What it costs to live in Washington
Price levels against the national average
Prices overall
8.56%
above average
Housing
25.51%
ranks 7 for shelter
A hundred dollars of shopping
$109
costs this here
Price rank
5
1 is the most expensive
What that actually means in Washington
- Washington is one of the more expensive places to buy things, ranking 5 nationally on price. Prices sit about 8.56% above the national average. The same hundred dollars of shopping costs $109. It does not sound like much written down, and then it applies to almost everything you buy, every week, for as long as you live there.
- Here is the part the headline number hides. Washington's overall cost of living is about 8.56% away from average, but housing on its own is about 25.51% away from it. Rent is not one expensive item among many here. Rent is the reason the state is expensive at all, and groceries and haircuts are far closer to ordinary than the overall figure suggests.
- Here is the same idea pointed at a wage. Take a salary of seventy-five thousand dollars. In Washington, at local prices, it buys what $69,085 would buy at national-average prices. Nothing has been taxed yet in that figure — it is only what the prices around you do to the money before the government touches it.
- Overall prices in Washington run about 8.56% above the national level, which places it 5 for cost of living nationally. A one-hundred-dollar national-average basket costs $109 in-state. The index covers goods, rents and services weighted to national consumption patterns, so it is a like-for-like price comparison rather than a measure of what residents actually choose to spend.
- Washington's all-items parity of about 8.56% above national conceals a housing component about 25.51% above it — a spread of about 16.95% between shelter and the overall index, and a housing rank of 7 nationally. BEA publishes rents as a separate component precisely because it behaves differently from goods, which move within a narrow national band. For anyone modeling a relocation, the practical consequence is that the all-items figure understates the cost of arriving and overstates the cost of everything after.
- Deflating a seventy-five thousand dollar nominal salary by Washington's all-items parity gives $69,085 in national-average purchasing power. ⚠️ This is a price adjustment only and contains no tax of any kind; state income tax, sales tax and local levies apply on top and are modeled elsewhere on this site. The comparison is also silent on wages themselves — high-parity states frequently pay more in nominal terms, and whether that offsets the price level is an empirical question this index cannot answer.
What the money buys here
A $75,000 salary
| Take-home, actual dollars | $61,593 |
|---|---|
| Price level, all itemsUS average = 100 | 108.562 |
| HousingUS average = 100 | 125.507 |
| Cheapest place to live | 47th of 51 |
Housing is where places differ most. Everything else moves far less than people expect.
Price parities are an index where the US average is 100 — a comparison between places, not a price.
The same pay, somewhere else
A $75,000 salary
| Take-home in Washington | $61,593 |
|---|---|
| Take-home in Texas | $61,593 |
| Once local prices are leveledBEA price parity | +$6,648 |
The raise and the real gain point in opposite directions here.
State income tax and state price levels only. No city income tax, and no housing market.
What is expensive here
A $75,000 salary
- Housing125.507
- Goods106.679
- Services106.116
| Housing | 125.507 |
|---|---|
| Goods | 106.679 |
| Services | 106.116 |
| All items | 108.562 |
An index where 100 is the national average. Housing moves far more than anything else.
Housing, against the country
A $75,000 salary
| Cheapest housing | MS · 55 |
|---|---|
| Dearest housing | DC · 169 |
| This state, cheapest first | 45th of 51 |
A BEA index where 100 is the national average, not a house price.
Where the ranking flips
A $75,000 salary
| Washington on take-home | 9th |
|---|---|
| Once prices are leveled | 42nd |
| Places moved | 33 |
Left is rank on take-home. Right is rank once local prices are leveled by BEA parities.
Washington against Texas
A $75,000 salary
| Measure | Washington | Texas |
|---|---|---|
| Take-home pay | $61,593 | $61,593 |
| Worth after local prices | $56,735 | $63,383 |
| Share of pay taxed | 17.88% | 17.88% |
| State sales tax | 6.5% | 6.25% |
| Groceries exempt here | Yes | Yes |
| Clothing exempt at $100 | No | No |
| Property tax rate | 0.81% | 1.49% |
| Price level | 108.6 | 97.2 |
| Housing prices | 125.5 | 97.4 |
| Fuel tax | 56.5¢ | 20¢ |
| Tobacco tax | $3.03 | $1.41 |
City income tax excluded. Sales-tax row: state-only. Exemptions: Washington, Statewide average; Texas, Harris County (Houston). Clothing: one $100 item; higher prices can change tax.
