- Missouri voters will decide on phasing out individual income tax via Amendment 5 on August 4, 2026.
- The plan relies on revenue-triggered reductions and potentially expanding consumption taxes to replace lost income.
- Supporters claim it boosts competitiveness, while critics warn eighty percent of households could face net increases.
Missouri voters will decide Tuesday whether to amend the state constitution and begin a revenue-triggered effort to phase out the individual income tax while allowing lawmakers to broaden consumption taxes. Polls open at 6:00 AM and close at 7:00 PM on August 4, 2026.
The ballot measure, Amendment 5, would not immediately eliminate the tax or establish replacement rates. It would require reductions tied to state revenue growth and authorize the General Assembly to tax additional goods and services later.
Free toolSubstantial Presence Test Calculator
A yes vote would approve the constitutional framework. A no vote would preserve Missouri’s current individual income-tax system.
The ballot question asks: “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Require legislative phase-out of the individual state income tax based on revenue growth, and authorize the expansion of sales and use taxes; Curtail constitutional limits on taxing goods and services; and Require local tax rate cuts without reducing school funding if local sales tax revenue increases?”
Gov. Mike Kehoe has made the proposal a priority. He said:
“Amendment 5 is not a tax plan; Amendment 5 is a plan to let Missourians keep their income tax.”
The measure originated in House Joint Resolutions 173 & 174 and reached the August primary ballot through the Republican-led General Assembly. Opponents have criticized the timing, saying a lower-turnout primary should not decide an issue that could otherwise appear in the November general election.
The amendment sets the direction, not the final tax rates
Missouri’s individual income tax generates roughly $9 billion annually, while another estimate puts collections at approximately $8.5 billion, or roughly 64% to 65% of the state’s general revenue.
The proposal leaves the detailed replacement plan to future legislation. It does not name specific new rates or identify particular goods and services that lawmakers would tax.
That work would come later.
The amendment would permit expansion of the tax base to goods and services that are not currently taxed. It would also curtail constitutional limits on taxing those purchases.
Reductions would occur in stages if revenue-growth triggers are met. The changes could unfold over a five-year window, with total elimination possible as early as January 1, 2031, if the required conditions are satisfied.
Missouri’s current top individual income-tax rate is 4.70% for income over $9,436.
| Feature | What the proposal provides |
|---|---|
| Income tax | Gradual reductions tied to revenue growth |
| Possible end date | January 1, 2031, if triggers are met |
| Replacement authority | Lawmakers could expand taxes on additional goods and services |
| Current top rate | 4.70% on income over $9,436 |
| Current annual collections | Roughly $9 billion in one estimate; approximately $8.5 billion in another |
The ballot language also addresses local taxation. It would require local tax-rate cuts when local sales-tax revenue increases, while barring those reductions from cutting school funding.
Supporters say Missouri needs a lower-tax profile
Kehoe has compared Missouri with Tennessee and Texas, states identified by supporters as competitors without an individual income tax. During his January 2026 State of the State Address, he said:
“When we're competing against states like Tennessee and Texas, states with no individual income tax, too often the conversation ends before it truly begins. [Eliminating the income tax] will drive business and growth to Missouri.”
Secretary of State Denny Hoskins backed the measure in an official press release issued June 2, 2026. He said the decision would preserve Missourians’ authority to choose whether the state moves toward a different tax structure.
State Rep. Bishop Davidson, R-Republic, sponsored HJR 174. In July 2026, Davidson said tax-policy changes could benefit education over the medium and long term, while having no short-term effect.
Gary Hollis, state director of Americans for Prosperity-Missouri, also urged approval in a June 3, 2026, statement. Hollis said the proposal would provide relief for working families and help make Missouri more competitive in the Midwest.
Supporters describe the shift as a way to reduce taxes on earnings and encourage investment. The constitutional amendment, however, leaves the later tax design to legislators.
Opponents see higher costs for many households
Critics say the proposal could shift tax costs from income to purchases. Traci Gleason, vice president of external relations at the Missouri Budget Project, said her organization’s analysis found that 80% of Missourians would face a net tax increase.
“Amendment 5 would raise taxes for most Missourians, risk devastating cuts to services that build opportunity, and damage our state's economy. 80% of Missourians would see a net tax increase.”
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that earners in the top 1% could receive an average tax cut of nearly $40,000. Its estimate for households earning between $50,000 and $80,000 shows an average net tax increase of $535 if lawmakers broaden consumption taxes.
Those projections depend on future legislative choices. The constitutional proposal does not specify which purchases would receive new taxes or how replacement revenue would be distributed.
The Missouri Catholic Conference raised a separate concern about relying more heavily on consumption taxes. A joint statement from Missouri’s four bishops, issued July 17, 2026, said:
“Tax systems that rely heavily on regressive forms of taxation, such as sales taxes, should be approached with prudence because they can place a disproportionate burden on those with lower incomes.”
Schools and shelters are watching the replacement money
Several school boards have adopted resolutions opposing the measure. Kansas City Public Schools and Lee's Summit are among those boards.
They estimate that public education could lose $1.4 billion statewide if replacement revenues fail to materialize. The concern centers on whether later tax changes would generate enough money as income-tax reductions take effect.
State Rep. Bishop Davidson has said the proposal would have no short-term effect on education funding. School boards opposing it have focused on the potential longer-term loss if lawmakers do not replace the revenue.
Charitable organizations have raised another issue. Mary Ann Owens of The Women’s Safe House in St. Louis said eliminating the income tax could effectively end the 70% state tax credit offered to donors.
The credit helps fund domestic-violence shelters. Its future would depend on how lawmakers revise the tax system after a constitutional change.
A court cleared the measure for Tuesday’s ballot
The ballot language faced a legal challenge before the election. In June 2026, the Cole County Circuit Court ruled that the proposal could remain on the ballot as written.
Final campaign finance reports on July 30 showed spending by out-of-state interest groups supporting and opposing the measure. Religious leaders and advocacy organizations held final rallies across Missouri on August 3, focusing on potential effects on vulnerable residents and the state economy.
The vote comes alongside similar efforts in Mississippi and Oklahoma to move from income-based taxation toward consumption-based systems. Critics have pointed to Kansas’ tax changes during the 2010s as a warning about revenue volatility and budget shortfalls.
Missouri voters will also consider Amendment 1, concerning parks and soil tax renewal; Amendment 2, concerning the Jackson County Assessor; and Amendment 4, concerning initiative petition thresholds.
If voters approve the constitutional change, lawmakers will write the later tax measures and determine how revenue-growth triggers operate. The earliest possible date for complete elimination remains January 1, 2031.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute tax advice. Consult a qualified tax professional or CPA about your specific situation.
