U.S. State Tax Statistics

How much tax do states actually collect? And where does that money come from?

Every year, state governments in the U.S. raise over a trillion dollars through various taxes—some relying heavily on personal income taxes, others depending almost entirely on sales taxes or excise taxes. These differences reflect each state’s unique approach to balancing budgets, funding essential services like education and infrastructure, and attracting (or retaining) residents and businesses.

This article breaks down the most recent tax data available—fiscal year 2023—to give a clear picture of upcoming changes, including important tax deadlines for U.S. expats in 2025:

• How much each state collects in taxes
• Where that revenue comes from (income tax, sales tax, etc.)
• How states compare in terms of total tax burden and structure

We’ll also explore:

• Which states have the highest and lowest taxes per person
• Which rely the most on corporate or excise taxes
• And what trends are shaping state tax policy in 2024

US State Tax Statistics: Total Collections in the U.S.

In fiscal year 2023, U.S. state governments collectively collected over $1.1 trillion in tax revenue. This substantial sum funds critical public services such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and public safety. Compared to the previous year, this (2023) total represents continued growth, driven largely by economic recovery, wage increases, inflation, shifts in population, and evolving tax policies.

However, state tax revenues vary significantly based on factors such as population size, economic activity, and individual state tax structures. Some states define what constitutes taxable income differently, impacting their overall tax strategies.

Additionally, state level sales tax rates also play a crucial role in total tax collections, with states like California having high rates, while others like South Dakota and Louisiana have seen reductions. Some states collect the majority of their revenue from personal income taxes, others rely heavily on sales taxes, while some states depend primarily on taxes from specific industries like oil and natural gas extraction.

States with the Highest Total Tax Revenue

California led all states in total tax collections, generating approximately $221 billion in fiscal year 2023. This amount is significantly higher than any other state—nearly double that of New York, the second-highest state, which collected about $125 billion. Together, these two states accounted for roughly one-third of all state tax revenues nationwide, highlighting the crucial role of state and local governments in tax collection.

The following table outlines the five states with the highest total tax revenue for FY2023:

Each of these states has significant populations and large economies, though their tax systems differ considerably. For example, California and New York heavily rely on progressive personal income taxes, whereas Texas and Florida do not levy state income taxes, instead depending primarily on sales and excise taxes. Local sales taxes also contribute significantly to total tax revenue, especially in states that allow them.

States with the Lowest Total Tax Revenue

At the other end of the revenue spectrum, states such as Wyoming collected significantly less revenue, totaling approximately $1.5 billion in FY2023. The lower revenues in these states typically reflect smaller populations, narrow tax bases, or deliberate policy choices to limit state-level taxation.

The five states collecting the least total tax revenue in FY2023 were:

Several of these states rely on alternative revenue streams such as natural resource extraction (e.g., oil in Alaska and coal in Wyoming) or maintain minimal taxation frameworks, shifting fiscal responsibilities to local governments or user fees.

Total Tax Revenue by State

Below is a comprehensive summary of data on taxes collected and total state tax revenues for fiscal year 2023, ranked from highest to lowest:

Factors Influencing State Tax Revenue

Several key factors shape how much revenue a state collects:

• Population size: More populous states have larger tax bases.
• Income levels: Higher average incomes typically boost income and consumption tax revenues.
• Tax structure choices: States that forego income or sales taxes have distinct revenue profiles.
• Economic activity and industry composition: States heavily dependent on tourism, natural resources, or financial services see significant impacts on revenue from economic fluctuations, which can have a significant effect on state tax revenue.

Summary and Insights

California and New York continue to dominate state tax collections, driven by large populations, wealthy residents, and progressive income tax policies. Conversely, states like Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska maintain relatively low revenue streams, influenced by their smaller populations and limited tax policies. Understanding these dynamics is essential for evaluating state fiscal health, tax fairness, and economic competitiveness.

Per Capita State Tax Burden

Looking only at total tax revenue doesn’t fully reflect how taxation affects individual residents. A more telling metric is per capita state tax revenue, which measures how much each state collects in taxes per resident. This standardizes for population size and gives a clearer picture of how “tax heavy” a state feels for its average citizen. However, to truly understand the tax burden, it's important to consider the full picture of the tax system, including income, sales, and property taxes.

In fiscal year 2023, per capita collections ranged from $1,789 in Wyoming to over $6,100 in New York.

