Which States Have the Most Progressive Income Taxes? September 24, 2014 Lyman Stone Lyman Stone Yesterday, we presented data showing that the United States’ tax code is among the most progressive in the OECD when we compare Federal-level taxes, and an average value for state taxes. However, state income tax structures within the United States have just as much variation, in terms of progressivity, as OECD nations' income tax structures. We find that, using the same measure for the states as was used for the OECD, New York and California have tax codes more progressive than any OECD nation, even France or Portugal. Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, 31 states have income taxes that would rank alongside the three least progressive income tax codes in the OECD. Five US states have income tax codes that are more progressive than the US federal tax code. Progressivity and Top Marginal Rates of State Income Taxes, 2014 State Rank Multiple of Average Earnings at which the Top State Income Tax Rate Applies Rank Difference Between Top Income Tax Rate and Marginal Rate on $25,000 of Taxable Income Top State Individual Income Tax Rate California 2 18.93 1 9.3% 13.3% New Jersey 4 9.49 2 7.2% 8.97% Vermont 5 9.42 3 5.4% 8.95% Hawaii 11 4.48 4 3.4% 11% District of Columbia 10 4.59 5 3.0% 8.95% Minnesota 13 3.43 6 2.8% 9.85% Iowa 17 1.74 7 2.5% 8.98% West Virginia 18 1.65 8 2.5% 6.5% New York 1 19.00 9 2.4% 8.82% Rhode Island 14 3.02 10 2.2% 5.99% Ohio 7 4.87 11 2.2% 5.392% North Dakota 3 9.79 12 2.0% 3.22% Louisiana 19 1.38 12 2.0% 6% Nebraska 22 0.88 14 1.8% 6.84% Connecticut 8 4.85 15 1.7% 6.7% Arizona 12 3.54 16 1.7% 4.54% Delaware 20 1.28 17 1.4% 6.6% Wisconsin 6 5.93 18 1.4% 7.65% Arkansas 21 0.98 19 1.0% 7% Maryland 9 4.83 20 1.0% 5.75% Oregon 15 2.77 21 0.9% 9.9% Kentucky 16 1.96 22 0.2% 6% Maine 23 0.75 23 0.0% 7.95% New Mexico 24 0.63 23 0.0% 4.9% South Carolina 25 0.63 23 0.0% 7% Montana 26 0.59 23 0.0% 6.9% Idaho 27 0.53 23 0.0% 7.4% Mississippi 28 0.51 23 0.0% 5% Kansas 29 0.49 23 0.0% 4.8% Virginia 30 0.42 23 0.0% 5.75% Missouri 31 0.41 23 0.0% 6% Oklahoma 32 0.39 23 0.0% 5.25% Georgia 33 0.31 23 0.0% 6% North Carolina 34 0.18 23 0.0% 5.8% Alabama 35 0.17 23 0.0% 5% Michigan 36 0.09 23 0.0% 4.25% Massachusetts 37 0.08 23 0.0% 5.2% Utah 38 0.07 23 0.0% 5% New Hampshire 39 0.05 23 0.0% 5% Illinois 40 0.04 23 0.0% 5% Tennessee 41 0.03 23 0.0% 6% Indiana 42 0.02 23 0.0% 3.4% Colorado 43 0.00 23 0.0% 4.63% Pennsylvania 43 0.00 23 0.0% 3.07% Alaska 50 No Income Tax 50 No Income Tax 0% Florida 50 No Income Tax 50 No Income Tax 0% Nevada 50 No Income Tax 50 No Income Tax 0% South Dakota 50 No Income Tax 50 No Income Tax 0% Texas 50 No Income Tax 50 No Income Tax 0% Washington 50 No Income Tax 50 No Income Tax 0% Wyoming 50 No Income Tax 50 No Income Tax 0% * Income reflects May 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics average earnings * Tax rate and bracket information taken from here. For a tax to be progressive, the average tax rate paid by an individual increases as their income increases. A flat tax, on the other hand, gives all taxpayers the same average tax rate regardless of income, while a regressive income tax would give taxpayers lower average tax rates as their incomes increase. There are many ways to measure tax progressivity, especially when comparing effective rates. There is debate about what income measure should be used as a base, which deductions should be included in the comparison, and many other factors. At the state level, even very progressive tax systems can appear otherwise because of interactions with federal tax policies that redefine taxable income for states or allow deductions of state taxes, while state policies that allow federal taxes to be deducted also have major effects. Furthermore, many states offer a variety of credits and deductions that alter tax burdens, making the tax code more or less progressive. Moreover, some states have a top rate that kicks in at a high threshold, but which isn’t very different from lower rates. Thus, a second way to measure tax progressivity is to measure the difference between top marginal tax rates, and some lower tax rate. The above table also shows the gap between the top marginal tax rate and the marginal tax rate on $25,000 of taxable income. As can be seen, the list is similar, but not identical. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have progressive rate structures that rise after $25,000. California, New Jersey, and Vermont have the most progressive rate structures by a wide margin. Policymakers may believe that more progressive rate structures will reduce inequality, however, there is relatively little evidence of this. In fact, states with more progressive tax codes have higher inequality, on average, than states with flat or no income taxes. Academic research by Raj Chetty and Emmanuel Saez (of Piketty and Saez fame) found that the progressivity of a state’s income tax had no significant correlation with upward mobility (though greater reliance on property taxes to fund local government apparently did increase economic mobility). Thus, policymakers may be adopting high tax rates that do real economic harm while doing little to encourage equality and upward mobility. Read more on inequality here. Read more on income taxes here. Follow Lyman on Twitter. Stay informed on the tax policies impacting you. Subscribe to get insights from our trusted experts delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe Share Tweet Share Email Topics Center for State Tax Policy Individual Income and Payroll Taxes Tags Millionaires and High Income Earners