Property taxes are one of the most significant ongoing costs of owning real estate in the United States, yet they’re also one of the most misunderstood. Unlike federal income taxes, which follow a single national code, property taxes are entirely local. They’re set by counties, municipalities, school districts, and special taxing authorities, which means two properties of identical value sitting just miles apart in different jurisdictions can carry wildly different tax bills. Nationally, the effective property tax rate for owner-occupied homes sits at approximately 0.89% of market value, translating to a median annual bill of around $2,690. But that number barely tells the story. From Illinois homeowners paying nearly 1.8% of their home’s value every year to Hawaii owners paying just 0.31%, the range is extraordinary. Here’s how every state stacks up, along with the areas within each state that carry the heaviest and lightest tax burdens and the reasons behind those extremes.
Alabama:
Carries one of the nation’s lowest effective property tax rates at approximately 0.37%, making it a consistently affordable state for property ownership. Jefferson County, which includes Birmingham, sees the highest rates in the state at around 0.57% because it supports a large urban school system and county services for the state’s most populous metro area. Walker County, a rural county northwest of Birmingham, sits at the low end near 0.19% to 0.21%, a reflection of lower assessed property values and a smaller, less costly local government.
Alaska:
Averages around 0.90% statewide, though property taxation here is unusual because many rural boroughs simply don’t levy property taxes at all. The Anchorage Municipality carries the highest effective rates at roughly 1.22%, driven by the cost of running Alaska’s largest city with its extensive road networks, schools, and emergency services in a challenging northern climate. The most remote unorganized boroughs and communities like the Kusilvak Census Area have little to no formal property tax structure, keeping the burden negligible for residents who live largely off a traditional subsistence economy.
Arizona:
Averages about 0.43% effective tax rate. Pima County, home to Tucson, ranks among the higher end within the state at around 0.65%, largely because Tucson carries heavier urban infrastructure needs and a more developed school funding base than other parts of the state. Apache County in northeastern Arizona, much of which falls within Navajo Nation tribal lands, has the lowest effective tax rate in the entire country at approximately 0.16%, reflecting very low assessed home values and limited local government services.
Arkansas:
Sits at about 0.54% statewide. Pulaski County, encompassing Little Rock, has the state’s highest rates near 0.76%, driven by the capital city’s municipal services and school district expenses. Garland County, centered on Hot Springs, tends to stay near the lower end of the range at around 0.42%, partly due to a heavy reliance on tourism-related commercial taxes that offset some of the residential burden.
California:
Averages 0.69%, a figure heavily shaped by Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 law that caps annual assessment increases at 2% regardless of market appreciation. Yuba County and Kern County tend to show the highest effective rates within the state, around 0.92% to 0.95%, because their relatively modest home values mean assessed values stay closer to market value without the Prop 13 buffer insulating longtime owners. Marin County and Santa Barbara County hover near the low end around 0.63% to 0.65%, largely because homeowners there have often owned for decades and their assessments are frozen far below current market values.
Colorado:
Averages around 0.52%. Douglas County, southeast of Denver, and Adams County both sit at the higher end near 0.61% to 0.62%, reflecting the rapid population growth and demand for new schools, roads, and services in the Denver metro suburbs. Mesa County in western Colorado, centered on Grand Junction, stays near 0.40%, as the region’s slower growth rate means less pressure to fund expanding infrastructure.
Connecticut:
Averages 1.36% statewide. The Capitol Region, which includes Hartford, and the Naugatuck Valley see the highest effective rates, often exceeding 1.74%, because Connecticut’s older industrial cities rely heavily on property tax revenue to fund services for dense populations with complex needs and aging infrastructure. The Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region holds the state’s lowest rates near 1.23%, where lower property values and a more rural, slower-growth character reduce both the need for and the cost of local government services.
Delaware:
Averages about 0.51%. New Castle County, which includes Wilmington and the more urbanized northern part of the state, carries higher rates near 0.65% to 0.70% due to the cost of supporting the state’s largest city and its schools. Sussex County, Delaware’s southernmost county along the coast, has some of the lowest rates in the state near 0.30%, driven by higher beach property values and a historically conservative local government spending culture.
Florida:
Averages approximately 0.76%. Miami-Dade and Broward counties carry some of the state’s highest effective rates, hovering near 0.90% to 1.00%, largely because they fund large urban school districts, extensive transportation networks, and coastal resilience infrastructure for millions of residents. Liberty County in the rural Florida Panhandle consistently ranks among the lowest in the state, with rates well under 0.50%, reflecting sparse population, low property values, and minimal local government spending.
