L-1 · State comparison · 2026
On $100,000, a L-1 keeps $6,523 more per year in Washington than in California (6.52% of gross).
Side-by-side breakdown
| Line item | California | Washington | Δ (Washington − California) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross salary | $100,000 | $100,000 | — |
| Federal income tax | $13,170 | $13,170 | — |
| Social Security | $6,200 | $6,200 | — |
| Medicare | $1,450 | $1,450 | — |
| Additional Medicare | $0 | $0 | — |
| State income tax | $5,223 | $0 | −$5,223 |
| State SDI / payroll | $1,300 | $0 | −$1,300 |
| Take-home pay | $72,657 | $79,180 | +$6,523 |
Effective rate: California 27.34% · Washington 20.82%. Δ row reads "Washington minus California" — positive (red) means Washington is more expensive.
Compare at other salaries
Frequently asked questions
Specific to this visa, state, and salary. Sourced to IRS, SSA, and state DOR.
California vs. Washington: which has lower taxes for a L-1 earning $100,000?
For a single-filer L-1 grossing $100,000, Washington nets approximately $6,523 more per year (6.52% of gross) than California. Washington take-home: $79,180. California take-home: $72,657.
What's driving the difference between California and Washington?
California uses progressive state brackets. Washington has no state income tax. Federal income tax and FICA are identical in both states (they're federal). The state delta is the difference.
Does cost of living change the answer?
Yes — significantly. This page only computes after-tax income. Housing, transit, taxes on goods (sales tax), and state-specific costs (e.g. auto registration) often dwarf the income-tax difference. As a rough rule: high-tax states tend to have higher cost of living too, so the take-home advantage of a no-tax state often understates the real-purchasing-power advantage.
What about the first year on a L-1?
L-1 holders are subject to FICA from day 1, regardless of NRA status. The state comparison above already reflects that.