Why Per Capita Revenue Matters

Per capita tax revenue = Total tax revenue ÷ State population

While it doesn’t account for who pays how much (low vs. high income), it’s useful for:

• Comparing tax pressure across states
• Understanding fiscal capacity per resident
• Evaluating policy choices (e.g., no income tax = lower per capita revenue)
• Considering tax rates in a particular state, which is crucial for financial planning, especially for retirement

Highest Per Capita States

States with high per capita tax revenue usually:

• Rely heavily on progressive income taxes
• Fund statewide services (e.g., education, Medicaid) directly
• Capture significant non-resident revenue (from tourists or natural resources)

For example:

• New York topped the list in FY2023, collecting over $6,100 per person.
• California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts followed closely, all with more than $4,500 per resident.
• Hawaii’s high ranking reflects strong tourism taxes (via excise and hotel taxes).

The income brackets for state income tax rates often differ for single filers compared to those who are married filing jointly, which can significantly impact the tax implications based on filing status.

Lowest Per Capita States

States at the bottom often:

• Do not levy income taxes
• Shift public service funding to local governments
• Prioritize low-tax reputations to attract residents or businesses

Wyoming, despite strong severance taxes from oil and gas, remains the lowest on a per-resident basis. Florida and Texas also rank low because of their no-income-tax structures and large populations, highlighting how tax regulations can vary significantly within the same state.

Summary

• New York and California top the per capita tax rankings, reflecting both high personal incomes and expansive state services.
• Wyoming, Florida, and Texas, while high in total tax dollars, collect far less per person because of their population size and minimal income tax systems.
• Alaska’s high ranking reflects resource-based revenues, not income or sales taxes.

Tax Revenue by Category: How States Generate Revenue

While total and per capita revenue offer a high-level view of state tax systems, a deeper understanding requires knowing where that money comes from. States vary dramatically in how they raise funds—some rely mostly on personal income taxes, others lean heavily on sales taxes, and some depend on corporate taxes, resource royalties, or excise taxes on items like fuel, tobacco, and alcohol.

Additionally, it is crucial to examine other forms of taxation, such as property taxes, to gain a comprehensive understanding of the overall tax burden in a specific state.

Major Tax Categories

For clarity, we’ll break state revenue into five main categories:

1. Personal Income Tax: Tax on wages, salaries, capital gains, interest, dividends, and pensions, with different states having varying approaches to regular income tax (levied by 41 states)
2. General Sales Tax: Broad tax on goods and sometimes services at point of sale (levied by 45 states)
3. Corporate Income Tax: Tax on business profits, levied directly or through a gross receipts alternative
4. Selective Sales (Excise) Taxes: Targeted taxes on fuel, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and other specific products
5. Other Taxes: Includes natural resource extraction taxes (severance), license fees, estate/inheritance taxes, utility taxes, and property taxes in rare state-level cases

Income-Tax-Heavy States

States like California, New York, Oregon, and Massachusetts derive more than half of their revenue from personal income tax, including taxes on dividend income. This is typical in states with:

• Progressive tax brackets
• High-income populations
• Capital gains revenue volatility (e.g., during bull markets)

Oregon, for example, collects almost 70% of its state revenue from income tax—because it does not levy a general sales tax.

Top 5 states by reliance on personal income tax:

• Oregon (~70%)
• California (~52%)
• New York (~55%)
• Massachusetts (~50%)
• Maryland (~48%)

In these states, income taxes are the primary fiscal engine—but they’re also vulnerable to downturns in employment or investment income.

Sales-Tax-Heavy States

Nine states (AK, FL, NV, NH, SD, TN, TX, WA, WY) do not collect broad-based income taxes. Most of them rely heavily on general sales tax, which includes:

• Retail transactions
• Online purchases
• Some services (varies by state)

When filing a state return, individuals in these states typically focus on sales tax rather than income tax, simplifying the process.

Florida and Texas each derive over 50% of their state tax revenue from general sales taxes.

Top 5 states by reliance on general sales tax:

• Florida (~65%)
• Texas (~55%)
• South Dakota (~60%)
• Nevada (~50%)
• Washington (~47%)

While sales taxes are relatively stable and easy to administer, they are regressive—meaning lower-income households pay a higher share of their income in tax.

Corporate Income and Business Taxes

While every state taxes corporations in some form, corporate income taxes represent a small share of total revenue in most states—typically 5–10%. The actual tax burden can vary based on factors such as filing status, dependents, and eligibility for deductions and credits.

