Rent Burden in America: 22.5 Million Households and the Limits of the 30% Rule

Research checked November 8, 2026 UTC. Prepared with AI assistance.

A rent payment can look reasonable as a percentage and still leave too little money for everything else.

It can also look different depending on which households are included in the calculation.

The Census Bureau's newly released 2025 American Community Survey estimates that 22.49 million U.S. renter households were in categories spending at least 30% of household income on gross rent. About 11.40 million were in the category spending at least half. [1]

Those are estimates of households, not people, rental listings or missed payments.

One detail changes how the headline should be written. The 22.49 million represent 48.3% of all renter households, but 51.8% of renter households for which the table computes a rent-to-income ratio.

Neither percentage needs to be wrong. They answer slightly different questions.

This report makes that difference visible, provides the figures for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and explains how to use the evidence without turning a national threshold into a personal spending instruction.

• 22,486,693 renter households fall in the table's 30%-or-more categories. Of these, 11,401,379 are in the 50%-or-more category. [1]
• Among households with a computed ratio, 51.8% are in the 30%-or-more group and 26.2% are in the 50%-or-more group.
• The same 30%-or-more count equals 48.3% of all renter households. Approximately 3.11 million households are in the table's separate "not computed" category.
• The 50%-or-more category accounts for 50.7% of the households in the 30%-or-more group. These are nested groups, not figures to add together.
• 23 states have point estimates at or above 50% for the share in the 30%-or-more group, using the computed-ratio denominator. This is a count of estimates crossing a threshold, not a statistical conclusion that 23 state population rates exceed 50%.
• State percentages differ substantially in their point estimates. Florida's is 61.3%, California's 55.5%, Texas's 51.4% and North Dakota's 34.7%, using the same denominator. These comparisons do not establish causes or statistically certain rankings.

Source: FinanceFirst calculations from Census table B25070, 2025 ACS 1-year estimates. The data were released October 29, 2026. [1][2]

The basic calculation compares housing costs with household income.

For renters, the Census definition of gross rent includes contract rent and specified utilities, including electricity, gas, water and sewer, and other heating fuels. Utilities already included in the rent should not be added again. [3]

The income measure is gross household income, before deductions such as income taxes and health insurance premiums. Census training guidance explicitly distinguishes it from take-home income. [4]

That means the measure is not simply:

The advertised apartment price divided by one person's paycheck.

It is also not a full account of every expense associated with living in a particular home. Commuting, childcare, renter-specific fees and other commitments still matter to a personal budget.

The threshold language matters

Housing discussions commonly use 30% as a cost-burden benchmark and 50% as a severe-burden benchmark. [3]

This report follows the exact available categories in B25070: 30.0% or more and 50.0% or more. The table does not let us isolate households exactly on those boundaries.

For that reason, the numerical findings below are described as "at least" or "or more," rather than pretending this table separately measures a strictly greater-than threshold.

The threshold is a screening tool. It does not prove a particular household can safely spend 29%, or that every household spending 31% has the same financial problem.

Start with the national table:

Published category or calculated group	Estimated renter households
All renter households	46,551,688
Ratio not computed	3,114,658
Ratio computed, calculated as the difference	43,437,030
At least 30% of income on gross rent	22,486,693
At least 50% of income on gross rent	11,401,379

The 50%-or-more group is included within the 30%-or-more group. Do not add them together. [1]

Now divide the same 30%-or-more numerator two ways:

22,486,693 ÷ 46,551,688 = 48.3% of all renter households.

22,486,693 ÷ 43,437,030 = 51.8% of households with a computed ratio.

The difference is approximately 3.5 percentage points, entirely because of the denominator in this calculation. It is not a change over time.

Census training guidance says that its housing-cost ratio calculations exclude the "not calculated" group. For rented units, that group includes households without a rental payment and households with zero or negative income. [4]

The category is not a statement that these households have affordable housing. A zero-income household should not be silently counted as having no financial strain.

Nor should the entire category be called "people who cannot afford rent." The table combines different situations and does not establish that interpretation.

Our main state comparison uses the computed-ratio denominator. Both national denominators and excluded counts are shown above so readers can reproduce either measure.

A useful question for any housing statistic is: percentage of which households?

Of the estimated 22.49 million households in the 30%-or-more group, about 11.40 million are in the 50%-or-more group.

