensation benefits. It also includes estimates for the amount of unreported income.

Which States Have the Most Unequal Tax Burdens?

Across the U.S., there is a wide disparity in how taxes affect different income groups. Here’s how it all breaks down, ranked in order of tax system inequality*:

Total State and Local Taxes As a Share of Income
By State and Income Group

RANKSTATELOWEST 20%MIDDLE 60%TOP 1%
1Washington17.8%10.4%3.0%
2Texas13.0%9.4%3.1%
3Florida12.7%7.7%2.3%
4South Dakota11.2%8.4%2.5%
5Nevada10.2%7.1%1.9%
6Tennessee10.5%8.1%2.8%
7Pennsylvania13.8%10.8%6.0%
8Illinois14.4%12.2%7.4%
9Oklahoma13.2%10.3%6.2%
10Wyoming9.6%6.9%2.6%
11Arizona13.0%9.3%5.9%
12Indiana12.8%10.4%6.8%
13Ohio12.3%10.6%6.5%
14Louisiana11.9%9.8%6.2%
15Hawaii15.0%11.5%8.9%
16New Hampshire9.1%7.1%3.0%
17North Dakota10.3%7.7%4.5%
18Alabama9.9%8.6%5.0%
19New Mexico10.6%10.0%6.0%
20Arkansas11.3%10.4%6.9%
21Iowa12.4%10.5%7.7%
22Michigan10.4%9.2%6.2%
23Kansas11.4%10.4%7.4%
24Mississippi10.2%9.8%6.7%
25Kentucky9.5%10.5%6.7%
26Alaska7.0%4.3%2.5%
27Georgia10.7%9.5%7.0%
28Missouri9.9%9.1%6.2%
29Connecticut11.5%11.6%8.1%
30Massachusetts10.0%9.3%6.5%
31North Carolina9.5%9.1%6.4%
32Rhode Island12.1%9.3%7.9%
33Virginia9.8%9.3%7.0%
34Wisconsin10.1%10.4%7.7%
35Colorado8.7%8.6%6.5%
36Nebraska11.1%10.2%8.7%
37West Virginia9.4%8.8%7.4%
38Idaho9.2%8.4%7.2%
39South Carolina8.3%8.3%6.8%
40Utah7.5%8.4%6.7%
41Oregon10.1%8.8%8.1%
42Maryland9.8%10.6%9.0%
43Montana7.9%6.7%6.5%
44New York11.4%12.5%11.3%
45Maine8.7%9.3%8.6%
46New Jersey8.7%10.2%9.8%
47Minnesota8.7%9.8%10.1%
48Delaware5.5%5.8%6.5%
49Vermont8.7%9.4%10.4%
50District of Columbia6.3%9.8%9.5%
51California10.5%8.9%12.4%

* The ITEP Tax Inequality Index measures the effects of each state’s tax structure on income inequality. In states that rank high for inequality, incomes are less equal after state and local taxes are applied than before. On the flip side, states with the most equality are those where incomes are at least somewhat more equal after state and local taxes are levied than before.

Washington has the most unequal tax burdens. Proportional to their income, Washington taxpayers in the bottom 20% pay almost 6x more than those in the top 1%.

At the other end of the scale, California has the most equal tax system. As a share of their income, the state’s poorest families pay only 0.84x what the wealthiest families pay.

Overall, however, the vast majority of tax systems are regressive.

effective us state and local tax rates

On average, the lowest 20% of income earners pay 1.54x more of their income in taxes compared to the top 1%.

The Main Causes

Two main factors drive a tax system’s (lack of) equality: how the state designs each tax, and the state’s reliance on different tax sources.

To better explain how this works, let’s take a closer look at each type of tax.

Sales & Excise Taxes

These taxes apply only to spent income, and exempt saved income. Since families with a higher household income are able to save a much larger percentage of their income, and the poorest families can barely save at all, the tax is regressive by nature.

The particular types of items that are taxed affect fairness as well. Quite a few states include food in their sales tax base, and low-income families spend the majority of their income on groceries and other necessities.

Not only that, excise taxes are levied on a small subset of goods that typically have a practical per-person maximum. For example, one person can only use so much fuel. As a wealthy family’s income increases, they generally do not continue to increase their spending on these goods.

States rely on these taxes more than any other tax source, which only exacerbates the problem.

Property Taxes

For the average household, the home makes up the majority of their total wealth—meaning most of their wealth is taxed. However, the wealth composition of richer families skews much more heavily towards stock portfolios, business equity, and other assets, which are exempt from property taxes.

While these types of assets are subject to taxes like capital gains and dividends, the distinction is that these taxes are levied only on earned gains. In contrast, property taxes are owed simply as a result of owning the asset.

