Missouri's individual income tax provides nearly two‑thirds of the state general revenue that funds public education. Amendment 5 would write its elimination into the constitution — with no guaranteed replacement for the state dollars your local schools depend on. Rural schools would be hit hardest.
Amendment 5 (HJR 173) was placed on the August primary ballot by the legislature. After a court challenge, the Western District Court of Appeals rewrote the official summary because the original didn't tell voters the whole story. This is the final language you'll see in the voting booth:
Once eliminated, the income tax is constitutionally banned from ever coming back, no matter what happens to school budgets. There is no undo button, even if it goes the way it went in Kansas.
It authorizes new sales taxes on goods and services that have never been taxed — and for five years, lawmakers could expand those taxes without a vote of the people, bypassing the Hancock Amendment.
The "without reducing school funding" line applies only to local tax rollbacks. Nothing in Amendment 5 protects the state foundation formula — the $4.2 billion appropriation that is already $190 million short of full funding this year.
Missouri's 516 school districts get their operating money from three places. The state share flows mostly through the foundation formula — and the formula is fed by general revenue, of which the individual income tax is by far the largest source.
Search any of Missouri's 516 public school districts. We show how much of its budget comes from the state, how many dollars trace back to the income tax, and what it would take for local taxpayers to fill the gap.
Data: Missouri DESE district finance data (2024–25) as compiled in the Show-Me Missouri Schools research database: each district's enrollment, spending per pupil, revenue shares by source (local/state/federal), average teacher salary, and total assessed valuation.
The model: A district's annual state dollars = total revenue × its state share. Of every state dollar, we estimate 45¢ traces to the individual income tax: roughly 70% of state K–12 support flows from general revenue (the rest is Prop C sales tax and gaming/lottery, which would survive), and the income tax supplies ~64–65% of general revenue (0.70 × 0.645 ≈ 0.45). The scenario buttons then assume lawmakers replace all, half, a quarter, or none of the lost income-tax revenue with new sales taxes. Statewide, our "none replaced" scenario totals $1.58B — consistent with the Missouri Budget Project's independent estimate of a $1.4B cut to state support for local schools.
Teacher positions divide the at-risk dollars by the district's own average teacher salary plus 35% for benefits. The local backfill divides the at-risk dollars by the district's assessed valuation to show the property-tax levy increase needed to raise the same money locally, and prices that levy for a $200,000 home (Missouri assesses homes at 19% of market value, so $200,000 → $38,000 assessed; each 10¢ of levy = $38/yr).
These are estimates, not predictions. Amendment 5 doesn't set a schedule — it orders future legislatures to cut. Nobody can say exactly which year the money disappears or which line items get cut. What the data can show is the size of each district's exposure, and that exposure is not evenly distributed.
Missouri's school funding formula sends state aid where local property wealth is thin. That's the whole point of the formula — and it's why the districts most dependent on the state are overwhelmingly rural. Wealthy suburbs, which fund most of their budgets from their own strong property tax base, would feel Amendment 5 least. The small towns that are their school district would feel it most.
| Community type | Districts | Students | Median state share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rural | 388 | 192,695 | 41% |
| Town | 69 | 180,056 | 38% |
| Suburb | 45 | 304,636 | 32% |
| City | 14 | 148,688 | 26% |
A levy is only worth what your tax base is worth. In property-poor districts, replacing lost state aid would take a levy increase of $2, $3, even $5 per $100 of assessed value — doubling many families' school taxes. In several districts it's mathematically impossible under levy limits.
Three out of four Missouri districts are rural, educating nearly 200,000 students. The median rural district gets 41% of its budget from the state — and some get more than 60%.
Sales taxes are weakest exactly where rural schools are: small towns with few retailers. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found 80% of Missourians — including most rural families — would pay more in total taxes under the swap, while the biggest income-tax savings flow to the highest earners in the metros.
In 2012, Kansas made the same bet Amendment 5 asks Missouri to make: slash the income tax, promise growth would cover it. Here's what actually happened next door:
Revenue fell roughly $4.5 billion below projections through 2018. Promised economic growth never materialized — Kansas job growth ran less than half the national rate.
