Introduction

North Carolina is considering further tax reforms—including potentially eliminating its state income tax—to spur economic growth. This brief evaluates that idea using the Laffer Curve theory, which posits an optimal tax rate that maximizes revenue, and lessons from states with no income tax.

North Carolina’s tax laws have evolved significantly over time, shaped by both historical imperatives and economic modernization. As noted by Peters (2024), the state’s tax structure originated in the colonial era with property levies and expanded over time to include corporate, income, and sales taxes. Key reforms—from the introduction of the income tax in the 1920s to corporate rate cuts in the 2010s—have mirrored broader shifts in the state’s economic and political priorities.

Today, North Carolina faces renewed pressure to adjust its tax mix to remain competitive in a national landscape where states like Florida and Texas—both without income taxes—have experienced rapid growth. However, debate persists about how to balance pro-growth tax cuts with the need to fund core services like education and healthcare. Peters (2024) suggests that the Laffer Curve provides a useful framework for finding this balance: by setting rates at a revenue-maximizing level, the state could support both dynamic economic activity and critical public investments.

Executive Summary

  • Issue: North Carolina is considering further tax reforms—including potentially eliminating its state income tax—to spur economic growth. This brief evaluates that idea using the Laffer Curve theory, which posits an optimal tax rate that maximizes revenue, and lessons from states with no income tax.
  • Current Tax Structure: North Carolina has reduced its individual income tax from a graduated 7.75% top rate in 2013 to a flat 4.5% in 2024 (Peters, 2025), and to 4.25% in 2025 (Leslie, 2025a). The state also levies a 4.75% sales tax, with a combined average of approximately 7.0% including local add-ons (Tax Foundation, 2025a), has relatively low property taxes (around 0.6% effective rate) (Tax Foundation, 2025b), and is phasing out its 2.5% corporate income tax by 2030 (NC Chamber Foundation, 2024). These changes have improved North Carolina’s tax competitiveness ranking and have coincided with budget surpluses in recent fiscal years (NC Chamber Foundation, 2024; Tax Foundation, 2025b).
  • Comparative Insight: No-income-tax states such as Florida and Washington offer valuable case studies. Florida levies no personal income tax and relies on a 6% sales tax (approximately 7% with local additions) and a 5.5% corporate income tax (Tax Foundation, 2025c). Washington, meanwhile, forgoes income and corporate taxes (except for a recently adopted 7% capital gains tax), and instead uses a gross receipts tax on businesses and a 6.5% sales tax, averaging 9.4% with local additions (Tax Foundation, 2025c). Both states have experienced robust economic and population growth, suggesting tax structure may influence economic performance—though each substitutes income tax with other levies that bring distinct trade-offs (e.g., regressive sales taxes).
  • Laffer Curve Analysis: North Carolina’s income tax cuts align with the Laffer Curve notion that high tax rates can stifle economic activity, and that moderate rate cuts can sometimes increase both growth and revenue. Notably, North Carolina’s tax revenues have exceeded projections even as rates have declined (NC Chamber Foundation, 2024), and no-income-tax states have generally seen faster revenue and economic growth than high-tax states (Laffer, Moore, & Williams, 2012). However, the Laffer Curve also warns of diminishing returns: if tax rates drop too low, revenue losses can follow. Analysts caution that North Carolina could approach this tipping point in coming years, risking budget shortfalls by 2027 if tax cuts outpace economic growth (Leslie, 2025b; WRAL News, 2025).
  • Recommendations: North Carolina should continue a cautious, data-driven approach to tax reform. Gradual income tax reductions—such as the scheduled decrease to 3.99% by 2026—should proceed only if revenue “triggers” are met (WRAL News, 2025). The state should also consider broadening the sales tax base (e.g., taxing more services) to offset revenue losses, while protecting low-income households through tools like a refundable Earned Income Tax Credit or targeted sales tax rebates. Maintaining healthy reserve funds, employing fiscal modeling, and tracking long-term revenue trends will be essential to ensuring that reforms do not undermine investment in education, infrastructure, public health, and other public priorities. This balanced strategy aims to enhance North Carolina’s economic competitiveness without sacrificing fiscal responsibility or equity.

