A cost of living comparison using tax-adjusted purchasing power data.
This comparison is closer than most people expect. Austin and Chicago have nearly identical cost of living indexes — Austin (121) is actually fractionally more expensive than Chicago (118) in overall COL terms. The financial win comes entirely from taxes: Illinois takes about 5.2% of your income (combining state and city levies), Texas takes nothing. On a $90,000 salary, that's roughly $4,680 back in your pocket annually — about $390 per month — without any other changes to your lifestyle costs. It's a real gain, just not the dramatic purchasing power jump you'd see moving from New York or San Francisco.
| Category | Chicago | Austin | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall COL Index | 118 | 121 | +2.5% (Austin costs slightly more) |
| Median 1BR Rent | ~$1,700/mo | ~$1,700/mo | Roughly equal |
| State + City Income Tax | 5.2% | 0% | −5.2 pp |
At $60,000: the tax savings alone put approximately $3,120 back in your take-home annually, or $260/month. COL is essentially a wash, so that tax savings is the actual financial gain. At $90,000: the tax savings are $4,680 per year. The real purchasing power improvement is modest but real — about 3% in total when you account for COL and tax differences together.
Where this comparison gets more interesting: people who own property. Texas has no income tax, but it makes up for some of that with higher property taxes. If you own a home in Austin, factor that in — property taxes in Texas run significantly higher than Illinois and can be a meaningful cost for homeowners.
The financial case for Chicago-to-Austin is real but modest — it's not a life-changing number. The stronger reasons to make this move are lifestyle: Austin's weather is dramatically warmer (no Chicago winters, though summers in Austin are intense), the tech scene is genuinely strong, the city has grown to a point where it has real cultural infrastructure, and for many people, the energy of a fast-growing city is more appealing than an established one.
Remote workers with Chicago salaries come out ahead modestly. Local job-seekers should note that Austin's tech market has cooled from its 2021-22 peak but remains healthy — Apple, Tesla, Google, Oracle, and Dell all have significant local operations.
No winter is the obvious one — Austin's mild winters (and brutal summers) are the inverse of Chicago's brutal winters (and pleasant summers). People who genuinely hate cold weather find this worth a lot. Austin has also become a legitimate tech hub, which means if you're in that industry, moving stops being only a financial decision and starts being a career one. The outdoor recreation scene — hiking, swimming holes, live music — is real and accessible in a way that doesn't require leaving the city.
Austin's downsides are also real: it's heavily car-dependent, the traffic is bad, and it has gotten meaningfully more expensive over the last several years. It's no longer the cheap Texas city people heard about from 2010. It's mid-priced now, which means you're trading Chicago winters for Austin summers and coming out roughly even financially, maybe slightly ahead.
Enter your income and compare Chicago vs Austin. Get your exact tax-adjusted purchasing power in seconds.
Compare Chicago vs Austin →