State school aid fell so far that the Kansas Supreme Court repeatedly ruled school funding constitutionally inadequate. Some districts ended the school year early because they ran out of money.
In 2017, a Republican-supermajority legislature voted to reverse the experiment over the governor's veto. Kansas could do that because it was a statute. Amendment 5 is a constitutional amendment — Missouri couldn't.
"You'll keep $2,800 more each year." That's the sponsor's figure for an average earner if the tax reaches zero — and it ignores the other half of the swap. ITEP's analysis of the actual proposal found 80% of Missourians would pay more once the expanded sales taxes are counted; a middle-income family would pay about $535 more per year, and many retirees — who pay little income tax now — over $1,000 more.
"States without income taxes thrive." States without a broad income tax fund schools with things Missouri doesn't have: oil and mineral royalties (Alaska, Wyoming, Texas), massive tourism (Florida, Nevada), or the nation's highest sales taxes (Tennessee). Missouri would be trying it with none of those.
"School funding is explicitly protected." Read the language: the protection covers local tax rollbacks only. The state foundation formula — the $4.2B that actually flows to districts — has no protection at all in Amendment 5's text.
Campaign-finance filings tell their own story. One side's money traces to named, mostly in-state organizations. The other side's money mostly stops at newly formed nonprofits that are not required to say who funded them. Every figure below comes from public Missouri Ethics Commission filings and news reporting, is current as of July 18, 2026, and reflects at least the amounts identified so far — not necessarily final totals.
These are not perfectly matched measures: the “Yes” figure includes in-kind support reported to the main pro-Amendment 5 PAC, and the “No” figure counts only specifically identified contributions across four committees — one of which also opposes other 2026 measures. Both are minimums, not final totals.
The largest opposition funder is the Missouri Association of REALTORS, which reported about $1.9 million to the campaign — and the Realtors’ own board materials say that money came from an Issues Reserve funded by annual per-member allocations. You can see the organization and where its money comes from. The rest of the identified opposition money traces to named Missouri groups too: the Missouri NEA (the teachers’ association), Parents for Missouri Public Schools, and state health and education foundations.
At least $14 million supporting Amendment 5 is routed through six nonprofits — most organized as 501(c)(4) “social-welfare” groups — and the trail stops there. The single largest, “Missouri Action” (about $6.5 million, ~46% of the identified total), names no donors. Several are newly formed or registered out of state (Ohio, Maryland, Virginia); one is incorporated in Delaware at what reporters identified as a private mailbox. The record shows the nonprofits writing the checks — but not the people or interests behind them.
It comes down to what a 501(c)(4) is. A 501(c)(4) is a tax-exempt “social welfare” nonprofit, and under federal law it is not required to publicly disclose who donates to it. When a campaign’s money is routed through these groups, the nonprofit’s name is what appears in the state filing — the original donor stays legally hidden. That’s why this kind of spending is often called “dark money.”
So when six such nonprofits supply the bulk of the pro-Amendment 5 money, the Missouri Ethics Commission record can show you each nonprofit’s name and the amount — but not the person, company, or interest that ultimately paid. Compare that with the opposition: when the Realtors fund their campaign from member dues, or the teachers’ association or a named foundation writes a check, you can see exactly who is behind it.
And for these particular groups, that opacity has a documented history. In a 2020 investigation, the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) traced two of the same nonprofits now backing Amendment 5 to a network that moved money largely from nonprofit to nonprofit — at least $36.6 million in undisclosed political spending since 2011. Those historical filings show funds passing between organizations, but they still do not reveal the ultimate people, corporations, or other donors financing the six groups now supporting Amendment 5. Follow the paper trail and it ends at another nonprofit — never at a name. (That is historical context about the organizations — not proof of who funded their 2026 Amendment 5 support.)
Sources: Missouri Ethics Commission campaign-finance filings (pro-Amendment 5 committee ID C264249) · Missouri Independent, “Who’s paying for Amendment 5?” (2026) · IRS: 501(c)(4) social-welfare organizations · CREW (2020 network investigation). Figures current as of July 18, 2026.
Every number on this page traces to public data or on-the-record reporting. Read it all before you vote.
Tuesday, August 4, 2026 · Polls open 6am–7pm · Bring your ID · Check your polling place at sos.mo.gov