Dividing those figures gives 50.7%.

In other words, about half of the measured group is not just a little above the 30% benchmark. It is in the table's highest open-ended category.

That does not tell us how much each of those households spends above 50%, whether they have savings, or whether they have missed rent.

It also does not establish a medical, debt or homelessness outcome. Those questions require additional evidence.

Still, it explains why describing the issue only as "households spending more than recommended" can miss an important part of the distribution.

The highest category contains households whose gross rent consumes at least half of their measured gross income. The remaining share is before considering income-tax deductions and other household needs.

A state with expensive apartments is not automatically the state with the highest share of renters facing a high rent-to-income ratio.

The ratio depends on both sides: housing costs and the incomes of the households renting there.

In these data, for example:

State	Estimated households at 30% or more	Share with computed ratios at 30% or more	Share with computed ratios at 50% or more
California	3,243,815	55.5%	29.0%
Florida	1,713,801	61.3%	31.4%
New York	1,776,717	52.1%	28.9%
Texas	2,088,946	51.4%	25.6%
North Dakota	43,523	34.7%	15.4%

These states illustrate different point estimates and household counts. They are not a statistical ranking or a representative selection of local rental markets. [1]

Counts and percentages answer different questions. California's larger count does not mean its calculated percentage is larger than Florida's. A large state can contain more affected households while having a lower share.

The data do not establish why any state differs. Wages, the mix of households, rental housing, local conditions and other factors may matter, but this table alone cannot separate their effects.

State averages also conceal local variation. A statewide percentage cannot determine whether a specific neighborhood, job offer or apartment is affordable for you.

The table below uses households with a computed ratio for both percentage columns. Counts are survey estimates; percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

States and D.C. are listed alphabetically, not assigned "best" or "worst" ranks. Source-cell margins of error are published in the linked Census table. Derived percentage confidence intervals and pairwise significance tests have not been calculated.

State or district	Renter households at 30% or more	Share at 30% or more	Share at 50% or more
Alabama	262,294	49.5%	25.6%
Alaska	36,736	43.2%	17.3%
Arizona	511,761	54.4%	26.3%
Arkansas	166,564	45.0%	22.1%
California	3,243,815	55.5%	29.0%
Colorado	423,929	51.8%	25.4%
Connecticut	254,715	55.6%	28.5%
Delaware	50,868	50.6%	25.9%
District of Columbia	94,472	49.2%	23.1%
Florida	1,713,801	61.3%	31.4%
Georgia	707,616	52.8%	26.1%
Hawaii	95,643	55.1%	29.0%
Idaho	101,068	48.8%	23.7%
Illinois	761,428	49.7%	26.5%
Indiana	367,565	48.4%	24.7%
Iowa	166,604	46.5%	22.8%
Kansas	157,016	42.7%	20.5%
Kentucky	244,837	46.6%	22.9%
Louisiana	279,905	53.4%	28.2%
Maine	73,048	49.3%	23.7%
Maryland	387,411	51.8%	27.4%
Massachusetts	525,245	52.5%	26.8%
Michigan	514,871	51.7%	27.8%
Minnesota	307,999	48.7%	24.0%
Mississippi	152,762	53.3%	28.4%
Missouri	337,710	45.4%	21.2%
Montana	64,855	48.7%	19.6%
Nebraska	117,523	44.7%	22.3%
Nevada	244,575	53.1%	26.6%
New Hampshire	74,391	48.4%	21.7%
New Jersey	649,449	52.9%	27.5%
New Mexico	113,039	47.8%	23.9%
New York	1,776,717	52.1%	28.9%
North Carolina	696,749	50.0%	23.2%
North Dakota	43,523	34.7%	15.4%
Ohio	726,243	48.5%	23.9%
Oklahoma	230,328	45.7%	22.0%
Oregon	322,060	53.1%	27.6%
Pennsylvania	750,165	48.8%	25.1%
Rhode Island	72,383	49.6%	23.1%
South Carolina	307,668	52.4%	26.8%
South Dakota	54,666	44.9%	19.2%
Tennessee	438,835	50.3%	23.6%
Texas	2,088,946	51.4%	25.6%
Utah	182,050	50.3%	23.4%
Vermont	35,969	49.7%	23.0%
Virginia	526,562	50.4%	23.6%
Washington	570,011	50.6%	24.5%
West Virginia	77,292	48.8%	26.4%
Wisconsin	353,239	45.7%	22.4%
Wyoming	29,772	41.8%	18.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2025 ACS 1-year table B25070; FinanceFirst calculations. Reference year 2025, not a measurement of November 2026 rents. [1]

Rounding note: North Carolina displays as 50.0%, but its unrounded estimate is 49.9945%, below 50%. It is not included in the count of 23 states at or above 50%.