Policy Background: North Carolina’s Tax Landscape

North Carolina’s tax system has undergone significant changes in the past decade. The state implemented major tax reforms in 2013–2014, moving from a tiered income tax (with a 7.75% top rate) to a lower flat rate (North Carolina Department of Revenue, 2023; Peters, 2025). Today, the individual income tax stands at 4.25% (as of 2025) after a series of cuts—the eighth reduction since 2014 (Leslie, 2025a; WRAL News, 2025a). These cuts were designed to make the state more economically competitive and let residents keep more of their earnings. Proponents argue this strategy has worked: North Carolina has enjoyed strong economic growth and repeated budget surpluses in recent years (NC Chamber Foundation, 2024).

The Republican-controlled legislature continues to advocate for eventually eliminating the state income tax, citing pro-growth benefits, while Democratic leaders voice concerns about long-term revenue adequacy and fairness (Peters, 2025; Kuck, 2024).

In addition to income tax reductions, North Carolina has a state sales tax of 4.75%, with local governments adding up to 2.75%. The average combined sales tax rate is about 7.0% (Tax Foundation, 2025a), roughly in line with the U.S. average of 7.12% (Peters, 2025). Sales taxes have become a more prominent revenue source as income tax receipts comprise a somewhat smaller share of the budget than in the past. The state corporate income tax, which was 6.9% in 2013, has been cut to 2.5% and is on track to phase out completely by 2030 (NC Chamber Foundation, 2024). This will make North Carolina one of only a few states with no tax on corporate profits—a policy intended to attract businesses.

Finally, property taxes in North Carolina are levied by counties and cities, not the state. North Carolina’s property tax burden is comparatively moderate—about 0.63% of home value on average for owner-occupied homes (Tax Foundation, 2025b)—lower than Florida’s (0.71%) and Washington’s (0.76%) effective rates (Tax Foundation, 2025a, 2025c). Local property tax collections fund schools and local services; there is no state-level property tax.

Budget Impact: The shift toward lower income and corporate taxes has not led to immediate fiscal stress for the state government—in fact, North Carolina has seen revenue surpluses even as rates dropped (NC Chamber Foundation, 2024). For example, FY2024–25 revenues are projected at $33.36 billion, exceeding the $30.9 billion budget, leaving a surplus of approximately $2.5 billion (NC Chamber Foundation, 2024). Conservative fiscal management (e.g., restrained spending growth and the use of revenue triggers) has helped balance the tax cuts.

Nevertheless, there is active debate about sustainability. Critics point out that the state is growing and has unmet needs; about 25% of state government jobs are unfilled, partly due to uncompetitive salaries, and most counties have raised local taxes to fund services like teacher pay (Leslie, 2025b). The legislature’s Fiscal Research Division projects that by 2027, the cumulative effect of tax cuts could produce a structural budget deficit if economic growth doesn’t keep up (Leslie, 2025a; WRAL News, 2025b).

In short, North Carolina’s tax trajectory has improved its business climate and kept its coffers healthy so far, but the margin for error is narrowing. This context sets the stage for examining how further tax changes—especially moving toward zero income tax—might play out.

An anecdote from the Carolina Journal illustrates the competing visions in this debate. In a February 2025 column, a North Carolina analyst described a visit to Seattle, Washington—a state with no income tax—and noted widespread support there for the policy as a driver of innovation and prosperity (Peters, 2025). Washington’s booming tech industry (Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, etc.) and $300+ billion economy thrive despite, or in locals’ view because of, the absence of an income tax. This commentary highlighted that even in a high-service, politically liberal state like Washington (where Democrats dominate), the no-income-tax model is accepted as pro-growth and is offset by other taxes (Peters, 2025).

The Peters contrasted this with North Carolina, where proposals to eliminate the income tax face ideological resistance—Republican lawmakers champion the idea of tax freedom and economic stimulus, while Democrats worry about losing funding for education, health care, and infrastructure (Kuck, 2024; Peters, 2025). Thus, North Carolina’s discussion of tax reform is not just about economics, but also values: the role of government and the trade-offs between growth and equity.

Comparative Tax Structures: North Carolina vs. Florida and Washington

To gauge the potential impact of eliminating North Carolina’s income tax, it is instructive to compare how Florida and Washington—two large states with no state income tax—structure their tax systems and economies. These states demonstrate both the advantages and the trade-offs of the no-income-tax approach, offering lessons for North Carolina.

