Missouri Amendment 7: What Would the Show-Me Prosperity Fund Really Require?

Amendment 7 would create a permanent public endowment called the Show-Me Prosperity Fund. Money appropriated by the Missouri General Assembly, along with any gifts, grants, donations or bequests, would be invested by the State Treasurer. The proposal directs the fund toward investments tied to the performance of the S&P 500 under fiduciary standards. The long-term goal is for investment earnings eventually to become large enough to replace revenue from state-imposed taxes. Until the State Treasurer determines that the fund has reached that point, the money generally could not be withdrawn for state spending.

For taxpayers, this is important: Amendment 7 does not provide an immediate tax cut. The official ballot language says there would be no immediate impact on taxes. Once the fund became large enough, annual appropriations from it could not exceed 3% of the fund’s average market value over the preceding five fiscal years. The principal could not be spent, pledged or borrowed against. If the fund later became unable to meet its obligations because of insolvency, a revenue shortfall or program failure, the General Assembly would retain authority to establish or increase taxes or other revenues as necessary.

So what does that 3% limit look like in actual dollars? Missouri collected approximately $13.05 billion in net general revenue during fiscal year 2026. Using that amount only as a rough benchmark, a fund would have to average approximately $435 billion for a 3% withdrawal to produce $13.05 billion in a year: $435 billion × 3% = $13.05 billion. That does not mean $435 billion is the official amount Amendment 7 requires. General revenue is only a benchmark, while the amendment's stated goal is ultimately to replace all state-imposed taxes. The amount actually needed in the future could therefore be substantially different.

To understand the scale, consider what it would take simply to grow an initial investment to $435 billion, assuming Missouri never added another dollar after the original deposit, investment returns were constant, and we ignored inflation and future growth in state revenue. A $500 million starting investment earning 5% annually would take about 139 years to reach $435 billion; at 7%, about 100 years; and at 10%, about 71 years. Starting with $1 billion would take roughly 125 years at 5%, 90 years at 7%, or 64 years at 10%. A $5 billion initial investment would take approximately 92, 66 or 47 years, respectively. Even a $10 billion starting investment would take roughly 77 years at 5%, 56 years at 7%, or 40 years at 10%.

Those examples are mathematical illustrations, not forecasts. The stock market does not produce the same return every year, and a century of inflation would make $13 billion a very different amount of money than it is today. State revenues and the cost of schools, highways, public safety, health programs and other services would also change over those decades. Amendment 7 does not specify a particular initial deposit or require a fixed annual contribution. Missouri's fiscal analysis describes future General Assembly appropriations to the fund as unknown, meaning voters are being asked to establish the structure without knowing exactly how much lawmakers will contribute to it from year to year.

The century-long timeline is not simply something critics invented. Amendment 7 sponsor Sen. Adam Schnelting has described his goal as reaching the point where Missouri no longer taxes its citizens in roughly 100 to 125 years. Earlier in the debate, he also illustrated the power of compounding with a hypothetical $250 million investment earning 9% over 140 years. His projections depend on long-term investment assumptions, however, and the final amendment does not guarantee either a particular return or a particular date when taxes would disappear.

That is ultimately what voters are being asked to consider with Amendment 7. It is not simply a proposal to cut taxes today. It is a proposal to establish a permanent investment fund, commit public money to that fund over time, allow it to compound potentially for generations, and eventually use a limited portion of its value to replace state tax revenue if the fund becomes large enough. The concept relies heavily on the power of long-term investment growth, but how much Missouri initially invests, how much future legislatures contribute, what returns the fund actually earns, and when it could replace state taxes are not known today.