Consider two invented households. These are examples, not national averages or recommended budgets.

Monthly amount	Household A	Household B
Gross household income	$4,000	$8,000
Take-home income, chosen assumption	$3,200	$6,400
Contract rent	$1,050	$2,100
Specified utilities, paid separately	$150	$300
Gross rent	$1,200	$2,400
Gross rent / gross income	30.0%	30.0%
Gross rent / take-home income	37.5%	37.5%
Take-home income remaining after gross rent	$2,000	$4,000

The two households have identical ratios, but very different dollar amounts left for other needs.

That does not prove either budget works. Household size, care costs, debt, transportation and other commitments remain unknown.

It shows why a single percentage cannot answer every affordability question.

The assumed take-home amounts are deliberately chosen inputs, not estimates of anyone's taxes. Actual deductions depend on household circumstances.

A landlord's screening rule is not your spending plan

An income multiple used in a rental application serves the landlord's screening process. It does not account for all the applicant's commitments.

Before signing, calculate the actual money available after:

• Required payroll deductions.
• Rent and utilities not already included.
• Transportation needed to reach work or care.
• Food, medication, childcare and other essential needs.
• Required debt payments and predictable irregular bills.

A household can pass a gross-income screen and still have too little spendable cash. It can also choose to spend a higher share on housing to avoid another substantial cost, such as a necessary second vehicle.

Those are household-specific trade-offs, not conclusions from the state percentages.

The ratio can rise when housing costs increase, when income falls, or when both change.

For an illustration, hold gross rent at $1,650 a month.

• With $5,000 monthly gross income, the ratio is 33.0%.
• With $4,500 monthly gross income, it is 36.7%.

The household's housing bill has not changed. Income is 10% lower, and the ratio is about 3.7 percentage points higher.

These are hypothetical calculations, not an explanation of the national or state results.

They are useful when reading headlines. A rise in the share of households above a threshold is not automatically proof that rents rose by a particular amount.

This report does not claim a year-over-year increase or decrease. It analyzes one 2025 table. Establishing a change requires comparable years and appropriate uncertainty testing.

Build an all-in comparison, not just a rent comparison

For each actual apartment, list contract rent, utilities, required recurring fees and any meaningful transport change. Keep expenses outside the Census gross-rent definition visible rather than silently assuming the statistical measure includes everything.

Ask which utilities are included. Avoid counting the same bill twice.

Separate a concession from the monthly payment you must fund

A hypothetical $1,800 lease with one free month has $19,800 of rent over 12 months, equivalent to $1,650 per month.

But if the concession is one free month rather than a monthly credit, you may still need $1,800 in each paid month. Required fees and renewal terms can also change the comparison.

Read the actual lease. The arithmetic does not establish how every landlord applies concessions.

Compare moving costs with recurring savings

A lower advertised rent may come with moving expenses, utility setup costs, a different commute or more cash tied up in a refundable deposit.

A refundable deposit is generally a cash requirement, not automatically a permanent expense. Keep those two concepts separate when comparing options.

Moving is not a universal solution. Available units, accessibility, family support, work, school and upfront money can constrain the choice.

Look for assistance before assuming there is none

USAGov's rental-assistance directory links to housing choice vouchers, subsidized housing, public housing and programs for certain groups. Eligibility, openings and application procedures differ. A program listing does not guarantee immediate assistance. [6]

If rent is already overdue or an eviction notice has arrived, check local legal-aid and tenant-assistance options promptly. Rights and deadlines vary by location; this report is not legal advice.

The scale: An estimated 22,486,693 renter households are in B25070's 30%-or-more categories in the 2025 ACS 1-year data.

The denominator distinction: That count is 48.3% of all renter households or 51.8% of those with a computed ratio. Any quotation should preserve which denominator it uses.

The distribution: The 50%-or-more group accounts for 50.7% of households in the 30%-or-more group.