Georgia:
Averages about 0.77%. Fulton County, home to Atlanta, sees among the highest effective rates in the state near 1.00% or higher, driven by the demand for urban services, one of the nation’s larger school districts, and significant infrastructure investment across a sprawling metro. Echols County and other rural counties in deep South Georgia stay near 0.30% to 0.40%, where lower assessed values and minimal development keep tax obligations small.
Hawaii:
Carries the nation’s lowest effective tax rate at about 0.31% and is something of an anomaly. Despite this low rate, the median annual bill is around $2,069 because home values are extraordinarily high. Honolulu County, which covers the entire island of Oahu, has the highest rates in the state but still remains remarkably low in national context, largely because the state structure of government absorbs many costs that other states push to counties. Kauai County holds the lowest effective rate in the state at approximately 0.22%, where a combination of high luxury home values and limited development keeps assessed rates compressed.
Idaho:
Averages about 0.43%. Ada County, the Boise metro, has the state’s highest rates near 0.63% to 0.70% because it is the fastest-growing county in Idaho and must continually fund new schools, roads, and emergency services for a surging population. Rural counties like Owyhee and Camas carry rates below 0.30%, where vast open rangelands have low assessed values and county governments operate with minimal budgets.
Illinois:
Holds the dubious distinction of the highest effective property tax rate in the nation at approximately 1.79%. Lake County and McHenry County in Chicago’s outer suburbs exceed 2.00%, a product of the state’s unique system of hundreds of overlapping taxing districts, underfunded public pensions that push costs onto local levies, and some of the nation’s highest school district spending. Alexander County in far southern Illinois, one of the state’s most economically depressed rural areas, carries the lowest rates in the state, though even there the Illinois system means rates are higher than comparable rural areas in other states.
Indiana:
Averages about 0.76%. Lake County in the northwestern corner of the state, home to Gary and Hammond, has the highest rates in Indiana near 1.00% to 1.10%, driven by a legacy of heavy industrial-era public spending, underfunded infrastructure, and an urban tax base that has contracted as population declined. Crawford County and other rural counties in southern Indiana stay near 0.40% to 0.50%, where lower property values and modest government operations keep taxes down.
Iowa:
Averages about 1.25%, one of the higher midwestern states. Polk County, which includes Des Moines, carries the highest rates in Iowa near 1.50% or above, driven by urban school funding requirements and the costs of running the state’s largest metro area. Emmet County and other rural northwestern Iowa counties tend to stay near 0.80% to 0.90%, where agricultural land valuations and smaller local budgets reduce the overall burden.
Kansas:
Averages about 1.20%. Johnson County, the affluent Kansas City suburb, has among the highest effective rates in the state near 1.30% to 1.40%, largely because its highly rated school district draws significant investment and its property base supports a high level of local services. Stanton County and other sparsely populated western Kansas counties stay well below 1.00%, where vast agricultural stretches and minimal population make large government operations unnecessary.
Kentucky:
Averages about 0.72%. Jefferson County, which includes Louisville, carries the highest rates in the state near 0.90% to 1.00%, driven by the state’s largest city school system and urban service costs. Leslie County and Owsley County in the eastern Appalachian coalfields stay near 0.30% to 0.40%, where chronic economic depression has kept property values extremely low and local government operations lean.
Louisiana:
Averages about 0.56%, helped in part by homestead exemptions that reduce the taxable value of primary residences. East Baton Rouge Parish and Orleans Parish carry the highest rates in the state near 0.70% to 0.80%, funding city-parish government operations for Louisiana’s two most populous urban centers. St. Landry Parish in the Cajun Prairie region holds one of the lowest effective rates in the state near 0.26%, a combination of low property values and a historically low-cost rural government structure.
Maine:
Averages about 0.90%. Cumberland County, which includes Portland, carries the state’s highest rates near 1.10% to 1.20%, driven by the cost of Maine’s most dense urban area, its school district, and rising demand for services as the Portland metro grows rapidly. Aroostook County in northern Maine, the state’s largest county by area and one of its most rural, stays near 0.60% to 0.70%, where lower home values and sparse population keep local budgets and tax rates modest.
