Massachusetts Data Debunks Colorado Amendment 87 Business Flight Fears

"When taxes go up, big businesses leave and take their good-paying jobs with them."

Michael Smith, the state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said it plainly in a statement that has likely echoed through every kitchen table and office breakroom on the Western Slope this week. It is a familiar threat, one that carries the weight of a promise: if you tax us more, we will vanish. And with us, the jobs, the revenue, and the economic engine of the state will go too.

This argument sits at the center of the campaign against Amendment 87, a ballot measure that could reshape how Colorado collects its income tax. If voters approve it in November, the state will move from a flat 4.4% rate to a graduated system with six brackets, ranging from 3.7% for earnings up to $25,000 to 8.4% for income above $1 million. The goal is to generate an estimated $2 billion in its first year, funding education, childcare, and healthcare. For the roughly 97% of Colorado taxpayers making less than about $500,000 annually, the rate would actually drop. For those earning more, it rises.

The fear is visceral. You can feel it in the radio ads that have saturated the airwaves, a constant hum of anxiety about economic flight. But does the data back up the doom?

The Colorado Sun reported that when Massachusetts faced a similar choice, the reality was far less dramatic than the predictions. In 2022, Massachusetts voters approved a "millionaire’s tax," raising the rate on earnings over $1 million from 5% to 9%. Critics predicted a mass exodus of the wealthy, a brain drain that would cripple the state. That did not happen.

Instead, the Boston Globe analyzed Internal Revenue Service data and found that while nearly 30,000 more people left Massachusetts than moved in from 2022 to 2023, the outmigration was not driven by the rich. More than 70% of the net population loss came from people making less than $200,000 a year. The wealthy stayed put, and the tax hike raised far more revenue than initially estimated.

Jeff Hoopes, research director at the University of North Carolina’s Tax Center, noted that taxing the rich is as much a philosophical question as an economic one. "How big should the government be and who should pay for it?" he asked. It is a question that lingers in the quiet moments before you cast your ballot, a query about what kind of community we want to build in the high country.

For folks around here, this isn't just an abstract policy debate. It’s about whether the property taxes and local services in our towns will be supported by a broader base, or if we’re left betting on a flat tax that treats the owner of a single-family home in Glenwood Springs exactly the same as the CEO of a tech giant in Denver. The threat that big business will leave if taxed is loud, but the evidence from Massachusetts suggests it’s a siren song rather than a forecast.

The air is crisp on the Western Slope, the kind of cold that makes you pull your jacket tighter and think about what’s inside. When you walk into the voting booth on Nov. 3, you aren't just picking a number; you're deciding who carries the weight of our public systems. The rich may threaten to leave, but they haven't yet packed their bags.