Colorado Amendment 87 Targets High Earners for $2.7 Billion Tax Boost

On the stretch of Interstate 70 where the sky turns a bruised purple before sunset, the silence of the high desert is broken only by the hum of tires on asphalt. It’s a quiet place, but the political noise is getting louder. For folks driving through the valley tonight, the conversation isn’t just about traffic; it’s about who pays for it.

The decision at hand is stark. Amendment 87 proposes lowering the state income tax rate for 97% of earners and 95% of businesses. In exchange, it raises taxes on individuals and entities with incomes over $500,000. The nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Office says the math holds up: the state would collect an additional $2.7 billion annually.

To hear them tell it, the trade-off is simple. You get a small break, and the state gets a big boost. Brian Eason, writing for the Colorado Sun, noted that the projections are solid. The state needs revenue, and this provides it without touching the majority of taxpayers’ wallets.

But there is a catch. The amendment isn’t just a slight adjustment. For those clearing a million dollars a year, the flat 4.4% rate jumps to a graduated 8.4%. That is a significant shift.

Is that fair? That depends on who you ask. Many Coloradans have a deep-seated aversion to taxing the wealthy. It’s a sentiment that has persisted since the days of trickle-down economics. The idea that if the rich get richer, everyone benefits, hasn’t always played out that way.

Recent federal tax cuts for the wealthy have often come with little relief for the middle class. Wages remain stagnant for many, while the gap between the top and the bottom widens. Younger voters, in particular, are less inclined to accept this disparity. They are seeing the wealth gap not as a temporary blip, but as a structural issue.

The question is whether Coloradans will prioritize the immediate tax cut or the long-term fiscal health of the state. If voters reject Amendment 87, they are essentially choosing to keep the status quo. The state continues to rely on the current tax base, which may not be enough to fund schools, infrastructure, and healthcare in the coming decades.

If they approve it, they are betting that the wealthy will stay. Will they leave? Some might. But many are deeply rooted here. They own homes, businesses, and investments. Leaving isn’t as easy as packing a car.

The real test is whether the community believes the promise. Will the extra revenue actually be used for what it’s intended? Or will it disappear into the general fund, buried under other spending?

That is the risk. Voters are being asked to trust that the state will manage the new money wisely. It’s a big ask. But it’s also a chance to fix a broken system.

In the end, it comes down to values. Do you value fairness? Stability? Growth?