Kansas‘s tax system ranks 25th overall on the 2025 State Tax Competitiveness Index. Kansas has a fairly standard tax code—with few features that make it either distinctly competitive or uncompetitive—and this is reflected in the state’s ranking near the middle of the pack. Kansas’ individual and corporate income taxes both have graduated-rate structures, with brackets, a standard deduction, and a personal exemption that are not indexed for inflation. Kansas’ top marginal individual and corporate income tax rates, as well as its combined state and average local sales tax rate, are all at or above the national median.
While Kansas exposes an outsized share of business income to its corporate income tax rate due to its throwback rule, the state does conform to the federal bonus depreciation allowance and federal net operating loss (NOL) provisions. Additionally, the Sunflower State maintains state and local sales tax base uniformity and uniform state-level administration of its state and local sales taxes. Additionally, most of Kansas’ excise tax rates are relatively competitive compared to those in many other states.
Kansas’ property tax split roll ratio is fairly high, with commercial properties bearing a higher share of the property tax burden compared to residential properties, but by forgoing a capital stock tax and estate or inheritance tax, Kansas outperforms many of its peers on this component.
Moving forward, Kansas could most improve its rankings by prioritizing reductions to the rates of its broad-based taxes—including its corporate income tax, individual income tax, and sales tax—and moving to single-rate individual and corporate income tax structures.
The State Tax Competitiveness Index enables policymakers, taxpayers, and business leaders to gauge how their states’ tax systems compare. While there are many ways to show how much state governments collect in taxes, the Index evaluates how well states structure their tax systems and provides a road map for improvement.
States that tax GILTI increase filing complexity, drive up the cost of tax compliance, and introduce unnecessary economic uncertainty and legal risk. 21 states and DC continue to tax GILTI despite these challenges.
Sports stadium subsidies are salient political gimmicks designed to appear as if politicians are providing tangible benefits to taxpayers. The empirical evidence shows repeatedly that stadium subsidies fail to generate new tax revenue and new jobs or attract new businesses.