Amendment 5: The Conversation Missouri Isn't Having

Public policy debates often begin with a headline and end with a ballot question. Somewhere in the middle lies the part that deserves the most attention: understanding how the policy actually works.

Missouri's Amendment 5 has generated significant discussion because it proposes a pathway toward eliminating the state's income tax. Supporters argue that reducing or ultimately eliminating income taxes would improve Missouri's competitiveness, attract investment, and allow citizens to keep more of what they earn. Opponents argue that the proposal could create pressure to find replacement revenue through other forms of taxation.

Both sides have made their case. Yet there may be a larger question that deserves additional discussion.

If Missouri eventually replaces income tax revenue, where would that revenue come from, and what process would be used to implement those changes?

That question has become increasingly relevant as critics point to existing constitutional provisions approved by Missouri voters over the years. These include the Hancock Amendment's voter-approval requirements for major tax increases, the constitutional prohibition on real estate transfer taxes, and the prohibition against sales taxes on services approved by voters in 2016.

Supporters of Amendment 5 maintain that it creates flexibility for future tax reform. Critics contend that the amendment could allow lawmakers to bypass voter-approved limitations that currently restrict certain tax increases or expansions.

The debate, therefore, may not be simply about whether Missouri should reduce or eliminate its income tax. It may also be about who should decide what comes next.

The Revenue Question

A central issue in the Amendment 5 discussion is not whether taxes could change, but which taxes could change.

Missouri's income tax generates billions of dollars annually for state government. If those revenues are reduced or eventually eliminated, replacement revenue would likely need to come from a combination of economic growth, spending reductions, or expansion of other tax sources.

Critics point to one area in particular: services.

Missouri currently taxes many goods but exempts most services from sales tax. Professional services such as legal, accounting, engineering, consulting, marketing, and many personal services generally fall outside the sales tax structure. Opponents argue that broadening the tax base to include some services could become an attractive option for future lawmakers seeking replacement revenue.

Supporters counter that broadening the tax base is not necessarily the same as raising taxes. They argue that the economy has evolved from one centered on goods to one increasingly driven by services, and that modernizing the tax code may be necessary regardless of what happens with the income tax.

The distinction may ultimately come down to perspective. Is expanding taxation to previously exempt activities a tax increase, or is it simply closing exemptions? That question lies at the heart of the current debate.

For business owners, this question is particularly important. While much of the public discussion has focused on individual taxpayers, the potential expansion of sales taxes into service-based sectors could affect thousands of Missouri businesses that have historically operated outside the state's sales tax framework.

When Does the Vote Occur?

Missouri voters are expected to consider Amendment 5 during the August 4, 2026 statewide election.

While much of the public discussion has focused on the long-term possibility of eliminating the income tax, the immediate decision before voters is whether to authorize the constitutional framework that would allow future lawmakers to continue reducing income tax rates as specific revenue triggers are met.

The amendment itself does not immediately eliminate the income tax. Instead, it establishes a mechanism that could accelerate future reductions over time.

A Larger Question: Why Are Constitutional Conflicts Increasing?

Beyond the tax debate itself lies a broader question that deserves discussion.

Over the last several decades, Missouri voters have increasingly used constitutional amendments to place limits on government authority. Examples include the Hancock Amendment, restrictions on real estate transfer taxes, limitations on taxing services, term limits, and numerous other voter-approved provisions.

At the same time, policymakers have increasingly sought constitutional amendments of their own to create flexibility around those same constraints.

This raises an important civic question.

Are lawmakers attempting to work around voter-approved limitations, or are they responding to economic realities that were not anticipated when those limitations were adopted?

Reasonable people can disagree.

Supporters of Amendment 5 would argue that governments need flexibility to respond to changing economic conditions and that constitutional restrictions can sometimes make comprehensive tax reform difficult.

Critics would argue that constitutional protections exist precisely to prevent governments from making significant policy changes without voter consent.

Neither position should be dismissed lightly.

The real issue may not be Amendment 5 itself. It may be the growing tension between direct democracy and representative government. When voters use constitutional amendments to restrict government authority, and elected officials later seek constitutional amendments to restore flexibility, whose judgment should prevail?

That question extends far beyond taxes. It goes to the heart of how Missouri governs itself.

The Question Behind the Question

If additional categories of goods or services were eventually taxed to replace lost income tax revenue, would those changes represent a tax increase? Or would they be viewed as closing exemptions and broadening the tax base?

More importantly, should voters have a direct say in those decisions?

• What services could eventually become taxable?

• How would local governments be affected?

• What impact would revenue shifts have on economic development incentives, infrastructure investment, education, and public safety?

• What constitutional protections would remain in place, and which could be modified?

These questions do not necessarily lead to support or opposition. They lead to understanding.

At Progress 64 West, our role is not to tell people what to think. Our role is to encourage thoughtful discussion about the policies that shape our region's future.

The conversation surrounding Amendment 5 should continue. But before Missourians decide whether they support the destination, they deserve a clearer understanding of the road map.

Because sometimes the most important question is not what a proposal does today.

It's what it makes possible tomorrow.