Florida

Florida is often cited as a low-tax, high-growth state. It levies no personal income tax (prohibited by its state constitution). To fund services, Florida relies on a 6.0% state sales tax, with local option taxes bringing the average to about 7.0%, and a 5.5% corporate income tax on C-corporations (Tax Foundation, 2025c). Florida also benefits from various tourism-driven taxes (on hotels, rental cars, etc.) that help it “export” some of its tax burden to non-residents.

Property taxes in Florida are moderate, averaging about 0.71% of home value, slightly higher than North Carolina’s rate (Tax Foundation, 2025c). Overall, Florida’s state-local tax collections amount to approximately $4,339 per capita, lower than the national average, reflecting its lean tax structure (Tax Foundation, 2025c). Florida has also seen rapid population and job growth; from 2010 to 2020, its population grew by approximately 14.6%, driven by both retirees and working-age families (Laffer, Moore, & Williams, 2012). Florida ranked 4th in the Tax Foundation’s 2025 State Business Tax Climate Index (Tax Foundation, 2025a). While Florida’s model shows that a state can thrive without income tax, it benefits from unique factors—notably, a retiree base with non-wage income and a tourism-heavy economy—that may not be replicable in North Carolina.

Washington

Washington also forgoes a personal income tax and has no corporate income tax. Instead, it raises revenue through a Business & Occupation (B&O) tax, a gross receipts tax on business turnover, and a relatively high sales tax—6.5% at the state level, with a combined average of 9.38% when including local taxes (Peters, 2025). In 2021, Washington enacted a 7% capital gains tax on investment income over $250,000—technically not an income tax by state law, but functionally similar.

The property tax burden in Washington averages 0.76% of home value, higher than North Carolina’s, and the state also imposes an estate tax on large inheritances (Tax Foundation, 2025c). Washington collects approximately $6,644 per capita in state and local taxes—far more than North Carolina’s $4,859, indicating a more robust level of public services despite the absence of an income tax (Tax Foundation, 2025c).

Economically, Washington is highly successful, powered by a tech-driven economy with firms like Amazon, Microsoft, and Boeing. About 25% of its GDP comes from the tech sector, and it was one of the top five states in GDP growth during the 2010s (Peters, 2025). However, the state’s tax structure is frequently criticized as regressive: its reliance on sales and gross receipts taxes places a higher burden on low- and middle-income households (McHugh, 2024). Studies by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the NC Justice Center consistently rank Washington among the most regressive tax systems in the U.S. (McHugh, 2024). Even Washington’s Democratic policymakers generally accept the no-income-tax model (due to constitutional restrictions), though they continue to seek reforms to reduce the regressivity of the system.

North Carolina

North Carolina currently maintains a balanced tax mix, including a flat income tax (4.25% in 2025), a moderate sales tax (~7% combined), and local property taxes, alongside a corporate income tax being phased out by 2030 (NC Chamber Foundation, 2024). This diversified structure provides stability, allowing for adjustments between growth and equity objectives. In recent years, North Carolina has moved closer to the Florida/Washington model by lowering income and corporate taxes, placing more reliance on consumption-based revenue (Tax Foundation, 2025b). Its income tax rate is lower than any neighboring state except Tennessee, which taxes only investment income (Laffer, Moore, & Williams, 2012).

North Carolina’s economy has surged—ranking near the top in GDP and population growth among U.S. states in recent years—suggesting that tax cuts did not hinder, and may have helped, performance. However, unlike Florida or Washington, North Carolina does not have an obvious substitute revenue stream (e.g., tourism taxes or gross receipts tax) if income tax were to be fully eliminated. Without such a mechanism, North Carolina would likely need to broaden its sales tax base, slow spending, or adopt new taxes to maintain long-run fiscal sustainability.

 

According to Laffer Associates, during the 2001–2010 period, nine states without a personal income tax averaged 81.5% growth in tax revenue, compared to 44.9% in the nine highest-tax states (Laffer, Moore, & Williams, 2012). These no-income-tax states also outperformed in population growth, gross state product (GSP), and employment.

This data supports the Laffer Curve theory that lower marginal tax rates—particularly from high starting points—can stimulate economic activity and ultimately broaden the tax base. Still, the application of these findings must be state-specific: North Carolina must evaluate whether further cuts will move it toward or beyond the revenue-maximizing point on the curve.