Maryland:
Averages about 0.90%. Prince George’s County, part of the Washington D.C. metro, carries the highest rates in Maryland near 1.10% to 1.20% because it funds a large school system, extensive county services, and infrastructure for a densely populated urban county. Garrett County in the rural western mountains carries the state’s lowest rates near 0.60%, where lower property values and a small, less expensive county government reduce the per-dollar burden.
Massachusetts:
Averages about 0.95%. Worcester County and parts of Essex County tend to show higher effective rates near 1.10% to 1.20%, reflecting the cost of older industrial communities that need significant public funding for services and school systems. Nantucket and Dukes counties, home to Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Island, show very low effective rates because property values there are extraordinarily high, meaning even a modest millage rate generates substantial revenue per home.
Michigan:
Averages about 1.13%. Wayne County, which includes Detroit, carries the highest effective rates in the state often exceeding 2.00% in the city itself. Detroit’s situation is unique: decades of population loss created a shrinking tax base that still must fund city services, resulting in very high rates on lower-valued homes. Leelanau County in the scenic northwest Lower Peninsula and several Upper Peninsula counties stay near 0.60% to 0.70%, where a mix of vacation homes, working forest land, and smaller local governments keeps costs down.
Minnesota:
Averages about 0.99%. Ramsey County, home to St. Paul, and Hennepin County, home to Minneapolis, carry the state’s highest rates near 1.10% to 1.30%, driven by the needs of the state’s two largest urban school districts and extensive municipal service demands. Lake of the Woods County and other remote northern Minnesota counties stay below 0.70%, where low population density, abundant public lands, and limited development reduce the cost of local government.
Mississippi:
Averages about 0.54%. Hinds County, the state capital Jackson’s county, carries the highest rates near 0.80% to 0.90%, funding a city that has faced significant fiscal pressure from population loss, aging infrastructure, and a shrinking tax base that still needs to support essential services. Alcorn County and other rural northeastern Mississippi counties stay near 0.30% to 0.40%, where agricultural land and modest residential values keep the tax base and the corresponding obligations small.
Missouri:
Averages about 0.85%. St. Louis County and Jackson County, home to the Kansas City metro, carry the state’s highest rates near 1.20% to 1.30%, driven by the cost of large urban school districts and county services. Ozark County and other rural counties in the Missouri Ozarks stay near 0.30% to 0.40%, where low property values and limited local government activity create minimal tax obligations.
Montana:
Averages about 0.59%. Yellowstone County, which includes Billings, and Cascade County, home to Great Falls, tend to carry the state’s higher rates near 0.80% to 0.90%, as these urban centers fund more developed school and municipal systems. Petroleum County and other sparsely populated Great Plains counties sit well below 0.50%, where ranching and agricultural land holds low assessed values and county government operates on a shoestring.
Nebraska:
Averages about 1.38%, making it one of the higher-tax midwestern states. Douglas County, home to Omaha, and Lancaster County, home to Lincoln, carry the highest rates in the state near 1.70% to 1.90%, driven by school funding demands in the state’s two largest metros. Grant County and other rural western Nebraska counties stay near 0.70% to 0.80%, where sparse population and agricultural land keep local budget needs and tax rates modest.
Nevada:
Averages about 0.50%. Clark County, home to Las Vegas, carries rates near 0.60% to 0.70% within the state, where rapid population growth requires ongoing infrastructure investment even as gaming and tourism tax revenues help offset some of the burden. Esmeralda County in rural central Nevada, one of the least populated counties in the United States, has some of the lowest rates in the state, where nearly no residential development means minimal local government costs.
New Hampshire:
Averages about 1.35%, one of the highest in New England. Hillsborough County, home to Manchester and Nashua, and Rockingham County carry the highest effective rates near 1.50% to 1.60%, driven by the absence of a state income or sales tax. New Hampshire funds nearly all local services through property taxes, so towns with less commercial property to spread the burden push residential rates higher. Carroll and Grafton counties tend to be somewhat lower within the state, where tourism-related commercial development and vacation home values help distribute the load more broadly.
New Jersey:
Holds the second-highest effective property tax rate in the nation at 1.68%. Salem County carries the single highest effective property tax rate of any county in the United States at approximately 2.32%, and Camden County follows at 2.20%. These Camden-area counties combine older, lower-valued housing stock with high local spending on schools and services, creating enormous effective rates. Cape May County at the southern shore carries the state’s lowest rates near 1.20% to 1.30%, where higher vacation and resort property values mean the same millage rate generates more revenue per home, reducing the pressure on rates.
