Washington‘s tax system ranks 45th overall on the 2025 State Tax Competitiveness Index. Washington forgoes an individual income tax on wage income due to constitutional constraints, though the state recently imposed a tax on high earners’ capital gains income, a policy that raised constitutional questions but ultimately secured the assent of the state supreme court. The constitution has been similarly interpreted as blocking a corporate income tax, but Washington instead imposes a high multiple-rate gross receipts tax, called the Business & Occupation Tax. Because it is based on gross revenues rather than net income (profits), it yields very high rates of taxation on low-margin businesses and leads to tax pyramiding, where goods and services have the tax embedded several times over, imposed on each transaction within the production process.
The state’s sales tax, imposed atop the gross receipts tax, is not just a high rate but is also imposed on a base that includes an unusual share of business inputs, particularly in the digital products space. Washington also levies a progressive real estate transfer tax and the nation’s highest-rate estate tax. High UI taxes and an uncompetitive UI tax structure also contribute to the state’s poor Index ranking despite the state forgoing an individual income tax, which might otherwise be expected to yield a much more competitive tax environment.
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.