The Florida and Washington cases, along with aggregate findings like Table 1, yield important lessons:

  1. States can flourish without an income tax, but they must offset it with other taxes or spending restraint.
  2. High growth and migration often follow low-tax environments—North Carolina, Texas, and Florida have led in net migration gains in recent years (Laffer, Moore, & Williams, 2012).
  3. Tax system regressivity increases when shifting to consumption taxes unless mitigated by credits or rebates (McHugh, 2024).
  4. Tax policy is ideological and contextual—Washington's no-income-tax model is bipartisan, while in North Carolina it remains partisan and contested (Peters, 2025).

The Laffer Curve: Theory and Application to State Tax Policy

At the heart of the discussion on cutting taxes is the concept of the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve describes a theoretical relationship between tax rates and tax revenues, famously illustrated as a bell-shaped curve (Hayes, 2024; Laffer, Moore, & Williams, 2012). At a 0% tax rate, the government collects no revenue. At 100%, it also collects near-zero revenue because individuals and businesses would have no incentive to earn taxable income. Therefore, somewhere between 0% and 100% lies an optimal tax rate (t⁎) that maximizes revenue. If a government’s current tax rate exceeds this optimum, cutting taxes can actually increase total revenue by spurring economic activity; if it's below the optimum, increasing rates may still yield more revenue—up to a point (Hayes, 2024).

This idea gained traction in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly under President Ronald Reagan, as a rationale for cutting then-high marginal tax rates (e.g., the federal top rate was 70% in 1980). In state-level policy, the Laffer Curve is often cited to argue that high tax rates drive away businesses and residents, shrinking the tax base (Laffer et al., 2012). Because people and capital are more mobile across states than countries, the revenue-maximizing tax rate may be lower for states than for nations.

Economist Arthur Laffer and others have observed that no-income-tax states have consistently outperformed high-tax states in job creation, GDP growth, and tax revenue gains. Over multiple decades, states with no income tax saw stronger revenue growth and higher economic output than their high-tax counterparts—supporting the claim that many high-tax states were on the “wrong side” of the Laffer Curve (Laffer et al., 2012).

North Carolina provides a practical case study. Starting in 2013, the state began a series of income tax reforms—cutting its top rate from 7.75% to a flat 4.25% by 2025—while broadening the base and reducing corporate taxes (NC Chamber Foundation, 2024). Since then, the state has experienced robust economic growth, and annual tax revenues have exceeded forecasts, a pattern consistent with positive feedback effects (NC Chamber Foundation, 2024). These trends suggest that North Carolina’s tax rates were originally on the right-hand side of the curve, where rate reductions could boost both economic activity and tax receipts.

However, the Laffer Curve is not a guarantee that every tax cut will pay for itself. The outcome depends on where a state is positioned relative to its revenue-maximizing rate. Cutting taxes when a state is already on the left-hand side of the curve (i.e., rates are too low) will reduce revenue without sufficient growth to offset it. Identifying that tipping point is difficult and depends on many contextual variables, including economic structure, demographic trends, and external shocks (Hayes, 2024).

Critics caution that the Laffer Curve is often oversimplified in political debates. For instance, economic outcomes are influenced by factors beyond tax rates, such as infrastructure, workforce quality, and regulation. Still, in North Carolina’s case, the starting tax rates (7.75% income, 6.9% corporate) were high relative to regional competitors, providing justification for downward adjustment (Laffer et al., 2012).

Importantly, North Carolina’s tax reform strategy contrasted sharply with Kansas, which also implemented tax cuts around the same time but did so more aggressively—without revenue triggers or spending offsets. Kansas faced severe budget deficits and ultimately reversed many of its tax reforms. In contrast, North Carolina cut gradually, paired cuts with base broadening, and maintained fiscal discipline (Tax Foundation, 2021). As the Tax Foundation observed, “Unlike Kansas, North Carolina has had three consecutive years of budget surpluses” (Tax Foundation, 2021), underscoring the importance of incrementalism.

Looking forward, North Carolina plans to reduce its income tax to 3.99% in 2026, with a potential drop to 2.49% if revenue targets are met (Walczak, 2023). A rate in the 3–4% range is already low by national standards, and state budget experts estimate that the latest 0.25-point reduction (from 4.5% to 4.25%) will reduce annual revenue by ~$1.25 billion (Leslie, 2025). So far, this has been offset by strong growth and surpluses—but that balance may not persist indefinitely, especially if an economic downturn occurs.

