What States Dont Have State Tax Key Factors Explained

Revenue Mechanisms in States Without State Income Tax

Sales Tax as the Primary Revenue Source

1. Highest Sales Tax Rates:
   • Tennessee: 7.0% (state rate) + average local rate of 2.43% (total 9.43%)
   • Washington: 6.5% (state rate) + average local rate of 3.1% (total 9.6%)
   • Texas: 6.25% (state rate) + average local rate of 2.2% (total 8.45%)
   • Arizona: 5.6% (state rate) + average local rate of 1.9% (total 7.5%)
   • Georgia: 4.0% (state rate) + average local rate of 3.5% (total 7.5%)
2. Lowest Sales Tax Rates:
   • Oregon: 0% (state sales tax, but local option taxes apply in some counties, e.g., Portland at 0%)
   • New Hampshire: 0% (state sales tax, but local meals and rentals taxes exist in some municipalities)
   • Delaware: 0% (state sales tax, but gross receipts taxes apply to certain businesses)
   • Montana: 0% (state sales tax, but local option taxes in some cities, e.g., Billings at 3%)
   • Alaska: 0% (state sales tax, but local option taxes in some boroughs, e.g., Anchorage at 1.76%)

Alternative Revenue Streams: Fees, Licenses, and Excise Taxes

1. Motor Vehicle and Fuel Taxes:
   • Texas: Imposes a 6.25% sales tax on vehicle purchases and a 20¢ per gallon state gasoline tax (one of the lowest in the nation).
   • Florida: Collects a 6% sales tax on vehicle sales and a 24.5¢ per gallon gasoline tax, supplemented by annual vehicle registration fees.
   • Wyoming: Relies heavily on motor vehicle excise taxes, with rates exceeding 4% on vehicle sales and additional fees for titling and registration.
2. Utility and Energy Taxes:
   • Washington: Imposes a 3.5% gross receipts tax on electricity sales, a key revenue source for public utilities.
   • South Dakota: Applies a 4.5% tax on gross receipts from public utilities, including water and sewer services.
   • Nevada: Levies a 2.0% tax on gross proceeds of public utilities, with additional local taxes in some areas.
3. Licensing and Occupational Fees:
   • Texas: Generates billions annually from professional and occupational licenses, including high fees for healthcare providers and contractors.
   • Florida: Imposes substantial licensing fees for industries such as real estate, construction, and cosmetology, with some licenses costing over $1,000.
   • Wyoming: Charges premium fees for hunting and fishing licenses, a major revenue driver due to the state’s tourism-dependent economy.
4. Excise Taxes on Specific Goods:
   • Tennessee: Applies excise taxes on alcohol (75¢ per gallon for beer, $2.75 per gallon for spirits) and tobacco (60¢ per pack).
   • Washington: Collects excise taxes on tobacco ($3.51 per pack) and marijuana ($35 per ounce wholesale).
   • Alaska: Relies on excise taxes on fuel (20¢ per gallon) and alcohol, with proceeds often earmarked for specific programs.

Budget Allocation Priorities: Education, Healthcare, and Infrastructure

Texas’ Property Tax Dependency:
Texas derives approximately 40% of its education funding from local property taxes, the highest reliance among states. This system creates significant disparities in school funding between wealthy and poor districts, leading to ongoing debates over equity and state-level redistribution.

Florida’s Higher Education Funding:
Florida allocates 30% of its higher education budget through tuition and fees, supplemented by state appropriations. The absence of income tax forces the state to prioritize cost-sharing with students, resulting in some of the highest in-state tuition rates in the nation.

Wyoming’s Natural Resource Revenue:
Wyoming funds over 70% of its general budget through severance taxes on coal, oil, and gas extraction. These revenues support public schools, healthcare, and infrastructure, but volatility in commodity prices creates budgetary instability.

