Wayne's Word

🚨 COLORADO! VOTE NO ON 87 🚨 Why is Amendment 87 bad for Colorado? It would trade modest tax cuts for most taxpayers for a much larger tax increase on higher-income individuals and businesses, remove the constitutional flat-tax requirement, and create tax brackets that do not adjust for inflation. Those are real policy changes. Who would suffer the most? Restaurants. Bars. Waitpersons. Kitchen staff. All the regular people who work. Rich people will be just fine, because they can afford to be. 1. It raises taxes substantially on some employers and business owners Amendment 87 would replace Colorado’s 4.4% flat income tax with six brackets beginning in 2027. Higher marginal rates would apply to taxable income above $500,000, reaching 8.4% on the portion above $1 million. These brackets apply to both individual and corporate taxpayers. That matters beyond wealthy people’s salaries. For businesses organized as partnerships or S corporations, profits generally flow through to owners’ personal tax returns—even when some of that money stays in the business. For owners affected by the higher brackets, opponents argue that a bigger tax bill could leave less available for hiring, equipment, expansion, or reserves. The threshold concerns taxable income, however, not gross sales. 2. Inflation would push more income into higher brackets One of the clearest design criticisms is inflation: the proposed brackets are not indexed to it. As nominal wages and business profits rise, more income could enter higher brackets even without a corresponding increase in purchasing power. The Blue Book explicitly identifies this effect. That does not mean ordinary-income households would immediately face the top rates. It means the fixed thresholds would become less protective over time unless the law changes. 3. It removes a constitutional taxpayer protection Colorado’s constitution currently requires income to be taxed at a single rate. Amendment 87 would remove that requirement and replace the current system with graduated rates. For voters who value an equal-rate, predictable income tax, that is a fundamental change—not merely an adjustment to this year’s tax bill. It would also exempt the additional revenue generated by the measure from TABOR’s revenue limit, allowing the state to retain and spend that money rather than subject it to the existing limit. The official estimate is approximately $1.972 billion in additional revenue in fiscal year 2027–28. The $2.7 billion figure on the ballot is the estimated maximum first-full-year increase required for ballot disclosure, rather than the central revenue forecast. 4. The tax increase is specific, but spending decisions remain broad The additional revenue must support K–12 education, health care, and early childhood care and education. But legislators would decide which specific programs receive funding and how much. The amendment does not establish a fixed allocation to classrooms or a particular educational outcome. The defensible criticism is that voters are approving a substantial, ongoing revenue increase while leaving important allocation choices to future legislatures. Calling it a completely unrestricted “blank check,” however, goes too far: the measure restricts eligible uses, requires the money to supplement rather than replace existing spending, and requires an audited annual report. 5. It could make Colorado less attractive for some investment Opponents argue that higher marginal tax rates would make Colorado less competitive for business formation, expansion, and higher-income residents. Gov. Jared Polis and business leaders have raised that concern. The possible consequence is broader than the taxpayers directly affected: if an employer delays hiring or expands elsewhere, workers and suppliers could feel it. The size of that effect—and whether it outweighs the benefits of additional public spending—is uncertain.