To safeguard fiscal health, North Carolina employs revenue triggers: scheduled tax cuts only take effect if revenues grow sufficiently. This strategy attempts to empirically “find the Laffer peak” through incremental adjustments (WRAL News, 2025). Brooke Medina of the John Locke Foundation has argued that this cautious approach allows the state to “weather new tax cuts and actually flourish” (Leslie, 2025). However, Democratic economists such as Wesley Harris warn that the triggers may not account for inflation and rising needs, meaning that even when the targets are met, the state’s spending power could erode (Leslie, 2025).

Ultimately, the Laffer Curve is not a policy prescription but a framework—a reminder that the relationship between taxes and revenues is nonlinear. Neither “all tax cuts pay for themselves” nor “more taxes always raise more money” is universally true. The optimal strategy lies in continuous assessment: policymakers must monitor growth, migration, employment, and public service levels to ensure that tax reforms remain beneficial.

In summary, the Laffer Curve suggests that North Carolina’s past tax reductions were justified and possibly even self-financing to a degree. But future cuts—especially below 4%—should be approached cautiously, with safeguards in place. The experience of Florida and Washington demonstrates that a state can operate without income taxes, but must then rely more heavily on consumption taxes or reduce spending. North Carolina’s challenge will be to determine how far along the Laffer Curve it can safely go while still delivering the public services that support its long-term competitiveness and quality of life.

Policy Recommendations

Based on the above analysis grounded in the Laffer Curve and comparative state experiences, North Carolina should pursue a tax reform strategy that fosters growth while safeguarding fiscal stability and fairness. The following specific recommendations aim to adjust tax rates and structures in a balanced way:

A. Continue Gradual Income Tax Reductions with Safeguards: North Carolina should continue to lower the personal income tax rate incrementally, but only as economic and revenue conditions allow. The current law schedules the rate to drop to 3.99% by 2026; any further cuts (e.g., to 3% or 0%) should be contingent on revenue “triggers” and the maintenance of healthy reserves (WRAL News, 2025a). This incrementalism has proven effective, helping North Carolina avoid the fiscal crisis Kansas experienced when it cut taxes too aggressively without safeguards (Johnson, 2014). Each scheduled cut should be preceded by a review of state fiscal health; if growth slows or a recession looms, cuts should be paused. The trigger mechanism already in place must remain a core policy tool as North Carolina considers lower-tax pathways.

B. Broaden the Sales Tax Base (Tax Base Reform): To offset revenue losses from income tax cuts and keep the tax system balanced, North Carolina should broaden its sales tax base by reducing exemptions and including more services—as long as business-to-business services are excluded to avoid tax pyramiding (Davis, 2024). North Carolina’s sales tax still primarily targets goods. By taxing services (e.g., luxury, repair, and personal services) that are already taxed in other states, the state could raise substantial revenue without increasing the rate (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy [ITEP], 2023a). North Carolina already broadened its base in 2013 by taxing select services and eliminating deductions. Further reform along these lines—ideally paired with income tax cuts—can maintain revenue neutrality and shift taxation toward consumption, which many economists view as more growth-friendly (Tax Foundation, 2025). However, equity considerations (see below) must guide such changes.

C. Mitigate Regressivity and Protect Low-Income Households: As the state becomes more reliant on sales taxes, it must address the disproportionate burden on low-income households (ITEP, 2023b; McHugh, 2024). Options include:

  • State Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): Reinstate or increase a refundable EITC, which North Carolina had until 2014, to help working families offset sales and payroll taxes.
  • Targeted Exemptions or Rebates: Continue exempting groceries and consider expanding exemptions to necessities like utilities and medicine. Alternatively, create an annual “prebate” for low-income households.
  • Property Tax Relief: If localities raise property taxes due to reduced state support (as 92 of 100 counties already have), the state should expand circuit breaker programs or homestead exemptions (WRAL News, 2025b).

Washington State’s regressive tax model serves as a warning (McHugh, 2024). A proportional or mildly progressive tax code can support public buy-in and ensure that reforms don’t increase inequality.

