You don’t need Bernie to know this stuff. The little orange sliver shows U.S. wealth for the bottom 50%, while the green slice to its right is wealth of the top 0.1%. Amendment 87 wouldn’t buy poorer Coloradans private jets, but might help with modest tax breaks and providing services.

At its simplest, passing Amendment 87 (formerly known as Initiative 195) would create a multi-tiered State of Colorado income tax system, with higher-income tiers paying higher overall rates than lower-income tiers. This initiative would both amend the Colorado Constitution and Colorado Revised Statutes, but since it only amends the Constitution by repealing 14 words, it would only need a simple majority of voters, at least 50% (plus one), to pass.

The Constitutional Part

As it stands today, Colorado income tax must be at a flat rate because of language in the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). Amendment 87 would change this by striking a few words in a small portion of TABOR, as shown below:

“Any income tax law change after July 1, 1992 shall also require all taxable net income to be taxed at one rate, excluding refund tax credits or voter-approved tax credits, with no added tax or surcharge.”

Colorado voters have passed measures to change the income tax rate a few times in recent years, but it was always only to change the flat rate.

The Tiered Part

Colorado income tax rates are currently based on a taxpayer’s federal taxable income, and that would remain the same even if Amendment 87 passes. The current flat rate is 4.41%. The rates under Amendment 87 would be effective for individual/family taxpayers and for C corporations. The new rates under 87 would be as follows:

  • $25,000 or less (federal taxable income): 3.71%
  • $25,000 to $100,000: 3.71% on the first $25,000, and then 4.21% on the portion between $25,000 and $100,000
  • $100,000 to $500,000: 3.71% on the first $25,000, then 4.21% on the portion between $25,000 and $100,000, and then 4.41% on the portion between $100,000 and $500,000.
  • $500,000 to $750,000: 3.71% on the first $25,000, then 4.21% on the portion between $25,000 and $100,000, then 4.41% on the portion between $100,000 and $500,000, and then 7.41% on the portion between $500,000 and $750,000.
  • $750,000 to $1 million: 3.71% on the first $25,000, then 4.21% on the portion between $25,000 and $100,000, then 4.41% on the portion between $100,000 and $500,000, then 7.41% on the portion between $500,000 and $750,000, and then 7.91% on the portion between $750,000 and $1 million.
  • For $1 million and up: 3.71% on the first $25,000, then 4.21% on the portion between $25,000 and $100,000, then 4.41% on the portion between $100,000 and $500,000, then 7.41% on the portion between $500,000 and $750,000, then 7.91% on the portion between $750,000 and $1 million, and then 8.41% on the portion that’s $1 million and up.

It might be an easier read just to look at the last bullet point for $1 million and up, which shows the proposed rate for all income categories.

How Would the Money Be Used?

The most recent state fiscal analysis from the Blue Book suggests that Amendment 87 would generate about $2 billion in its first full year, although it notes that this figure might change in the future based on economic conditions or other factors. Per Amendment 87 text, any “excess” revenue that is collected in amounts greater than what it would have been before the initiative would be directed toward three main categories:

  • K-12 Education: including increasing access to career and technical education and improving teacher pay.
  • Healthcare: including family affordability, replacing lost Medicaid funding, care for older adults and people with disabilities, rural healthcare, behavioral healthcare, primary care, and nutritious food programs.
  • Early Childcare and Education: including family affordability, better pay for the workforce, and improving access to programs.

Amendment 87 also has a “de-Brucing” statement allowing the state to keep and spend this revenue without needing to do TABOR refunds.

There would be mandatory yearly reporting on revenue from Amendment 87 and how it’s used, which will be available to the public and to the state General Assembly.

Why Amendment 87?

According to the legislative declaration in Amendment 87, there is a fairness issue in that the top 1% of Coloradans pay about 7% of their income in state and local taxes, while the 60% of Coloradans between $25,000 and $150,000 pay 9-10%. The initiative also states that the federal government and 27 U.S. states already have graduated income tax rates.

Meanwhile, Colorado’s K-12 education system could be said to be underfunded (though there is debate on that), and some working families have difficulties affording healthcare or childcare. The legislative declaration also claims that “46 percent of early childhood workers in the state rely on social welfare programs like Medicaid and SNAP.” New revenue from Amendment 87 would be intended to address these problems.

Per a 2025 report linked here called “Growing Wealth Inequality in Colorado” from the liberal Bell Policy Center, Colorado ranked 39th in the nation for its generally regressive tax structure. Colorado relies heavily on sales and use taxes, which some people believe to be regressive because they impact lower-income residents to a greater extent. Meanwhile, the report says implementing a graduated income tax system would reduce “some of the income disparities and the revenue raised can in turn fund important programs that are proven to increase economic mobility like public education and helping families afford the high costs of child care.”

Why Not Amendment 87?

The conservative Common Sense Institute released a report back when Amendment 87 was Initiative 195, and for those who won’t or can’t read the whole report linked here, the following bullet points might explain a few of their top conclusions:

  • CSI estimates passing Initiative #195 would raise the state’s average individual tax rate from 4.4% of taxable income (not including deductions and exemptions) to 5%, making it higher than the rates in all neighboring states but one.
  • At 8.4%, Colorado’s top marginal rate under Initiative #195 would be the highest by far in the region.
  • Colorado would lose a net total of 14 firms and $200 million in corporate profits per year because of Initiative #195. In the top income bracket, the state would lose 29 firms that, together, earn $202 million annually and employ roughly 4,200 people.
  • Colorado already is losing businesses faster than other states. According to the latest data, Colorado’s net firm migration is 6th-worst in the country. (Note: In this point, CSI cited its own report from 2024)

How Amendment 87 Would Work in Real Dollars

The simplest way to know how this measure would affect Coloradans across the board might be to use the chart below from the State of Colorado Blue Book.

