Ranking Unemployment Insurance Taxes on the 2020 State Business Tax Climate Index

December 18, 2019

Today’s map is the final in our series examining each of the five major components of the 2020 State Business Tax Climate Index. Compared to individual, corporate, sales, and property taxes, unemployment insurance (UI) taxes are less widely understood, but they have important implications for a state’s business climate. A state’s performance on the UI tax component accounts for 9.5 percent of that state’s overall Index score.

Unemployment insurance is a joint federal-state social insurance program that finances benefits for recently unemployed workers through taxes on employers. State UI tax systems are often quite complex, using variable-rate structures that impose different rates depending on how well-established a business is, its layoff history, and the health of the state’s UI trust fund, among other factors. All 50 states and the District of Columbia levy UI taxes, but some states structure their systems better than others.

The least-damaging UI tax systems are those that adhere closely to the federal taxable wage base, have low minimum and maximum tax rates on each rate schedule, avoid levying surtaxes or creating benefit add-ons, and have straightforward experience formulas and charging methods. More harmful UI tax systems are those that have high minimum and maximum rates, wage bases that far exceed the federal level, complicated experience formulas and charging methods, and surtaxes or benefit add-ons that go beyond the core functions of the UI program.

On this year’s Index, the states with the best-scoring UI tax systems are Oklahoma, Florida, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arizona. The worst-structured UI tax systems are found in Massachusetts, Kentucky, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, and New Hampshire.

Best and worst unemployment insurance tax codes in the country. See full state unemployment insurance tax code rankings in 2019.

Explore Our Interactive Tool

There are several reasons UI taxes may impact employers’ location decisions. One simple reason is that some states have high statutory minimum and maximum tax rates that apply to large taxable wage bases, while others have low minimum and maximum rates and low taxable wage bases. For example, Arizona, California, Florida, and Tennessee align their taxable wage base with the federal base of $7,000 per employee, while other states extend the taxable wage base far beyond the federal minimum, such that the tax is applied on tens of thousands of dollars of each employee’s wages. (Currently, Washington is the state with the highest taxable wage base, at $49,800.) Rates can only be understood in tandem with wage bases. A 10 percent tax on a $7,000 wage base raises $700, while the same rate on a $49,800 wage base generates $4,980.

Another important consideration is a state’s experience rating formula, which varies from state to state. The concept behind experience ratings is that each employer’s UI tax liability should be adjusted by their own past experience with layoffs. Companies with frequent layoffs face greater liability than companies with steadier track records. But there are different ways that these ratings can be calculated, and different approaches for handling new businesses which have yet to develop a meaningful track record.

Some states lean more heavily on aggregate state “experience,” while others focus more specifically on individual businesses. Some use what is called a benefit ratio formula, based on the ratio of unemployment benefits to payroll. Others use a benefit wage ratio formula, or a reserve ratio formula, defined as the balance in the employer’s state unemployment insurance account divided by payroll.

One of the most harmful aspects of UI taxes is that financially troubled businesses, for which layoffs may be a matter of survival, are shifted into higher tax rate schedules when they can least afford to pay a higher tax bill. Failing businesses face ever-higher UI taxes, sending them into further decline. Similarly, surtaxes imposed when UI fund reserves are low mean higher tax liability right when businesses are struggling most. Well-designed UI tax systems emphasize greater stability and predictability.

To read more about how UI tax systems are evaluated in the Indexclick here.

For even more information about UI taxes, read our background paper, “Unemployment Insurance Taxes: Options for Program Design and Insolvent Trust Funds.”

To determine whether your state’s unemployment insurance tax has risen or fallen in the ranks in recent years, see the table below.

Unemployment Insurance Tax Component of the State Business Tax Climate Index (2017–2020)

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.

State 2017 Rank 2018 Rank 2019 Rank 2020 Rank Change from 2019 to 2020
Alabama 14 11 12 18 -6
Alaska 29 25 35 46 -11
Arizona 11 15 13 6 7
Arkansas 30 32 34 23 11
California 16 13 17 22 -5
Colorado 42 35 40 43 -3
Connecticut 21 19 23 21 2
Delaware 3 3 3 3 0
Florida 2 2 2 2 0
Georgia 35 38 38 39 -1
Hawaii 24 27 26 28 -2
Idaho 46 46 48 48 0
Illinois 38 42 42 40 2
Indiana 10 10 11 25 -14
Iowa 34 34 33 35 -2
Kansas 12 12 15 14 1
Kentucky 48 47 47 49 -2
Louisiana 9 4 4 4 0
Maine 44 44 24 32 -8
Maryland 26 24 28 33 -5
Massachusetts 49 49 50 50 0
Michigan 47 48 49 17 32
Minnesota 28 37 25 34 -9
Mississippi 5 5 5 5 0
Missouri 7 7 8 9 -1
Montana 19 20 21 20 1
Nebraska 8 9 9 11 -2
Nevada 43 45 45 47 -2
New Hampshire 41 43 44 45 -1
New Jersey 25 36 32 30 2
New Mexico 17 16 10 8 2
New York 32 30 31 38 -7
North Carolina 6 6 7 10 -3
North Dakota 15 14 14 13 1
Ohio 4 8 6 7 -1
Oklahoma 1 1 1 1 0
Oregon 33 31 37 36 1
Pennsylvania 45 50 46 42 4
Rhode Island 50 23 29 31 -2
South Carolina 37 29 27 26 1
South Dakota 40 39 39 44 -5
Tennessee 23 22 22 24 -2
Texas 13 26 18 12 6
Utah 22 21 16 15 1
Vermont 20 18 20 16 4
Virginia 39 41 43 41 2
Washington 18 17 19 19 0
West Virginia 27 28 30 29 1
Wisconsin 36 40 41 37 4
Wyoming 31 33 36 27 9
District of Columbia 27 30 33 35 -2

To learn more about how we determined these rankings, read our full methodology here.

Was this page helpful to you?

No

Thank You!

The Tax Foundation works hard to provide insightful tax policy analysis. Our work depends on support from members of the public like you. Would you consider contributing to our work?

Contribute to the Tax Foundation

Related Articles