What you would need there
A $75,000 salary
| To match take-home only | $75,000 |
|---|---|
| You could take a cut of | −$9,098 |
| Prices in Texas | 97 vs 109 |
State taxes and state price levels only. No city tax, and no housing market.
Where the difference actually sits
Each line compares Washington with the national average for that kind of spending. The overall figure is the three above it, weighted the way a typical household spends — which is why housing can pull it a long way on its own.
| What you spend on | Against national average | Includes |
|---|---|---|
| Housing | 25.51% | Rent and owners’ equivalent rent |
| Goods | 6.68% | Groceries, fuel, clothing |
| Other services | 6.12% | Haircuts, repairs, childcare |
| All items | 8.56% | The three above, weighted |
What a salary is worth here
A salary of seventy-five thousand dollars, spent at Washington prices, buys what $69,085 would buy at national average prices. That is a price adjustment only. No tax of any kind has been taken off it, and tax is a separate bill on the same money.
What this page cannot tell you
- This is one number for the whole of Washington, and no state is one place. A big city and a rural county can sit far apart on every figure here.
- These prices were measured in 2023. Rents in particular can move a long way in a couple of years.
- And this is prices only. It says nothing about what Washington charges you in tax, which is a separate bill and is covered elsewhere on this site.
- These parities are state-level aggregates. BEA also publishes metropolitan-area parities, and within-state dispersion between a large metro and a rural area routinely exceeds the difference between two states — so a state figure should not be read as descriptive of any particular address in Washington.
- The underlying survey vintage is 2023, which is the most recent BEA publication rather than a current reading. Shelter parities are the component most exposed to drift between vintages, so recent local rent movements in Washington will not be reflected here.
- Price parity and tax burden are independent quantities and this page models only the first. A low-parity state with high income tax and a high-parity state with none can leave a household in the same real position; comparing Washington to another jurisdiction requires both figures, not either alone.
Questions people ask
Does a higher salary here actually leave me better off?
The two move together and have to be compared together. Every hundred dollars spent in Washington does the work of $109 nationally, so a raise that matches the gap leaves you where you started.
Is this number a percentage?
No — it is an index, with the national average fixed at one hundred. A state at one hundred and eight is eight index points above the average, not eight percent more expensive than any particular thing. Reading it as a percentage is the mistake that makes these figures sound more precise than they are.
Which part of living here is actually different?
Where you live, not what you buy. Goods prices barely move between states; housing swings enormously, and it is doing most of the work in this state's figure.
Is this one of the extremes?
Yes — 5 of 51, near one end of the range. The states at the ends are further from the middle than the middle states are from each other, so a comparison involving one of them will look more dramatic than a typical move would.
How should I compare a job offer here with one somewhere else?
Adjust the pay before you compare it, not after. A reference salary is worth $69,085 here once prices are taken into account — and the tax side moves separately, so a full comparison needs both adjustments rather than either one alone.
How does an above-average price level affect real income?
Washington's all-items regional price parity exceeds the national average, so nominal income overstates purchasing power. One hundred dollars of expenditure purchases $109 of national-average consumption. Real income comparisons across states require deflating by parity; nominal comparisons systematically favor high-price states.
How should a regional price parity be interpreted?
Regional price parities are index numbers with the national average normalized to one hundred. Differences are expressed in index points and are comparative rather than proportional to any specific price. They are estimated from a fixed national consumption basket, so they do not reflect state-specific spending patterns.
Which component drives this state's parity?
The housing parity dominates Washington's all-items figure, diverging from the national average by more than twice the goods component. Tradeable goods arbitrage across state lines and therefore cluster near parity; housing is non-tradeable, so its parity spans a far wider range and drives most interstate variation in the headline index.
Where does this state sit in the national ordering?
This state ranks 5 of 51, within the tails of the distribution. Parity dispersion is greater at the extremes than around the median, so comparisons anchored on a tail state overstate typical interstate differences.
How should nominal offers be adjusted across states?
Nominal offers should be deflated by the destination parity before comparison; the reference salary is equivalent to $69,085 in national-average terms here. ⚠️ Price adjustment and tax adjustment are independent and must both be applied — a state may be simultaneously cheap and heavily taxed, or the reverse.