The state file: The linked Census table provides published category estimates and 90% margins of error for all 50 states, D.C. and the United States; the table in this report presents separately labeled calculated percentages.

FinanceFirst's contribution is the reproducible aggregation, denominator comparison and practical explanation. The underlying survey estimates come from the Census Bureau. This is not a proprietary survey, a causal study or a claim to be the first publisher to analyze the table.

We used the 2025 ACS 1-year detailed table B25070, "Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months." The Census Bureau's release page dates the 2025 1-year release to October 29, 2026. [1][2]

The unit is a renter-occupied housing unit, expressed here as a renter household. The United States comparison covers the 50 states and D.C.; Puerto Rico is not included.

For each geography:

• All renter households = B25070_001E.
• Not computed = B25070_011E.
• Computed-ratio denominator = B25070_001E minus B25070_011E.
• 30%-or-more numerator = B25070_007E + _008E + _009E + _010E.
• 50%-or-more numerator = B25070_010E.
• Main percentage = relevant numerator / computed-ratio denominator × 100.
• All-renter percentage = relevant numerator / B25070_001E × 100.

Counts are published estimates, not literal enumerations. We retained the published 90% margins of error for each source cell in the dataset.

The source captures include the rendered tables and their geography labels. We checked that the ten non-total categories sum to each published geography total, that every state and D.C. appears once, and that the state-plus-D.C. estimates reconcile to the U.S. figure in every category.

The offline reproduction script regenerates the percentages, tables and household scenarios from the saved source data.

No state ranking significance tests or derived percentage confidence intervals were computed. Small point-estimate differences should not be treated as evidence of a reliable ordering.

The reference year is 2025. This is not a survey of current advertised rents or an estimate of every household's November 2026 position.

Income and rent have survey reference-period limitations. The table combines reported housing information with household income over the past 12 months. It is not a transaction-by-transaction record or a synchronized lease-and-payroll panel.

The ratio is not a debt or eviction measure. It does not show missed payments, financial assets, landlord profits, housing quality or the reasons a household selected a home.

There is sampling and nonsampling error. Census publishes margins of error, and its guidance cautions against interpreting differences without considering reliability. [5]

Excluded ratios are not excluded people. The "not computed" category contains households whose circumstances still matter. Excluding that category from a ratio calculation does not mean excluding it from policy concerns.

State patterns are not causal. This report does not attribute a state's figure to migration, regulation, investors, construction or any single policy.

The 30% rule is not individualized advice. A residual-income budget can reveal constraints that a percentage alone cannot.

No time trend is established here. Future comparisons should use compatible 1-year estimates and account for methodology and uncertainty, rather than mixing 1-year and 5-year products. [5]

The evidence shows a substantial number of renter households with housing costs that consume a large share of measured income.

It also shows why the details deserve as much attention as the headline.

State counts and percentages are different. Gross income is not take-home income. A household without a computed ratio is not automatically financially comfortable. And 30% is not a promise that a budget works.

Use the national and state data to understand the scale. Use your actual bills, income and available cash to make a housing decision.

We used the 2025 ACS 1-year detailed table B25070, "Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income in the Past 12 Months." The Census Bureau's release page dates the 2025 1-year release to October 29, 2026. [1][2] The unit is a renter-occupied housing unit, expressed here as a renter household. The United States comparison covers the 50 states and D.C.; Puerto Rico is not included. For each geography: - All renter households = B25070_001E. - Not computed = B25070_011E. - Computed-ratio denominator = B25070_001E minus B25070_011E. - 30%-or-more numerator = B25070_007E + _008E + _009E + _010E. - 50%-or-more numerator = B25070_010E. - Main percentage = relevant numerator / computed-ratio denominator × 100. - All-renter percentage = relevant numerator / B25070_001E × 100. Counts are published estimates, not literal enumerations. We retained the published 90% margins of error for each source cell in the dataset. The source captures include the rendered tables and their geography labels. We checked that the ten non-total categories sum to each published geography total, that every state and D.C. appears once, and that the state-plus-D.C. estimates reconcile to the U.S. figure in every category. The offline reproduction script regenerates the percentages, tables and household scenarios from the saved source data. No state ranking significance tests or derived percentage confidence intervals were computed. Small point-estimate differences should not be treated as evidence of a reliable ordering.