Missouri voters will decide in November whether to create a state investment fund whose long-term purpose would be to replace every state-imposed tax. Amendment 7 would establish the Show-Me Prosperity Fund, a permanent, state-managed pool invested in the stock market. Its supporters envision the fund eventually becoming large enough to finance state government without income, sales or other state taxes.
The measure would let the General Assembly appropriate tax dollars into the fund, with the State Treasurer required to invest that money in exchange-traded funds tracking the S&P 500, according to cnmissouri.com. Annual withdrawals would be capped at 3% of the fund's average market value over the preceding five fiscal years, and the principal could never be spent or borrowed against. As the Kansas City Star reports, the fund would invest tax dollars in exchange-traded funds — publicly traded baskets of stocks — and could be tapped only once it grew large enough to permanently replace all state-imposed taxes.
A Senate fiscal note describes the proposal as a permanent public endowment if voters approve it, per senate.mo.gov. The amendment was sponsored by Sen. Adam Schnelting, R-St. Charles, and carried in the House by Rep. Colin Wellenkamp, also a St. Charles Republican, according to cnmissouri.com's reporting. Missouri's House and Senate passed the measure without Democratic support, per the Star.
A Century-Long Bet on Wall Street
Schnelting has described the proposal as a multigenerational project. “My hope is that in, say, 100 years from now, or 125 years from now, Missouri doesn't tax its citizens whatsoever,” he said, according to cnmissouri.com. The Star's reporting cites a separate estimate of about 75 years for the fund to mature enough to achieve that goal.
What Has to Happen Before the Fund Can Be Spent
The amendment's spending trigger is broader than simply reaching a target dollar amount. The Missouri Senate's fiscal note says that, except for investment purposes, money could not be appropriated until the fund's balance was high enough to cover the individual income tax, state sales and use tax, corporate income tax and all other state-imposed taxes, according to the Senate Committee on Legislative Research's fiscal note. Until then, appropriations into the fund would come from legislative decisions about existing state revenue rather than from a dedicated tax or fee.
Wellenkamp, who championed the bill, told the Star the fund is a tool for future fiscal stability and a way for the state to benefit from private investment. He has also distinguished it from Missouri's other major tax measure on the ballot, saying the income-tax repeal and the sovereign wealth fund proposal carry different implications, per the Star's reporting.
If the fund's earnings eventually grow large enough, the General Assembly could use them to replace state taxes, issue dividend payments to residents, or replace lost federal funding, cnmissouri.com reports. Until then, any future lawmakers hoping to tap the fund before it can replace all taxes would need to introduce another constitutional amendment, according to the Star.
Skeptics Question the Math
The nonpartisan Missouri Budget Project estimates that the fund would need to exceed $600 billion before state taxes could be eliminated, based on the taxes it identified, according to mobudget.org. Missouri currently generates more than $18 billion a year in tax revenue from sources including income and sales taxes, the analysis says.
The group also points out that Amendment 7 has no dedicated funding stream, meaning any appropriations would have to come out of existing state revenue rather than a new tax or fee. That matters because Missouri already faces a $2 billion budget shortfall, according to the Missouri Budget Project's analysis. The group concludes the measure is unlikely to lead to the elimination of state taxes for decades, if ever.
Missouri Democrats have framed their opposition around the state's current budget woes, per the Star, and the state faces a potentially billion-dollar budget deficit in 2026. Rep. Kemp Strickler, D-Lee's Summit, opposes the amendment and has said the fund might never grow enough to replace all state taxes, according to the Star's reporting.
Even Conservative Groups Are Wary
Opposition to Amendment 7 isn't confined to Democrats. Conservative-leaning think tanks have also expressed skepticism about the sovereign wealth fund proposal, the Star reports. The Tax Foundation raised concerns about tying the state budget to market performance, and the organization's Janelle Fritts warned that market-linked revenue could create uncertainty and dramatic swings. Fritts also suggested lawmakers could simply lower income taxes instead of investing surplus funds in the market, according to the Star.
Sovereign wealth funds exist in several countries and roughly ten U.S. states, according to the Star's reporting, but they are usually financed with taxes on natural resources such as oil and typically used to smooth out dips in tax revenue rather than eliminate taxation entirely. President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February 2025 directing the creation of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund within a year, though the federal government has not yet created one, per the Star.
How Alaska and North Dakota Did It Differently
Alaska and North Dakota provide examples of state wealth funds, but both began with dedicated natural-resource revenue rather than ordinary legislative appropriations. Alaska residents created the Alaska Permanent Fund in 1976 to preserve and invest the state's oil wealth. According to the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, the fund received its first deposit of dedicated oil revenue — $734,000 — on February 28, 1977. The Legislature created the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation in 1980 to manage its investments. Today the fund has grown into a sovereign wealth vehicle that provides more than half of the state's unrestricted general fund revenues, the corporation says.
North Dakota's Legacy Fund likewise draws on resource wealth rather than general appropriations. Voters approved the fund in 2010 as a perpetual revenue source from the state's finite oil and natural-gas resources, and the first constitutionally mandated earnings transfer to the general fund occurred in July 2019, according to the Office of the North Dakota State Treasurer. Nearly a third of the oil and gas taxes North Dakota collects are deposited into and invested through the fund, a roughly $14 billion vehicle, according to the North Dakota Monitor. Earnings, calculated using a five-year average of the fund's value, are transferred to the general fund for lawmakers to spend. North Dakota lawmakers approved a 2025 bill requiring the fund's investments to be published online, and the resulting transparency website is on track to launch November 1, one month later than originally planned, the outlet reports. A February 2024 poll found 84% of North Dakota voters wanted a full list of the fund's investments made public.
A Ballot Buried Among Bigger Fights
Despite the scale of its ambition, Amendment 7 has received little attention and minimal campaigning from either side, the Star reports. It's the second major tax overhaul Missouri Republicans have placed before voters in 2026, and it will share the ballot with a near-total abortion ban, a proposal restricting lawmakers from overturning direct-democracy laws, and a referendum on the state's congressional maps, according to the Star's reporting. Six constitutional amendments were referred by the legislature, and nine statewide measures were certified for the 2026 elections. Constitutional amendments seeking to weaken direct democracy and repeal the income tax with expanded sales taxes received fewer than 20% support in the August 2026 primary.