For more precise numbers, there is also a tax calculator on the home page of the proponent’s website: https://protectcoloradosfuture.com/

Amendment 87 Pro:

  • Wealthier Coloradans can typically afford the necessities of life, plus perhaps luxuries. Poorer Coloradans might have difficulties affording bare necessities. This graduated income tax measure would help smooth out the inequality to some extent by cutting rates for about 97% of Coloradans and increasing them for the top 3%.
  • Revenue from the new income tax rates would help pay for key state services in Colorado, which could in turn help make sure lower-income families could have better or more affordable access to healthcare or education.
  • About 27 other states already have a graduated state income tax.

Amendment 87 Con:

  • Adding large new tax burdens on the wealthy or corporations might make them consider relocating to another state or country, potentially costing the state businesses, jobs, or even some of the income tax it is hoping for through Amendment 87.
  • Some individuals and businesses probably like being in Colorado, but new Colorado tax rates might not be favorable compared to neighboring states that might have some of the same amenities as Colorado.

Links to More Information

Proponents

  • Protect Colorado’s Future Coalition has registered to support Amendment 87. As of Oct. 6, this committee had reported $691,494.80 in total monetary contributions, and $338,966.71 in non-monetary contributions. Top contributors include New Era Colorado Action Fund $131,127.17, Bell Policy Center $130,000.00, Colorado Statewide Parent Network $111,132.41, Great Education Colorado Action $111,129.54, Colorado Fiscal Institute $77,838.43, Colorado Center on Law and Policy $65,000.00, Save the Children Action Network $53,184.37, Colorado WINS $50,000.00, and Great Education Colorado $45,304.66.

Opponents

As of Oct. 6, 7  committees have registered to oppose Amendment 87.

  • Americans for Prosperity Colorado Issue Committee has reported $266,475.98 in contributions, all from Americans for Prosperity in Arlington, Virginia.
  • A Brighter Colorado opposes 87, but also Prop NN. It has received $2,612,150.00 in total contributions, including a non-itemized report from Oct. 6 of $2,305,525.00 in contributions, $250,000 from McLean, Virginia-based Common Sense America, and $100,000 from Colorado Dawn.
  • Don’t Price Us Out has reported $1,060,000 in total contributions as of Oct. 6, including $760,000 from American Prosperity Coalition from Euless, Texas, and $300,000 from Ready Colorado.
  • Affordable Colorado has reported $9,858.60 in non-monetary contributions.
  • The other committees Your Family’s Future Alliance, Let’s Go Colorado, and Keep Colorado Affordable had not reported contributions.

Richard’s Take

I will probably vote for this initiative, but not without a few conflicting feelings. And I want to state very up-front that I’m nowhere near the category that will see tax increases if this passes.

On an extremely high level, like looking down from a satellite, there is tremendous wealth inequality in the United States, and federal tax policy – including the so-called “Trump Tax Cuts” of 2017 that were recently extended via P.L. 119-21 – has been generally more beneficial to wealthier Americans, at least in real dollars. Amendment 87 might not fix American inequality, but it could be said that in certain cases, Coloradans who are benefiting from favorable federal tax policy might be able to help fund statewide needs via the proposed graduated income tax increases.

But to shift from high-level macro to micro, just to lump people into a category like “the wealthy” does generally ignore individual circumstances. I’m sure there are people out there for whom it will be simple to just say “Tax the Rich” and be done with it. I can be a (normally polite) class warrior, I’ve read Piketty’s “Capital in the 21st Century,” but I won’t deny that some wealthier people plain-out do things that many of us can’t, and I might benefit from their products or services. I know people might disagree, but for the most part I think it’s good for Colorado that we have successful and talented people, and in my opinion we ought to want to keep them here as long as they’re ethical.

The conservative Common Sense Institute seems to always come up with a numerical report suggesting that new tax or spending policies will cost jobs or make companies reconsider doing business here. And while I question how they quite predictably seem to come up with similar basic conclusions for different measures, I don’t doubt how on a micro level it might be true once in a while. Companies certainly do consider the cost of living while making decisions on where to locate, although they might also consider other factors including the quality of schools, which 87 would help pay for.

I’m an older Coloradan with a taste for older music. I’ve quoted the 10 Years After song “I’d Love to Change the World” in this space before – “Tax the rich, feed the poor, Till there are no rich no more.” I’m ambivalent about this line, partially because if you’ve listened to Alvin Lee’s guitar playing, you might guess he eventually made pretty good money for all that practice. I was never able to play like him, hence I didn’t make as much money. No doubt there is exploitative capitalism, but some folks flat-out earn legitimate money through hard work or initiative.

But in conclusion, I’ll still come down on the side saying that federal tax policy has exacerbated wealth inequality, and the revenue from Amendment 87 will help fund programs that help make it possible for Colorado families of lower or middle-income to live better lives.