1. Education Funding:
   • Texas: Relies on a mix of property taxes, federal funds, and state allocations. The "Robin Hood" plan redistributes wealthier districts' tax revenues to poorer ones, though debates persist over its effectiveness.
   • Florida: Uses a combination of state funds (35%) and local property taxes (40%), with a growing emphasis on charter schools funded through state grants.
   • Washington: Allocates 50% of K-12 funding from sales tax revenues, supplemented by local levies approved by voters.
2. Healthcare Funding:
   • Tennessee: Funds Medicaid expansion through federal matching funds and a 1% gross receipts tax on hospitals, though coverage gaps remain due to budget constraints.
   • Nevada: Uses a mix of federal funds, sales tax revenues, and a 1.25% tax on gross proceeds of gaming (for Clark County) to support Medicaid and public hospitals.
   • Alaska: Relies on the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) and federal funds, with limited state-level healthcare taxation.
3. Infrastructure Investment:
   • Texas: Funds transportation through motor fuel taxes (20¢/gallon), vehicle registration fees, and federal grants. Toll roads and private-public partnerships (P3s) supplement state budgets.
   • Florida: Uses a combination of sales tax surcharges (e.g., 0.5% for transportation) and federal infrastructure grants, with a focus on coastal resilience projects.
   • South Dakota: Allocates 20% of its highway funding from motor vehicle exc
     

     

     Demographic and Economic Profiles of States Without State Income Tax

     States without a state income tax exhibit distinct demographic and economic characteristics shaped by fiscal policies, labor market dynamics, and migration trends. The absence of income taxation influences household disposable income, business incentives, and regional competitiveness, leading to variations in population growth, industry specialization, and economic resilience. Below, a comparative analysis reveals how these states differ from their taxed counterparts in key metrics, alongside an examination of migration patterns and their correlation with economic performance.
     

     Side-by-Side Comparison of Key Economic and Demographic Indicators

     The following table contrasts median household income, cost of living, unemployment rates, and dominant industries in states without income tax. Data sources include the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. Census Bureau (2022-2023), and Council for Community and Economic Research (C2ER).
     

     State	Median Household Income (2023, USD)	Cost of Living Index (vs. U.S. Avg. = 100)	Unemployment Rate (Latest, %)	Top Industries by Employment (Share of Total Jobs)
     Alaska	$85,000	112.5 (High due to housing/imports)	4.2%	Oil & gas (30%), government (20%), healthcare (15%)
     Florida	$66,500	101.8 (Varies by region; Miami 120+)	3.1%	Tourism/leisure (18%), healthcare (14%), construction (12%)
     Nevada	$70,000	105.3 (Las Vegas 115+)	3.8%	Hospitality (22%), construction (10%), retail (9%)
     South Dakota	$68,000	88.7 (Lowest among tax-free states)	2.5%	Agriculture (15%), finance/insurance (12%), healthcare (10%)
     Texas	$73,000	96.1 (Urban areas 110+)	3.5%	Energy (10%), tech/manufacturing (18%), healthcare (12%)
     Tennessee	$65,000	90.5 (Nashville 105+)	3.0%	Healthcare (14%), manufacturing (12%), logistics (10%)
     Washington	$95,000	118.2 (Seattle 130+)	3.7%	Tech (25%), aerospace (10%), healthcare (12%)
     Wyoming	$75,000	95.8 (Low urban cost)	2.8%	Energy/mining (20%), government (18%), tourism (10%)

     Key Observations:
     
   • Income Disparity: States like Washington and Alaska exhibit higher median incomes, driven by high-paying industries (tech, energy), while Tennessee and South Dakota reflect lower incomes tied to cost-of-living adjustments.
   • Cost of Living: Urban centers (e.g., Seattle, Miami) inflate local indices despite statewide averages being moderate. South Dakota’s low index aligns with its rural economic structure.
   • Unemployment: Texas and Florida maintain below-average unemployment, correlating with diverse, high-demand industries. Wyoming’s low rate reflects energy sector dominance.
   • Industry Clusters: Tech (Washington), energy (Alaska/Wyoming), and tourism (Nevada/Florida) dominate, illustrating specialization in tax-free states.

   Impact of Tax-Free Status on Migration Patterns

   The absence of state income tax serves as a primary catalyst for interstate migration, particularly among retirees, remote workers, and businesses. Descriptive statistics highlight shifts in population dynamics, with Florida and Texas emerging as top destinations for domestic migrants.