What about those who don’t own homes? Landlords generally pass on the cost of property tax to renters in the form of higher rent. Since rent comprises a much higher share of expenses for poorer families, this makes property tax even more inequitable.

Income Taxes

State income taxes are typically progressive. This means effective tax rates go up as income goes up. Here’s how the U.S. averages break down:

  • Low-income families: 0.04%
  • Middle-income families: 2.1%
  • Top 1%: 4.6%

However, certain policy choices can turn this on its head. Some states have a flat rate for all income levels, a lack of deductions and credits for low-income taxpayers, or tax loopholes that can be beneficial for wealthier income groups.

Nine states charge no income tax at all, garnering reputations as “low tax” states—but this is true only for high-income families. In order to make up for the lost revenue, states rely more heavily on tax sources that disproportionately affect the lowest earners.

equality and personal income tax

Evidently, states with personal income taxes have more equitable effective tax burdens.

Tackling Systemic Issues

Regressive state tax systems negatively impact the after-tax income of low and middle-income families. This means they have less to spend on daily expenses, or to save for the future.

Not only that, because wealthier families aren’t contributing a proportional share of tax dollars, state revenues grow more slowly.

For states looking to create a more equitable tax system, states with progressive systems offer some guidance:

  • Graduated income tax rates
  • Additional tax over a high-income threshold (e.g $1 million)
  • Limits on tax breaks for upper-income taxpayers
  • Targeted low-income tax credits
  • Lower reliance on regressive consumption taxes

By implementing such policies, governments may see more tax equality—and more tax dollars for programs and services.

Hat tip to reddit user prikhodkop, whose visualization introduced us to this data.

Click for Comments

Money

How Debt-to-GDP Ratios Have Changed Since 2000

See how much the debt-to-GDP ratios of advanced economies have grown (or shrank) since the year 2000.

Published

on

How Debt-to-GDP Ratios Have Changed Since 2000

This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on Apple or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.

Government debt levels have grown in most parts of the world since the 2008 financial crisis, and even more so after the COVID-19 pandemic.

To gain perspective on this long-term trend, we’ve visualized the debt-to-GDP ratios of advanced economies, as of 2000 and 2024 (estimated). All figures were sourced from the IMF’s World Economic Outlook.

Data and Highlights

The data we used to create this graphic is listed in the table below. “Government gross debt” consists of all liabilities that require payment(s) of interest and/or principal in the future.

Country2000 (%)2024 (%)Change (pp)
🇯🇵 Japan135.6251.9+116.3
🇸🇬 Singapore82.3168.3+86.0
🇺🇸 United States55.6126.9+71.3
🇬🇧 United Kingdom36.6105.9+69.3
🇬🇷 Greece104.9160.2+55.3
🇫🇷 France58.9110.5+51.6
🇵🇹 Portugal54.2104.0+49.8
🇪🇸 Spain57.8104.7+46.9
🇸🇮 Slovenia25.966.5+40.6
🇫🇮 Finland42.476.5+34.1
🇭🇷 Croatia35.461.8+26.4
🇨🇦 Canada80.4103.3+22.9
🇨🇾 Cyprus56.070.9+14.9
🇦🇹 Austria65.774.0+8.3
🇸🇰 Slovak Republic50.556.5+6.0
🇩🇪 Germany59.364.0+4.7
🇧🇪 Belgium109.6106.8-2.8
🇮🇱 Israel77.456.8-20.6
🇮🇸 Iceland75.854.6-21.2

The debt-to-GDP ratio indicates how much a country owes compared to the size of its economy, reflecting its ability to manage and repay debts. Percentage point (pp) changes shown above indicate the increase or decrease of these ratios.

Countries with the Biggest Increases

Japan (+116 pp), Singapore (+86 pp), and the U.S. (+71 pp) have grown their debt as a percentage of GDP the most since the year 2000.

All three of these countries have stable, well-developed economies, so it’s unlikely that any of them will default on their growing debts. With that said, higher government debt leads to increased interest payments, which in turn can diminish available funds for future government budgets.

This is a rising issue in the U.S., where annual interest payments on the national debt have surpassed $1 trillion for the first time ever.

Only 3 Countries Saw Declines

Among this list of advanced economies, Belgium (-2.8 pp), Iceland (-21.2 pp), and Israel (-20.6 pp) were the only countries that decreased their debt-to-GDP ratio since the year 2000.

According to Fitch Ratings, Iceland’s debt ratio has decreased due to strong GDP growth and the use of its cash deposits to pay down upcoming maturities.

See More Debt Graphics from Visual Capitalist

Curious to see which countries have the most government debt in dollars? Check out this graphic that breaks down $97 trillion in debt as of 2023.

Continue Reading
HIVE Digital Technologies

Subscribe

Popular