New Mexico:
Averages about 0.61%. Bernalillo County, home to Albuquerque, carries the state’s highest rates near 0.80% to 0.90%, funding the state’s largest urban school district and municipal services. Guadalupe County and other rural eastern New Mexico counties stay near 0.30% to 0.40%, where low property values and minimal local government infrastructure result in low tax obligations.
New York:
Averages about 1.23%, but the variation within the state is extreme. Monroe County, home to Rochester, and Broome County, home to Binghamton, exceed 2.00%, driven by legacy school district costs, aging upstate cities with eroding tax bases, and high local government pension obligations. New York City itself has some of the lowest effective residential rates in the state near 0.60% to 0.70%, largely because Manhattan’s extraordinary property values compress the effective rate and assessment limitations for long-held residential properties cap exposure.
North Carolina:
Averages about 0.62%. Mecklenburg County, home to Charlotte, and Durham County carry the state’s highest rates near 0.80% to 0.90%, funding the cost of two rapidly growing metros with expanding school systems and infrastructure needs. Tyrrell County and other rural coastal plain counties stay near 0.30% to 0.40%, where low property values and small county budgets reduce the overall burden.
North Dakota:
Averages about 0.94%. Cass County, home to Fargo, carries the highest rates in the state near 1.10% to 1.20%, as the state’s largest and fastest-growing metro demands ongoing school and infrastructure investment. Slope County and other remote western ranching counties stay near 0.50% to 0.60%, where the population is so thin that local services require minimal expenditure.
Ohio:
Averages about 1.28%. Cuyahoga County, encompassing Cleveland, carries some of the highest rates in the state near 1.80% to 2.00%, a product of the state’s urban aid formula, underfunded school systems, and the challenge of maintaining services for a city that has lost significant population and tax base. Morgan County and other rural Appalachian southeastern Ohio counties stay near 0.70% to 0.80%, where low property values and modest local government operations reduce the burden.
Oklahoma:
Averages about 0.78%. Oklahoma County, home to Oklahoma City, and Tulsa County carry the state’s highest rates near 1.00% to 1.10%, funding urban school districts and metro services. Cimarron County in the far western Panhandle, one of the most remote and least populated counties in the country, stays near 0.30% to 0.40%, where the ranching economy keeps assessed values low.
Oregon:
Averages about 0.79%. Washington County, part of the Portland metro, and Multnomah County carry the state’s highest rates near 0.90% to 1.00%, driven by urban growth, school levies, and a series of voter-approved bonds for infrastructure. Harney County in the remote high desert of eastern Oregon stays near 0.40% to 0.50%, where vast open range and low population density keep local budgets minimal.
Pennsylvania:
Averages about 1.14%. Philadelphia County carries high effective rates, and Allegheny County, home to Pittsburgh, also sees elevated rates near 1.40% to 1.60%, driven by the cost of legacy school districts, substantial pension obligations in urban school systems, and the challenge of funding services in communities with declining industrial tax bases. Forest County in the rural north-central part of the state has some of the state’s lowest rates near 0.60% to 0.70%, where minimal development and very low population keep local costs small.
Rhode Island:
Averages about 1.00%. Providence County, covering the bulk of the state’s population, carries the highest rates near 1.30% to 1.50% in its urban core, driven by school and city service costs in older New England urban neighborhoods. Newport County carries lower effective rates than Providence, where the concentration of high-value historic properties and waterfront estates generates strong tax revenue without requiring high rates.
South Carolina:
Averages about 0.44%, one of the lowest in the nation. Richland County, home to Columbia, and Spartanburg County carry the state’s higher rates near 0.60% to 0.70%, driven by urban school systems and municipal service needs. The city of Mount Pleasant near Charleston carries an effective rate of approximately 0.25%, the lowest of any major city in the entire country, largely because the area’s rapidly appreciating home values and strong commercial tax base allow the local government to fund services at a low residential rate.
South Dakota:
Averages about 1.00%. Minnehaha County, home to Sioux Falls, carries the state’s highest rates near 1.20% to 1.40%, as the state’s economic and population center requires investment in schools and services. Buffalo County and other rural tribal reservation counties stay near 0.40% to 0.50%, where very low property values and limited local government infrastructure reduce the burden significantly.