   Migration Trends and Growth Rates (2010–2023):
   

   • Florida: Recorded a 1,782 net domestic migration gain in 2022 (U.S. Census), the highest in the nation. Between 2020–2022, the state’s population grew by 1.7% annually, outpacing California’s 0.8% despite its higher income tax. Retirees (65+) accounted for 40% of net migration, drawn by tax savings and warm climate.
   • Texas: Added 848,300 residents in 2022, with 70% of migrants aged 25–54 (primarily for job opportunities). Cities like Austin and Dallas saw 3.5% annual growth, fueled by tech and energy sectors.
   • Nevada: Las Vegas’ population surged 2.1% annually post-2020, with 30% of new residents citing tax savings as a primary factor (University of Nevada Study, 2023). Remote workers from California contributed to a 15% increase in short-term rentals (AirDNA, 2023).

   Correlation with Household Income:
   

   • Disposable Income Effect: A household earning $100,000 annually in a tax-free state retains ~$10,000–$15,000 more than in a state with a 5% income tax (e.g., New York). This increment enables 20–30% higher savings rates in tax-free states (Federal Reserve, 2023).
   • Retirement Migration: States like Florida and South Dakota attract retirees with tax-free Social Security income and lower property taxes. 45% of Florida’s new residents in 2022 were retirees, per the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.

   Correlation Between Tax-Free Status and Economic Growth

   Empirical data suggests a positive but nuanced relationship between the absence of state income tax and economic growth, influenced by industry composition, infrastructure investment, and revenue substitution.

   GDP Growth and Fiscal Policy:
   

   • Nevada’s Outperformance: Between 2015–2023, Nevada’s real GDP grew at 3.2% annually, outpacing neighboring Arizona (2.8%) and California (2.5%). This aligns with tourism and construction booms, sectors less constrained by income tax revenue. Visualization Note: A bar graph would depict Nevada’s GDP growth as consistently 0.5–1.0% higher than states with income tax (e.g., Oregon, Colorado), despite lower per capita revenue.
   • Texas’ Energy-Led Expansion: Post-2020, Texas’ GDP expanded by 4.1% annually, driven by oil/gas (12% of GDP) and tech (15%). The state’s no-income-tax policy correlates with $50 billion in business relocations since 2010 (Texas Comptroller, 2023), including companies like Tesla (Austin) and Apple (Cisco expansion).
   • Washington’s Tech Exception: Despite high living costs, Washington’s GDP growth (3.5%) exceeds the U.S. average (2.5%), attributed to Microsoft, Amazon, and Boeing—companies prioritizing innovation over tax burdens. However, public service funding gaps (e.g., education

   Tax Incentives and Exemptions in States Without State Income Tax

   States without a personal income tax often compensate for lost revenue through targeted exemptions, deductions, and incentives that reduce the financial burden on residents and businesses. These mechanisms—ranging from retirement income exemptions to business-specific breaks—create competitive advantages, attracting individuals and enterprises seeking tax efficiency. While the absence of income tax simplifies filing, the strategic use of exemptions further enhances savings, particularly for high earners, retirees, and small businesses. Below is a structured breakdown of common incentives, their financial impact, and actionable steps for residents and businesses to maximize benefits.
   

   Retirement Income Exemptions

   Many tax-free states exempt all or a portion of retirement income, including Social Security benefits, pensions, and IRA distributions, to support older residents. These exemptions reduce taxable income at the federal level while aligning with state revenue goals. For example, Florida and Texas do not tax retirement income, while Washington exempts the first $24,400 of Social Security benefits for individuals filing jointly (as of 2023). The cumulative effect of these exemptions can translate to annual savings of $1,200–$5,000+ for retirees, depending on income brackets and state-specific rules.

   Key Exemptions by State:

   • Full Exemption (No Taxation):
     • Florida: All retirement income, including Social Security, pensions, and 401(k) withdrawals.
     • Texas: No state income tax applies to retirement income, though federal rules (e.g., Required Minimum Distributions) still govern taxation.
     • Washington: Exempts Social Security benefits entirely (no phase-out thresholds).
   • Partial Exemption (Threshold-Based):
     • Tennessee: Exempts Social Security benefits but taxes other retirement income (e.g., pensions) if adjusted gross income exceeds $13,000 (single filers) or $17,000 (joint filers).
     • New Hampshire: Exempts Social Security but taxes interest and dividend income from retirement accounts above $2,400 (single) or $4,800 (joint).
     • Alaska: Exempts retirement income but imposes a 1.4% gross income tax on earnings over $100,000 (phased in).
   • Conditional Exemptions (Local or Program-Specific):
     • Nevada: Exempts retirement income but allows counties to impose local taxes (e.g., Clark County taxes Social Security if income exceeds $50,000).
     • South Dakota: Exempts retirement income but taxes certain trust distributions (e.g., inherited IRAs) under federal rules.
   How Residents Can Maximize Savings:

   To optimize retirement income exemptions, residents should:
   1. Consult state-specific guidelines (e.g., Tennessee’s phase-out thresholds) to avoid unintended taxation of supplemental income.
   2. Structure withdrawals strategically—prioritize tax-free accounts (Roth IRAs) over taxable ones (traditional IRAs) to minimize federal adjustments.
   3. Leverage municipal bonds—some states (e.g., Texas) allow tax-free interest on certain municipal securities, further reducing taxable income.

   Business-Specific Tax Breaks

   States without income tax often implement alternative revenue models that include business-friendly incentives, such as reduced sales taxes, franchise tax exemptions, or property tax abatements. These measures aim to stimulate economic growth by lowering operational costs for small businesses and large corporations alike. For instance, Texas’ franchise tax—a gross receipts tax—provides exemptions for small businesses with revenue under $1.23 million (as of 2023), effectively waiving the tax for ~75% of Texas businesses. Similarly, Washington’s Business & Occupation (B&O) Tax offers lower rates for manufacturing and services, reducing effective tax burdens by 20–40% compared to income-tax states.

   Common Business Incentives by State:

   • Franchise and Gross Receipts Tax Exemptions:
     • Texas: Exempts businesses with $1.23 million or less in revenue from franchise taxes. Larger businesses pay a marginal rate (0.375–1%) on taxable capital.
     • Washington: Offers a 0.471% B&O Tax rate for retailing and services, compared to higher rates in income-tax states (e.g., California’s 8.84% corporate tax).
     • Nevada: No corporate income tax, but businesses pay a modest 1.165% gross proceeds tax on sales (lower than sales tax in many states).
   • Sales Tax Exemptions for Business Inputs:
     • Florida: Exempts manufacturing equipment, software, and certain services from sales tax, reducing capital expenditures by 5–10%.
     • South Dakota: Provides 100% sales tax exemption for machinery and equipment used in manufacturing or agriculture.
     • Alaska: No sales tax, but offers property tax exemptions for commercial real estate improvements (e.g., renovations).
   • Industry-Specific Incentives:

     State	Industry	Incentive	Estimated Annual Savings
     Texas	Film/Entertainment	25–35% rebate on qualified production expenses (via Texas Film Commission).	$500,000–$5M+ per project.
     Florida	Agriculture	Exemption from sales tax on fertilizer, seeds, and livestock feed.	$1,000–$50,000/year (varies by farm size).
     Washington	Technology	B&O Tax exemption for research and development (R&D) activities.	15–30% reduction in effective tax rate.
     Nevada	Gaming/Hospitality	No corporate income tax; gaming revenues taxed at 6.75% (vs. 9%+ in other states).	$500K–$10M+ annually for casinos.

   Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses to Leverage Exemptions:
   1. Identify Applicable Exemptions:
      Review state-specific programs (e.g., Texas Comptroller’s franchise tax guide) and industry-targeted incentives (e.g., Florida’s agricultural exemptions).
   2. Consult a Tax Professional:
      Engage a certified public accountant (CPA) familiar with the state’s tax code to ensure compliance and maximize eligible deductions (e.g., R&D credits in Washington).
   3. Structural Adjustments:
      • For Texas businesses: Ensure revenue stays below $1.23M to avoid franchise taxes.
      • For Washington businesses: Classify operations under the B&O Tax’s manufacturing rate (0.471%) instead of the retail rate (1.5%).
   4. Monitor Local Additions:
      Some states (e.g., Nevada) allow counties to impose taxes. Verify local ordinances (e.g., Clark County’s Social Security tax) to avoid surprises.
   5. Leverage Grants and Credits:
      Apply for state-specific grants (e.g
      

      

      Challenges and Criticisms of States Without State Income Tax

      States that eliminate personal income taxation often tout economic growth and business incentives, yet these policies generate significant trade-offs. Critics argue that the absence of income tax creates structural weaknesses in public funding, disproportionately burdening lower-income households and undermining long-term fiscal stability. Research indicates that while tax-free states may attract businesses and residents, they frequently face higher reliance on regressive taxes, underfunded public services, and infrastructure deficits. Public opinion varies sharply, with surveys revealing divergent satisfaction levels depending on demographic and regional factors. Policy failures in these states—such as Florida’s property insurance crisis—highlight systemic vulnerabilities tied to revenue mechanisms and regulatory oversight.
      

