The cost of living is one of the dominant themes likely influencing voter decisions in this fall’s election, so it may come as little surprise for readers to learn that various states are depending on the ballot to answer some tough questions. For some voters, the question is whether to return to more progressive taxation structures in which wealthier individuals pay a larger percentage of their wealth as taxes. In others, it’s the reverse, in which state voters will be asked if the benefits of cutting taxes for everyone might outweigh the challenges to governing effectively with sharply less revenue. Voters' answers to these questions could shape state tax policy and budgets for years to come.
Below is a sample of some tax-related ballots from various states, and the arguments proponents and opponents are presenting.
-
Two propositions on the California ballot target wealthier taxpayers. Proposition 3 would make permanent higher income tax rates for the state’s highest earners. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time wealth tax on billionaires. Opposing propositions said by those against the propositions to benefit wealthy Californians more than others include Proposition 41, which supporters say would add more transparency to the taxation process, and Proposition 42, which would prohibit new taxes after January 1, 2026, on ownership or control of retirement holdings.
-
In Colorado, proposed Amendment 87 (formerly Initiative 195) would allow voters to decide whether to replace the state’s flat income tax with a graduated system that would raise taxes on the highest-income households while cutting taxes for most residents. Opponents argue that the amendment would cause an exodus of good-paying jobs from the state. Similar arguments are made in all states considering more progressive
-
In Washington, Initiative 645 asks voters to decide whether to repeal the state’s new millionaire tax, enacted by lawmakers earlier this year. That law was set to take effect in 2029, but this grassroots effort to repeal it could prevent the state from collecting any of the money. The millionaire’s tax is the first in Washington to tax income: the state relies on sales, property, and business taxes to support state services. Let’s Go Washington, a political committee, leads movement to repeal the tax and frames it as the first step toward imposing income taxes on residents at lower income levels.
-
Florida’s Amendment 3 would increase the homestead tax exemption, decrease the cap on how much the assessed value of non-homestead properties can increase, and limit how municipalities can spend property tax revenue. The amendment would, according to the Florida Policy Institute, cause local governments to face deep cuts to revenue and ultimately shift costs onto renters, consumers, and small businesses. The amendment would require a 60% vote to be approved.
-
Two tax-related amendments are on the ballot in North Carolina. The North Carolina Property Tax Levy Limit Amendment would limit how much property taxes—which are collected by local municipalities, not the state—could increase. This amendment would allow the state to set a limit on how much local municipalities could raise taxes. The second amendment, the North Carolina Reduce Income Tax Rate Cap from 7% to 3.5% Amendment would lower the tax rate cap to 3.5% from its current 7% rate. According to WUNC News, supporters of both measures point to an economic boost if taxpayers pay lower taxes and have more money to spend, while opponents argue the amendments would create shortages for state and local governments, which would then need to cut services.
-
Iowa Amendment 1 would require a two-thirds supermajority vote in the legislature to raise personal or corporate income taxes, making future tax changes more difficult to enact. Supporters of the amendment say it ensures wide consensus for any tax hikes, lowering the chances that future tax changes will pass into law. Opponents argue that the amendment would tie the hands of future legislators in making changes to tax laws, such as taxing wealthy people at a higher rate or raising the state’s tax revenues.