Exceptions include:

• New Hampshire, where the Business Profits Tax accounts for 35%+ of state tax revenue
• Alaska, where oil-related corporate taxes dominate in lieu of income/sales tax
• Delaware, where corporate license and franchise taxes make up a major share of state revenue

Some states (e.g., Texas, Washington, Ohio) use gross receipts taxes instead of traditional net income taxes.

Excise (Selective Sales) Taxes

These are targeted taxes on goods and services such as:

• Motor fuel
• Alcohol and tobacco
• Cannabis (where legal)
• Casino gambling and lottery
• Hotel occupancy and car rentals (especially in tourism-heavy states)

On average, excise taxes make up 10–20% of a state’s tax base, but in some states they exceed 30%. For example:

• Nevada relies heavily on gaming and hospitality taxes
• Rhode Island and West Virginia rely on lottery and tobacco taxes
• Pennsylvania has one of the nation’s highest fuel taxes

These taxes are easier to increase politically (targeted, not broad-based) but tend to decline over time in real value due to inflation and reduced consumption. Additionally, property tax rates can significantly impact property values, as higher rates often fund well-maintained public services that enhance the quality of life.

Natural Resource Taxes and Other Sources

States with significant oil, gas, coal, or mineral production collect severance taxes, which are administered by state and local governments. These are counted under “Other” and can form a majority of tax revenue in:

• Alaska (oil royalties + corporate)
• North Dakota (oil and gas)
• Wyoming (coal and natural gas)
• New Mexico (oil and gas)

Other notable “other” taxes include:

• Franchise/license fees in Delaware
• State property taxes in Vermont and New Hampshire
• Business occupation taxes in Washington

While often state-specific, these taxes can significantly affect total collections without affecting residents directly.

Revenue Composition by State (FY2023)

Here is a complete table showing each state’s estimated revenue composition by tax category. It is important to consider tax rates in a particular state, especially when planning for financial aspects like retirement.

Key Patterns

• States without income taxes compensate with sales and “other” taxes (e.g., Texas, Florida, Washington)
• Resource-heavy states depend on oil, gas, and minerals (e.g., Alaska, North Dakota, Wyoming)
• Tourism-focused states have high excise revenues (e.g., Nevada, Hawaii)
• Finance-focused states use corporate and franchise taxes (e.g., New York, Delaware)

The significant effect of these patterns on state tax systems is evident.

No two state tax systems are exactly alike.

Summary

State revenue systems are shaped by politics, geography, demographics, and industrial structure. It is crucial to consider the full picture of the tax system to understand the overall financial burden of living in different states. In FY2023, key trends included:

• Income-tax states collected more per capita, but faced more volatility
• Sales-tax states emphasized simplicity and stability—often at the expense of equity
• Severance-tax states saw high revenues from energy, but remained vulnerable to commodity cycles

State Tax Mix Diversity: Balanced vs. Dependent Revenue Models

After understanding how much each state collects and from which types of taxes, a key strategic question emerges:

How diversified is each state’s tax mix—and which states are over-reliant on a single revenue stream?

In this chapter, we’ll analyze tax mix diversity, identify states that spread their revenue across multiple sources, and flag those that depend heavily on one dominant tax type. Diversity in tax structure matters because it affects fiscal resilience, especially during economic downturns or industry shocks.

What Is Tax Mix Diversity?

Tax mix diversity refers to how evenly a state’s revenue is distributed across multiple tax sources: income, sales, corporate, excise, and other.

• High-diversity states have relatively balanced contributions from 3+ tax categories.→ Example: Virginia, Massachusetts, Wisconsin
• Low-diversity states depend on one major source.→ Example: Texas (sales), Oregon (income), Alaska (severance)

This diversity (or lack of it) influences a state’s ability to:

• Withstand economic volatility
• Maintain stable services without emergency tax hikes
• Adjust policy without large fiscal disruption

Highly Diversified States

These states spread revenue across income, sales, corporate, and other categories. While the mix may not be perfectly even, no single category dominates.

Top Examples:

Why it matters: These states are better equipped to navigate recessions, policy changes, or shifts in industry performance because they are not overly exposed to a single sector or tax base.

Single-Source Dependent States

Some states rely on one tax category for over 70% of their revenue, putting them at high risk when that source contracts.

Examples:

Why it matters: These states may be attractive for low taxes, but their fiscal foundations can be unstable. Economic downturns, industry declines, or consumer slowdowns hit revenue immediately—and hard.

