Voters in six states are deciding nine income or wealth tax ballot measures in 2026, the most in a single year since 2000, according to Ballotpedia’s tracking. The roster spans California, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Washington and Missouri, and includes California’s one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ wealth alongside measures that would cap, raise, restructure or repeal state income taxes entirely. One of the nine, Missouri’s, has already been decided: voters rejected it at the Aug. 4 primary.
Where these votes intersect retirement income: The Retirement Tax & Withdrawal Planner pairs four calculators, including a Roth bracket-fill tool, with the account withdrawal order for weighing a new state rate against federal brackets. Run the withdrawal order against a new state rate →
Nine Measures, Six States, One Unusually Busy Ballot Cycle
Ballotpedia’s Sept. 16 tally counts nine statewide income- or wealth-tax measures on 2026 ballots in California, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Washington and Missouri, more than in any year since 2000. Between 2000 and 2025, voters nationwide decided 40 such measures, splitting them 20 approved to 20 defeated; 2026 alone accounts for roughly a quarter of that quarter-century total. Eight of the nine reached the Nov. 3 general-election ballot; the ninth, Missouri’s Amendment 5, was already decided at the state’s Aug. 4 primary.
California Alone Accounts for Three of the Nine
California carries the largest share, with three separate measures. Proposition 40 is the headline wealth tax: California’s own official voter guide describes it as imposing a “5% tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion; revenue primarily for health care,” a one-time levy Ballotpedia describes as reaching “taxpayers and trusts” above that $1 billion threshold. Proposition 3 extends the state’s existing top marginal income-tax rates of 10.3% to 12.3% on higher incomes, directing that revenue to K-12 schools and community colleges. Proposition 42 runs the opposite direction: it would bar new taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned assets and personal savings, and bar any retroactive tax. Because Propositions 40 and 42 contain competing-measure provisions, only whichever draws more votes would actually take effect if both pass.
Money has followed Proposition 42 more than any of the other eight measures: Ballotpedia’s tally puts combined campaign fundraising behind it at $52.7 million through June 30, the largest war chest of the nine, a sign of how much is riding on whether California voters choose to wall off retirement accounts and personal savings from future state tax changes.
Four More States Weigh Caps and a Repeal
Colorado has two measures pulling in opposite directions on the same ballot: Initiative 195 would create a graduated income tax ranging from 3.7% to 8.4% and remove the state TABOR law’s uniform-rate requirement, while Initiative 232 would instead cap individual and corporate rates at 4.4%, the current flat rate. Iowa’s Amendment 1 would require a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber before lawmakers could raise income-tax rates or create a new state income tax. North Carolina’s measure would lower the maximum income-tax rate allowed under the state constitution from 7% to 3.5%, a change the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy counts among the nine as well. And in Washington, Initiative 645 would repeal the state’s 9.9% tax on individual income above $1 million, according to the state legislature’s own bill summary, which also confirms the measure was certified to the ballot on July 22, 2026 and would bar state and local governments from taxing individual income at all going forward.
Missouri Already Answered No
Missouri’s Amendment 5 would have phased out the state’s income tax in stages, shifting the lost revenue toward sales taxes, but voters rejected it decisively at the Aug. 4 primary, by a margin Ballotpedia puts at 83.3% to 16.7%. Gov. Mike Kehoe’s official statement on the result did not dispute the loss, saying only that “throughout this conversation on eliminating the state income tax, we made the case that Missouri should think boldly about its future.” The defeat means Missouri’s income tax structure stays as it was, even as five other states weigh their own versions of the same basic question in November.
Why the Count Matters for a Retirement Budget
Most of the nine measures target either very high earners and wealth holders, as with California’s billionaire tax and Washington’s repeal of its tax on income above $1 million, or the general marginal rate that applies well below that, as with California’s Proposition 3, North Carolina’s rate cap and Colorado’s two competing initiatives. For a retiree drawing from a traditional IRA or 401(k), a state’s marginal rate change matters most in the year a large withdrawal or a Roth conversion pushes taxable income into a higher bracket, which is precisely the calculation a rate cap, a rate increase or a supermajority requirement like Iowa’s can shift from one year to the next. California’s Proposition 42 is the one measure of the nine written explicitly around retirement holdings rather than income brackets, aiming to wall off retirement accounts and personal savings from any new state tax regardless of how the other eight measures turn out.
The nine measures also split on direction rather than moving as a bloc: Iowa’s supermajority requirement and Colorado’s Initiative 232 would each make it structurally harder to raise a rate in the future, North Carolina’s cap and Washington’s repeal would lower or eliminate one outright, while California’s Proposition 3 and Colorado’s Initiative 195 would raise or restructure rates upward. A retiree weighing a move to a lower-tax state, or simply timing a large withdrawal, is looking at a genuinely mixed set of outcomes rather than a single national trend in either direction.
Where State Tax Changes Meet a Retirement Budget
None of the nine measures on this year’s ballots changes federal retirement tax rules: the federal taxation of Social Security, the extra deduction for filers 65 and older, and Medicare’s IRMAA surcharge stay the same no matter how California, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Washington or Missouri vote. What a state-level rate change does shift is the marginal rate layered on top of those federal rules, and which account a withdrawal should come from first to avoid it.
The Retirement Tax & Withdrawal Planner covers the senior deduction and the IRMAA appeal route (SSA-44) alongside the state-by-state math a rate change like these can shift.
Work through the senior deduction and appeal steps in The Retirement Tax & Withdrawal Planner.
This article was produced with AI assistance and checked against the primary sources linked above.
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
