With the 2025 election bringing new leadership, and thus new financial and social policies, to many state capitals, the personal-finance website WalletHub on Presidents’ Day, Feb. 17, released its report on 2025’s Best State Capitals to Live In, as well as expert commentary.
WalletHub compared all 50 state capitals across 48 key metrics, ranging from the cost of living to K-12 school-system quality to the number of attractions.
Top 20 State Capitals
Austin, Texas earned the top spot in the report, followed by Madison, WI; Raleigh, NC; Boise, ID; Atlanta, GA; Lincoln, NE; Salt Lake City, UT; Denver, CO; St. Paul, MN and ranked 10th overall, Columbus, Ohio.
Taking the number 11 through 20 spots were Concord, New Hampshire at number 11, followed by Nashville, TN; Bismarck, ND; Montpelier, VT; Oklahoma City, OK; Des Moines, IA; Pierre, SD; Helena, MT; Boston, MA and, at number 20, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sacramento, California finished just a little outside the top 20, coming in at number 23 overall.
Best vs. Worst
Concord, New Hampshire, has the lowest violent-crime rate per 1,000 residents, – 11.5 times lower than Little Rock, Arkansas, the city with the highest rate.
Austin, Texas, has the highest median household income (adjusted for cost of living), – 2.1 times higher than Hartford, Connecticut, the city with the lowest.
Montpelier, Vermont, has the highest share of adults ages 25+ with at least a bachelor’s degree, – 4.2 times higher than Trenton, New Jersey, the city with the lowest.
“A state’s capital city is more than just the seat of its government – it’s also often the center of its economic activity. Some state capitals boast incredible job markets, high average salaries, world-class universities, and an abundance of attractions. Unfortunately, others have populations that are struggling financially, failing public education systems and poor public health systems. States should aim to make their capital city a shining example of the best they have to offer,” WalletHub Analyst Chip Lupo said. “Austin, Texas is the best state capital overall, in part because it has the highest median household income after adjusting for the cost of living, at $87,519. It also provides a good environment for business, with new businesses opening at the fourth-highest rate in the country. Austin has a great education system, ranking at the top of the country when it comes to the share of public schools rated as ‘above average’ by Greatschools.org, along with high-quality university education. Finally, Austin offers both a safe and fun environment, with the second-highest life expectancy for residents, and an extremely high number of attractions and restaurants per capita.”
To view the full report, visit: https://wallethub.com/edu/best-state-capitals/19030
Expert Commentary
What are the benefits and drawbacks to living in a state’s capital city?
“I think some of the key benefits of living in a state’s capital city include the numerous cultural attractions and the accessibility to a wider range of government services that can also trigger additional economic opportunities. That said, many state capitals frequently contend with traffic gridlock and particularly a lack of availability of affordable housing.”
Dr. Keith G. Debbage – Professor Emeritus, UNC-Greensboro
“State capitals have the advantage of being in close proximity to seats of power, which could possibly increase visibility for local issues (such as housing or transportation) in the legislature. By the same vein, however, local issues can sometimes get shadowed by what happens at the state level - state capitals may face higher competition in getting airtime for local issues, especially when the legislature is in session. Second, state capitals attract specific types of industries, such as large nonprofits, think tanks, policy advocates which require close collaboration and interaction with elected officials and state government agencies. On the other hand, and especially in the US, the state capital and the economic ‘hub’ of the state are usually two separate cities (think Chicago and Springfield, or Seattle and Olympia). As a result, state capitals may not have the same level of economic diversity that you see in larger cities.”
Divya Chandrasekhar, Ph.D. – Associate Professor; Chair, City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Are residents of capital cities more likely to be politically engaged, all else equal?
“Residents of capital cities may be more politically engaged, particularly those working in the public sector or related organizations, as their jobs and local economies are directly tied to government policies. This engagement can be seen in their awareness and participation in political discourse, much like the fictional portrayal of Phil, the bartender in Murphy Brown, who was as informed as any lobbyist or elected official. However, political engagement is not universal. Many residents, in both capital and non-capital cities, disengage after years of feeling unheard or misled by political leaders. This frustration is reflected in voter turnout, as some opt to direct their energy elsewhere rather than participate in what they see as ‘politics as usual.’ Ultimately, engagement is a matter of individual choice rather than a defining characteristic of capital city residents.”
Manny Patole – Industry Assistant Professor, New York University
“Yes, because capital cities tend to attract young, well-educated inhabitants, and the proportion of the labor pool employed in state and local government work tends to be disproportionately high compared to other types of cities. In addition, the media environment in state capitals including TV, newspapers, alternative press, blog posts and other forms of communication tend to be very focused on governance issues.”
Dr. Keith G. Debbage – Professor Emeritus, UNC-Greensboro
How does exempting government buildings from local property taxes affect the fiscal well-being of capital cities?
“This hasn’t been studied specifically but I cannot imagine it would have much effect. Unless your state capital is a very small city (that is, the government buildings are proportionally overrepresented), it should not make any difference to a city’s tax base. This is because most capital cities have a large enough tax base to probably absorb the difference.”
Divya Chandrasekhar, Ph.D. – Associate Professor; Chair, City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
“Historically, government-owned property has traditionally been tax-exempt, largely so that the sovereign did not tax itself. That said, today numerous public institutions exist (e.g., counties, municipalities, school and special districts) that all compete with one another for property tax revenues. The end result is many believe there is now a negligible economic logic for excluding government property from the tax base. However, that may be a double-edged sword for capital cities where the proportion of land allocated to government buildings is typically disproportionately high.”
Dr. Keith G. Debbage – Professor Emeritus, UNC-Greensboro
