Colorado’s governor says a new income tax plan would “cripple” jobs and push employers away, and the fight may be decided in court before voters even weigh in.
Story Snapshot
- Governor Jared Polis warns Amendment 87 would hurt jobs and competitiveness.
- The measure raises marginal rates only above $500,000; most filers would pay less, backers say.
- A signature lawsuit could keep the measure off the ballot if too many names are tossed.
- About $2 billion a year would be earmarked for schools, health care, and childcare if it passes.
What Amendment 87 Would Change in Colorado’s Tax Code
Campaign materials and news reports say Amendment 87 would end the flat 4.4 percent income tax. It would add higher brackets on income above $500,000, with steps from about 7.4 percent up to about 8.4 percent on income above $1 million. Lower incomes would stay at or below today’s rate. Supporters say this design cuts taxes for most filers and asks more only on higher earnings, using marginal rates rather than taxing all income at the top rate.
Backers argue that roughly 97 percent of taxpayers would pay less or the same. They say a filer with about $85,000 in taxable income would save a few hundred dollars a year. They also say the new revenue would support childcare, health care, and K-12 schools. That claim echoes the official analysis cited in their fact sheet and public messaging, which frames the plan as a tax shift, not a broad tax hike.
Polis’s Warning on Jobs, Wages, and Business Flight
Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, broke with many progressives on this issue. He called Amendment 87 a “blank check to politicians” that would “cripple our economy and reduce jobs.” He compared Colorado’s current rate with Utah’s and said doubling Colorado’s top rate would make it hard to win employers. He argued higher marginal rates on top income would weaken hiring and scare off new investment and relocations to the state.
Business voices have echoed that concern. A guest column in a statewide outlet warned higher rates could push top earners and some companies to leave, slow growth, and chill hiring plans. That commentary tied location decisions to after-tax pay and future costs. Still, these warnings have not come with a public, Colorado-specific model that forecasts job or investment losses from the exact brackets in Amendment 87, leaving room for dispute.
Court Fight Over Ballot Access Could Decide the Timeline
The measure’s future may hinge on a signature dispute. A lawsuit claims paid circulators were not properly registered under state rules. If those signatures are tossed, the valid count could fall below the threshold needed to qualify. A lower court ruling triggered appeals, and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on the contested signatures and procedures before ballots are finalized.
Two ballot measures in Colorado would gut the state’s spending limit and establish a steeply progressive income tax.https://t.co/YU9ZdZ6kAR
— Wall Street Journal Opinion (@WSJopinion) October 29, 2026
If the high court sides with the challengers, the measure may not go before voters this cycle. That would pause both the tax debate and the promised spending on schools, health care, and childcare. If the court upholds the signatures, the campaign would return to policy substance. Voters would face a choice between promised cuts for most filers and business warnings about jobs, wages, and the state’s edge in the region.
What’s at Stake for Families, Employers, and the State Budget
Supporters say the plan delivers small but real tax relief for nearly all workers and funds services they call “economic infrastructure,” like childcare that lets parents work. They tie the revenue to a projected budget gap and argue that stronger schools and health care help the workforce and long-run growth. Opponents answer that higher top marginal rates risk fewer jobs, lower pay, and lost employers, which could shrink the tax base over time.
Both sides claim to protect the middle class, but with very different paths. The pro-87 camp points to the 97 percent figure and targeted spending. The anti-87 side points to mobility of top earners and pass-through business owners, who they say often make hiring choices. The strongest facts here are clear rate schedules, earmarked uses, and the governor’s on-record warning. What is less clear is the size of any job or migration effect in Colorado’s current economy.
How to Read the Tradeoffs Without the Spin
Voters should focus on three concrete items. First, confirm who gets a tax cut or hike under the marginal brackets and by how much. Second, weigh whether promised spending on schools, childcare, and health care will improve daily life and work options. Third, test the competitiveness claim by asking for transparent modeling of jobs, wages, and business moves tied to these exact rates. Absent hard numbers, this becomes a trust test in a system many believe serves elites first.
Sources:
reason.com, cpr.org, completecolorado.com, denverpost.com, coloradofiscal.org, governing.com