Tennessee:
Averages about 0.46%, one of the most affordable states. Shelby County, home to Memphis, has the highest effective rates in the state near 0.80% to 0.90%, driven by the need to fund Memphis city schools and county services for a large, economically diverse population. Sevier County, home to the Smoky Mountains tourist corridor including Gatlinburg, carries rates near 0.29%, where an enormous base of tourist-related commercial properties and vacation rental income helps fund local government without placing heavy burdens on residential properties.
Texas:
Averages about 1.25%, which surprises many people given the state’s reputation as a low-tax destination. The explanation is that Texas has no state income tax, so it leans heavily on local property taxes to fund everything from schools to emergency services. Fort Bend County in the Houston suburbs and Tarrant County in the Dallas-Fort Worth area carry some of the state’s highest rates near 1.60% to 1.80%, driven by fast-growing school districts that rely almost entirely on property tax funding. Terrell County and other rural West Texas counties stay near 0.40% to 0.60%, where vast ranchland and minimal population keep local budgets and tax rates low.
Utah:
Averages about 0.45%. Salt Lake County carries the state’s highest rates near 0.55% to 0.65%, funding services for the state’s largest and most dense urban area. Daggett County and other rural counties in the rural south and east of the state stay near 0.30% to 0.35%, where the combination of public lands that can’t be taxed, low residential development, and small county governments keeps rates minimal.
Vermont:
Averages about 1.40%, the third-highest state nationally. Chittenden County, which includes Burlington, carries the state’s highest rates near 1.50% to 1.70%, driven by Vermont’s highly equalizing education funding formula and the cost of maintaining services in a dense, northern New England city. Essex County in the remote Northeast Kingdom stays near 1.00% to 1.10%, still relatively high by national standards but the lowest in Vermont, where declining population and low property values leave the state formula carrying more of the education cost burden.
Virginia:
Averages about 0.75%. Fairfax County in Northern Virginia, one of the wealthiest counties in the nation, carries some of the state’s highest effective rates near 0.90% to 1.00%, driven by the cost of one of the best-funded public school systems in the country and extensive county services supporting a dense, highly educated population. Highland County in the rural Appalachian western part of the state, one of the least populated counties east of the Mississippi, carries rates near 0.40% to 0.50%, where low property values and minimal development translate to very small county budgets.
Washington:
Averages about 0.74%. King County, encompassing Seattle, carries the state’s highest effective rates near 0.80% to 0.90%, driven by voter-approved levies for schools, transportation, and parks in one of the nation’s most actively growing metros. Lincoln County and other rural eastern Washington agricultural counties stay near 0.40% to 0.50%, where wheat farming land and small towns keep assessed values and local spending modest.
West Virginia:
Averages about 0.48%. Monongalia County, home to Morgantown and West Virginia University, carries the state’s highest rates near 0.65% to 0.75%, because a university town demands more services, infrastructure, and school investment than comparably sized communities. McDowell County, once the heart of the southern coalfields and now one of the most economically distressed counties in the United States, carries rates near 0.25% to 0.30%, where decades of population loss and collapsing property values have left virtually no tax base to speak of.
Wisconsin:
Averages about 1.19%. Milwaukee County carries the state’s highest effective rates often exceeding 2.00% in the city itself, driven by the cost of an urban school system, extensive city and county services, and significant pension obligations. Vilas County and other remote lake country and forest counties in northern Wisconsin stay near 0.70% to 0.80%, where seasonal vacation homes, undeveloped timberland, and sparse year-round populations keep local budgets and rates comparatively low.
Wyoming:
Averages about 0.58%. Teton County, home to Jackson Hole, has the state’s highest effective rates near 0.60% to 0.70%, though even there the rates are low by national standards. The reason rates aren’t even lower despite Wyoming’s status as a tax-friendly state is that Teton County’s extraordinary property values and resort economy generate high assessed values, and local government spending there is not inexpensive. Carbon County and other rural agricultural counties in central and southern Wyoming stay below 0.40%, where open rangeland, limited development, and a no-frills county government keep tax obligations minimal.
In Conclusion:
Understanding where your property sits within this national landscape matters more than most people realize. Property taxes are a direct operating cost for commercial real estate owners and investors, affecting net operating income, cap rates, and overall returns. They’re also one of the few costs that can be actively challenged through the formal assessment appeal process, which every state allows. Whether you’re evaluating a new acquisition, managing an existing portfolio, or simply trying to understand your current obligations, knowing how your county compares to state and national averages is the first step toward making informed decisions about your real estate tax exposure.