Tax Mix Diversity Index

To quantify this concept, we can assign each state a Diversity Score based on how evenly revenue is distributed across categories (closer to 0 = one dominant source; closer to 1 = balanced):

Note: Scores based on entropy formula using percentage distribution of tax types.

Strategic Takeaways

• Diversified tax systems reduce revenue volatility and improve long-term budget planning
• Over-reliant states may need rainy-day funds, stronger automatic stabilizers, or structural reform to withstand shocks
• Policy changes (e.g., cutting income tax) can worsen balance and create future instability if not offset

Summary

Tax mix diversity is a critical but underexamined feature of state fiscal policy. In FY2023:

• States like Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Virginia operated with relatively resilient, balanced revenue models
• Others like Texas, Oregon, Alaska, and Nevada faced structural fragility due to single-source dominance

A diverse revenue structure is not just an accounting detail—it’s a strategic buffer against uncertainty.

Tax Burden by Income Level: Who Pays What in Each State?

While revenue totals and tax mix diversity reveal how states collect money, a critical question remains:

How fairly is that tax burden distributed across income levels?

In this chapter, we explore the progressivity or regressivity of state tax systems. That is:

• Do high-income households pay a greater share of their income in taxes?
• Or do lower- and middle-income residents shoulder the larger burden?

What Is Tax Burden by Income Level?

Tax burden is typically measured as a percentage of household income paid in state and local taxes, including:

• Income taxes
• Sales and excise taxes
• Property taxes
• Business pass-through taxes (for self-employed households)

Tax fairness is often judged by whether a system is:

• Progressive: higher earners pay a greater share of income
• Regressive: lower earners pay a greater share of income
• Flat: all income levels pay a similar proportion

Regressive Systems: Taxing the Poor More

Many states rely heavily on sales and excise taxes, which are inherently regressive. Lower-income households spend a larger share of their income on taxable goods (e.g., fuel, groceries, utilities), and thus pay a higher effective rate.

According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP):

• In Florida, the lowest 20% of earners pay 13.2% of income in state/local taxes, while the top 1% pays only 2.3%
• In Texas, the bottom 20% pays 13.0%, top 1% pays 3.1%
• Washington ranks as one of the most regressive: bottom 20% pays 17.8%, top 1% pays 3.0%

More Progressive (and Regressive) States

A handful of states have built more equitable tax structures, often by combining:

• Graduated income tax rates
• Earned income tax credits (EITCs)
• Property tax circuit breakers or rebates
• Less reliance on consumption taxes

The table below shows how state and local tax systems treat residents across the income spectrum—comparing the effective tax rate paid by the lowest 20% of earners and the top 1%, and classifying each system’s structure.

Tax Burden by Income Level (FY2023)

How Sales Taxes Skew the Burden

Sales and excise taxes are responsible for much of the regressivity in state tax systems. In a typical low-income household, sales taxes alone can represent:

• 7–8% of total income
• vs. 1–2% for a wealthy household

Excise taxes on fuel, cigarettes, alcohol, and lottery disproportionately hit poor and working-class residents. States with high sin taxes and no income tax tend to have the worst fairness outcomes.

National Patterns: Regressivity Is Common

ITEP’s analysis of all 50 states shows:

• 45 states have regressive or flat systems
• Only 5 states (CA, NJ, VT, MN, DC) are meaningfully progressive
• In many states, the bottom 20% pays 2x–6x the effective tax rate of the top 1%

Summary

The structure of a state’s tax system has a profound impact on inequality and opportunity. In FY2023:

• Most states had regressive tax systems that put disproportionate burden on the poor
• Sales and excise taxes were the leading cause
• Income tax policy—especially refundable credits and rate design—makes the largest difference in fairness

Property Taxes: The Hidden Driver of State and Local Tax Burden

While income and sales taxes often get the headlines, property taxes are the largest source of local revenue in the U.S., and one of the most significant tax burdens for homeowners and renters alike.

Property Taxes 101

Property taxes are levied on:

• Real estate: land and buildings
• Occasionally on personal property: business equipment, vehicles (in some states)

They’re typically based on:

• Assessed value of the property
• Local millage rate (per $1,000 of value)
• Collected by counties, municipalities, and school districts

While not technically a state tax, state governments:

• Set the rules for assessment and exemptions
• Often distribute aid to reduce local dependence
• In some cases (e.g., Vermont, New Hampshire), levy state-level property taxes for education funding

Who Pays the Most?

Effective property tax rates (tax as a % of home value) vary widely across the U.S.