      Regressive Tax Burdens and Economic Disparities

      The elimination of income tax in states like Texas, Florida, and Washington shifts the tax burden onto consumption-based levies, which disproportionately affect low-income households. Sales taxes, for example, constitute a larger share of income for poorer residents compared to wealthier ones. According to the Tax Foundation, states without income taxes rely heavily on sales taxes (average 6.2% in 2023) and property taxes, both of which are less progressive than income taxes. This dynamic exacerbates economic inequality, as essential goods and services become more costly for those with limited financial flexibility.
      

      "A family earning $30,000 annually in Texas spends 9.3% of its income on state and local taxes, compared to 6.9% for a family earning $100,000." — Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), 2022

      Key regressive tax mechanisms in tax-free states include:
      • Sales Taxes: Texas has the highest combined state and local sales tax rate (8.25%), with additional local surcharges pushing rates above 8.25% in some cities. Essential items like groceries are exempt in some states (e.g., Florida) but taxed at full rates in others (e.g., Tennessee).
      • Property Taxes: Florida and Texas rank among the highest in property tax collections per capita, with median property tax rates of 0.87% and 1.80% of home value, respectively. These taxes impose a heavier burden on homeowners with lower property values.
      • Gasoline and Excise Taxes: States like Wyoming and South Dakota rely on fuel taxes (averaging $0.28–$0.30 per gallon) to fund transportation, disproportionately affecting rural and low-income drivers who depend on personal vehicles.

      Underfunded Public Services and Fiscal Trade-Offs

      The absence of income tax correlates with lower public investment in education, healthcare, and social services. States without income taxes consistently rank lower in metrics such as K-12 funding per pupil, higher education affordability, and healthcare access. For instance, Texas allocates $9,700 per student annually in K-12 education—below the national average of $13,500—while Florida’s public university system faces chronic underfunding, leading to rising tuition costs.
      

      "States without an income tax spend 23% less per capita on education than those with one." — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), 2021

      Key areas of underfunding include:
      • Education:

        State	Per-Pupil Spending (2022)	National Rank
        Texas	$9,700	37th
        Florida	$8,500	42nd
        Tennessee	$10,200	28th

        Funding gaps contribute to teacher shortages, outdated facilities, and achievement disparities, particularly in high-poverty districts.
      • Healthcare: States like Nevada and Wyoming have below-average Medicaid enrollment rates (38% and 40% of eligible populations, respectively) due to restrictive eligibility criteria and underfunded programs. Florida’s Medicaid program covers only 35% of eligible low-income adults, among the lowest in the nation.
      • Social Services: Food assistance programs in tax-free states often face stricter eligibility rules. For example, Texas’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) covers only 65% of eligible individuals, compared to 85% in states with income taxes.

      Infrastructure Deficits and Maintenance Challenges

      Infrastructure in tax-free states frequently suffers from deferred maintenance and insufficient funding, leading to visible gaps in road conditions, public transit, and utilities. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) grades Texas’s infrastructure at C- (2021), citing $100 billion in backlogged road repairs and underfunded water systems. Similarly, Florida’s infrastructure receives a D+, with aging bridges and stormwater systems struggling to mitigate flooding risks.
      