D. Maintain Adequate Revenue for Public Investments: North Carolina must apply an “adequacy test” to all tax changes: the system should generate sufficient revenue to support core services (NC Chamber Foundation, 2024; McHugh, 2024). This means:

  • Using multi-year revenue modeling and stress-testing to assess impacts under various economic conditions.
  • Indexing tax brackets and deductions to inflation, as current “trigger” formulas may erode real purchasing power (WRAL News, 2025c).
  • Directing surpluses toward one-time priorities (infrastructure, rainy day fund) rather than recurring expenses.
  • Conducting efficiency reviews across agencies to maximize service delivery without austerity.

Smart fiscal policy means spending wisely, not just cutting blindly.

E. Monitor Economic Outcomes and Adjust as Necessary: The state should track the impact of reforms on growth, migration, jobs, and revenue. Independent reviews every 2–3 years (by academic centers or a consortium including both the John Locke Foundation and NC Justice Center) would help determine if tax policy is meeting its goals. If evidence shows that a cut to 3% undermines long-term revenue, policymakers must be ready to pause or recalibrate. The Laffer Curve is a guide—not a fixed rule—and must be empirically validated over time (WRAL News, 2025a).

F. Learn from and Collaborate with Other States: North Carolina can learn from states like Tennessee (no wage tax) and Texas (no income tax, high property tax) as well as Florida and Washington, adapting lessons to its own economic profile. Collaboration with these peers can yield insights on sales tax base design, local funding offsets, and service delivery. North Carolina has already been hailed as a model for cautious reform by national experts (Walczak, 2023), and this legacy should continue—with both boldness and humility.

By implementing these recommendations, North Carolina can position itself near the Laffer Curve’s optimal point, maintaining competitiveness while preserving fiscal responsibility and equity. The guiding principle is to broaden the base, lower the rates, and cushion vulnerable groups—an approach that promotes both long-term growth and political sustainability (Peters, 2025).

References

Davis, C. (2024, February 14). Service taxes and equity in North Carolina. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/

Hayes, A. (2024, May 31). Laffer Curve: History and critique. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. (2023a). Options for fair state tax reform. https://itep.org/

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. (2023b). Who pays? 7th edition: A distributional analysis of the tax systems in all 50 states. https://itep.org/

Johnson, C. (2014, March 28). What’s going on in Kansas? Beware North Carolina!. NC Newsline. https://ncnewsline.com/

Kuck, B. (2024, May 2). Debate deepens over eliminating NC income tax. Carolina Journal. https://www.carolinajournal.com/

Laffer, A. B., Moore, S., & Williams, J. (2012). Rich states, poor states: ALEC-Laffer state economic competitiveness index (5th ed.). American Legislative Exchange Council. https://www.richstatespoorstates.org/

McHugh, B. (2024, March 14). Washington’s upside-down tax system offers cautionary tale for NC. NC Justice Center. https://www.ncjustice.org/

NC Chamber Foundation. (2024, December 12). Monitoring North Carolina’s tax policy competitiveness. NC Chamber. https://ncchamber.com/

North Carolina Department of Revenue. (2023). Historical tax rate schedules. https://www.ncdor.gov/

Peters, J. (2024, August 10). Taxation in North Carolina. North Carolina Forward Party. https://www.ncforwardparty.com/taxation_in_north_carolina

Peters, J. (2025, February 19). What I saw in a state with no income tax. Carolina Journal. https://www.carolinajournal.com/

Tax Foundation. (2021, December 3). North Carolina reinforces its tax reform legacy. https://taxfoundation.org/north-carolina-tax-reform/

Tax Foundation. (2025a). 2025 State Business Tax Climate Index. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/

Tax Foundation. (2025b). State and local sales tax rates, 2025. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/

Tax Foundation. (2025c). Taxes in Florida and Washington. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/

Tax Foundation. (2025d). Taxes in North Carolina. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/state/north-carolina/

Walczak, J. (2023, September 15). North Carolina triggers next income tax cut. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/

WRAL News. (2025a, January 1). 2025 brings another NC income tax cut. Some say it’s too much. https://www.wral.com/

WRAL News. (2025b, February 5). Fiscal analysts warn of future revenue shortfall. https://www.wral.com/

WRAL News. (2025c, February 7). Revenue triggers and tax reform in NC. https://www.wral.com/

WRAL News. (2025d, March 11). Staffing shortages and teacher pay gaps rise across NC counties. https://www.wral.com/