The chart below shows effective property tax rates in all 50 states. While New Jersey, Illinois, and Connecticut have the highest rates, many Southern and Western states maintain relatively low property tax burdens.

Highest effective property tax states (2023):

Lowest effective property tax states:

Some low-rate states (like Hawaii and South Carolina) combine low millage rates with high home values or other revenue sources like tourism, while others simply underfund local services or rely more on state transfers.

Effective Property Tax Rates by State (2023)

Why Property Taxes Feel Unfair

Property taxes can feel especially regressive, even if they’re not structured that way intentionally.

Reasons include:

• No correlation with current income (a retiree on fixed income might pay taxes on a home they bought 40 years ago)
• Assessments that lag behind real estate cycles, leading to sudden spikes
• Unequal appeals access—higher-income homeowners more likely to challenge their assessments successfully

Additionally:

• Renters pay indirectly, since landlords pass on tax costs
• Gentrifying neighborhoods often see property tax spikes that displace long-time residents

Exemptions, Credits, and Circuit Breakers

Most states offer some form of relief:

• Homestead exemptions: reduce taxable value for primary residences
• Senior/disabled exemptions: shield vulnerable populations
• Property tax circuit breakers: cap taxes as a % of income
• Deferral programs: allow older or low-income homeowners to delay payment until sale or death

Best-in-class examples:

• Minnesota’s Property Tax Refund (PTR) is refundable and income-based, benefiting both homeowners and renters
• Vermont ties education taxes directly to household income
• New Jersey offers large credits for seniors, disabled residents, and veterans

Still, relief programs often exclude renters, have income caps that phase out assistance quickly, and require complex applications many don’t complete.

State-Level Property Taxes

Only a few states collect property taxes at the state level, usually for education:

• Vermont (education property tax, adjusted for income)
• New Hampshire (statewide school property tax)
• Michigan (partial state-level school property tax)
• Texas and others centralize rate-setting but rely on local collection

State involvement can improve equity across districts—but can also fuel political tension over control, redistribution, and “donor” vs. “receiver” communities.

Summary

Property taxes are:

• The largest tax most Americans actually pay
• Regressive in practice unless mitigated by exemptions and income-based credits
• A major driver of housing affordability, displacement, and regional inequality

In FY2023:

• States like New Jersey and Illinois imposed the highest effective rates
• States like Hawaii and Alabama had the lowest—but often at the cost of underfunded schools and services
• Reform efforts are growing, but vary significantly in design, funding, and political feasibility

Tax Systems, Housing, and Migration: How State Taxes Influence Where People Live

In recent years, headlines have been filled with stories of people leaving high-tax states for low-tax ones. But how real is the connection between tax systems and migration, and what role do housing costs and property taxes play?

In this chapter, we’ll examine:

• Whether tax levels affect where people move
• How housing affordability interacts with property and income tax burdens
• Which states are gaining or losing residents—and why

Migration Trends: What the Data Shows

IRS migration data and U.S. Census estimates confirm:

• Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona are among the top inbound states (net population gain)
• California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey are among the top outbound states (net population loss)

But migration decisions are multi-factorial:

• Housing affordability is often the #1 driver
• Climate, remote work flexibility, and job markets also play major roles
• Taxes matter, but only in certain contexts (e.g., retirees, high-income earners, small business owners)

States with No Income Tax: Who Benefits?

Nine states levy no broad-based personal income tax:

• Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming
• New Hampshire and Tennessee (on wage income only)

These states often market themselves as tax havens, especially to:

• High earners
• Retirees with investment income
• Business owners with pass-through income

Example: A New York City resident earning $1 million per year can save ~$100,000 by moving to Florida or Texas. For those considering moving abroad, here are the 12 easiest countries for Americans to move to in 2025.

But:

• These states may have higher property, sales, or insurance costs
• Low taxes don’t always mean low cost of living (e.g., housing prices in Austin and Miami surged after population influx)

Housing Costs vs. Property Taxes

Some states with low income taxes have high effective property taxes. Others reverse the balance:

In short: property tax rates don’t always correlate with housing costs. Instead, they often reflect:

• School funding structures
• State support for local services
• Political choices around taxation vs. public spending

Do High Taxes Drive Out High Earners?