      "Texas has 11,000 miles of roads in poor condition, costing drivers an estimated $3.5 billion annually in vehicle repairs." — Texas Transportation Institute, 2023

      Critical infrastructure challenges include:
      • Road and Bridge Conditions:

        State	Poor Road Miles (2023)	ASCE Grade
        Texas	11,000	C-
        Florida	8,500	D+
        Washington	4,200	B-

        States like Texas rely on fuel taxes and vehicle fees, but these revenues are insufficient to address growing congestion and aging infrastructure.
      • Public Transit Gaps: Tax-free states invest far less in public transit than the national average. Florida’s transit ridership per capita is 30% below the U.S. median, while Texas’s urban transit systems (e.g., Dallas DART) face chronic underfunding, leading to service cuts.
      • Utility and Water Systems: Nevada’s water infrastructure receives a D grade from ASCE, with aging pipes and drought-induced shortages. Texas’s electric grid vulnerabilities were exposed during Winter Storm Uri (2021), revealing systemic underinvestment in grid resilience.

      Public Opinion and Policy Controversies

      Public satisfaction with tax-free policies varies significantly by demographic and region. Surveys indicate that residents in tax-free states report higher overall satisfaction with tax policies (65% approval, per Pew Research, 2022) compared to states with income taxes (55% approval). However, this satisfaction masks deep divisions:
      • Low-Income Households: Only 40% of low-income Floridians approve of their state’s tax structure, citing high sales and property taxes as burdensome (Florida Policy Institute, 2023).
      • Urban vs. Rural Divides: Texas urbanites (e.g., Austin, Houston) express greater dissatisfaction with infrastructure and education funding, while rural residents prioritize low taxes over public services.
      • Partisan Differences: Republicans in tax-free states overwhelmingly support the policy (80% approval), whereas Democrats show mixed views, with 50% approving and 30% opposing (Morning Consult, 2023).
      Policy failures in tax-free states have sparked controversies:
      • Florida’s Property Insurance Crisis: Post-Hurricane Ian (2022), Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance Corporation faced a $3.5 billion shortfall due to underfunded reserves and lax regulatory oversight. The state’s reliance on private insurers led to premium spikes (average 100% increase in 2023), displacing thousands of policyholders.
      • Texas’s Unfunded Liabilities: The state’s Teacher Retirement System (TRS) is underfunded by $100 billion, threatening pension benefits for educators. Critics argue that income tax elimination diverts revenue from long-term fiscal stability.
      • Wyoming’s Budget Volatility: The state’s heavy dependence

        The landscape of U.S. states without income tax reveals a paradox of fiscal innovation and structural trade-offs, where economic freedom intersects with public service sustainability. While these jurisdictions thrive as magnets for businesses and retirees, their reliance on regressive tax models—such as sales tax and user fees—exposes vulnerabilities, particularly for low-income households and underfunded sectors like education and infrastructure. Data underscores the correlation between tax-free status and population growth, with states like Florida and Nevada experiencing rapid demographic shifts, yet also grappling with crises like property insurance shortages or strained healthcare access. As policymakers weigh the merits of income tax elimination, the experiences of these states serve as a case study in balancing economic competitiveness with equitable resource distribution, demanding ongoing scrutiny to ensure long-term resilience.

        FAQ

        Which U.S. states have no state income tax at all?

        Nine states have no state income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. New Hampshire taxes only interest and dividend income, while the others tax none. These states rely on other revenue sources like sales or property taxes.

        Are there any states in America without state income tax?

        Yes, nine states have no state income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. New Hampshire taxes only interest and dividend income, but the others impose no income tax.

        Do any U.S. states not require residents to file state tax returns?

        Yes, nine states don’t require state income tax returns: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. New Hampshire requires returns only for interest/dividend income, while the others have no filing obligation for income tax.

        Which U.S. states don’t have a state income tax?

        The nine states with no income tax are Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire (taxes only interest/dividends), South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. These states fund services through other taxes or fees.

        Are there any states in the U.S. that don’t have property tax?

        No, all U.S. states impose some form of property tax, though rates and exemptions vary. Some states (like Texas) have low rates, while others (like New Jersey) have higher taxes. Only local governments are exempt in rare cases (e.g., federal property).

        Which U.S. states don’t charge sales tax?

        Five states have no statewide sales tax: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon. Some localities in these states may impose sales taxes, but the state itself does not.

        • economic-policy-analysis
        • fiscal sustainability
        • public service funding
        • state income tax exemptions
        • tax-free states

        Leave a Comment

        Name

        Comment

        Post Comment

        Comments are moderated before appearing. The data you submit is processed according to the Privacy Policy of Voltefac.