According to IRS migration data:

• Some high earners do leave high-tax states (especially post-retirement)
• But most wealthy residents do not relocate for taxes alone
• Business and social ties, schools, lifestyle, and family tend to keep people rooted

Key findings:

• California has lost high earners to states like Nevada and Texas—but it still gains more high-income earners from other states than it loses
• Florida sees the highest net gain of wealthy transplants, especially from New York and New Jersey

States with the Fastest Population Growth (2023)

States like California (-0.3%), New York (-0.5%), and Illinois (-0.7%) posted net population declines.

Summary

• Taxes influence migration—but they’re rarely the only factor
• Housing cost, lifestyle, weather, and remote work flexibility have emerged as primary drivers
• States with low income taxes are attracting inbound migration, especially from higher-tax coastal states
• But those same states may face pressure from rising property taxes, infrastructure demand, and housing inflation

I’ll answer as a nationally recognized fiscal policy strategist, awarded by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities for contributions to sustainable state revenue frameworks and equitable tax modernization.

Tax Competitiveness vs. Equity: Can States Attract Growth Without Sacrificing Fairness?

State policymakers face a difficult balancing act:

How do you attract new residents and businesses—without giving up too much revenue or worsening inequality?

This chapter explores how states navigate the tension between:

• Tax competitiveness (lower rates, simpler codes, business incentives)
• Tax equity (progressivity, revenue adequacy, fairness by income level)

We’ll look at which states are experimenting with reforms, and which ones are paying the price for unsustainable cuts.

What Is Tax Competitiveness?

Tax competitiveness refers to how appealing a state’s tax code is to:

• Individuals (especially high earners and remote workers)
• Businesses (particularly mobile sectors like tech or finance)
• Retirees or pass-through entities (S-corps, LLCs)

Common features of “competitive” states:

• No personal income tax (e.g., Florida, Texas)
• Low corporate rates (e.g., North Carolina, Utah)
• No estate/inheritance tax
• Streamlined compliance (few brackets, no AMT, low audit risk)

But tax competitiveness is not just about rates—it’s also about:

• Stability and predictability
• Simplicity of rules
• What residents and businesses get in return

Race to the Bottom? Examples of Cuts and Consequences

Some states have aggressively cut taxes in pursuit of growth. Results have been mixed:

Lesson: Rate cuts without structural reform or offsetting revenue can hurt long-term fiscal sustainability.

Equity and Adequacy: Who’s Left Behind?

States that over-prioritize competitiveness often:

• Rely more on sales and excise taxes, which hit low-income households hardest
• Struggle to fund education, healthcare, and infrastructure
• Experience widening income and racial disparities

Examples:

• Washington: No income tax, highest tax burden on poorest residents (17.8%)
• Texas: High property and sales taxes, rising inequality and underfunded public schools
• Florida: Tourism-based system vulnerable to shocks, low per-student education spending

On the other hand, states like California and Minnesota maintain progressive tax systems while funding high-quality public services and retaining strong economies.

Smart Tax Reform: Balance Is Possible

Some states are pursuing balanced reform, aimed at modernizing their codes without creating regressive or volatile systems.

Examples of sustainable strategies:

• Utah: Broadened sales tax base (including some services) while maintaining a flat income tax
• Colorado: Using voter-approved adjustments to TABOR to fund education and healthcare
• Massachusetts: Adopted a millionaire’s surtax (2023) dedicated to transit and schools
• Vermont: Links school property tax to income, improving equity

Reform doesn’t have to mean cutting—it can mean cleaning up the base, closing loopholes, and improving how revenue is used.

Guiding Principles for Competitive, Equitable Tax Policy

1. Diversify the base: Relying on a single tax type is risky. Balance sales, income, corporate, and property sources.
2. Pair tax cuts with service investment: If taxes go down, ensure core functions (education, roads, healthcare) stay strong.
3. Target relief, not blanket exemptions: Use credits and rebates to help those who need it most, rather than cutting rates across the board.
4. Protect the future: Don’t trade long-term stability for short-term headline wins.

This report is based on data from the following authoritative sources:

• U.S. Census Bureau – State Government Finance and Tax Collections
• Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – Migration and Income Statistics
• Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) – State Personal Income and GDP
• Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
• Tax Foundation – State and Local Tax Data
• Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) – Who Pays?
• Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center
• Lincoln Institute of Land Policy – Property Tax Comparison Study
• National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)
• Pew Charitable Trusts – Fiscal 50 Project
• U.S. Department of the Treasury
• Federation of Tax Administrators – State Tax Agencies
• NCSL – Fiscal Offices and Staff Directory
• And additional state-level tax departments, legislative fiscal offices, and national policy institutes.