Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, has decided to stay in California if an upcoming initiative to tax billionaires is approved by voters. This arrangement follows a deal he made with Meta’s board.
Previously, Zuckerberg had hinted at the possibility of moving his main residence away from California if Proposition 40, which proposes a one-time 5% tax on billionaire wealth, passes. In exchange for agreeing to stay in California, which is where Meta’s headquarters are located, the company will allow him to receive non-voting shares, which he could sell to pay any potential wealth tax.
Zuckerberg’s net worth stands at approximately $224 billion, placing him as the sixth richest individual globally, as noted by Forbes. He would have the option to sell 20% of the Class C shares he’d get, equating to 10% of his total economic stake in the company, according to Reuters.
JUST IN: Mark Zuckerberg discussed fleeing California to avoid the proposed billionaire wealth tax, according to new Meta company filing. — WSJ
— Polymarket (@Polymarket) October 22, 2026
On Wednesday, Meta announced plans to introduce a new class of non-voting Class C shares in January 2027. This move aims to support acquisitions and retain top talent while ensuring Zuckerberg maintains control over the company, as reported by Fox Business.
If approved, the tax would be applicable starting in 2027, although the payment could be spread out over five years, which would come with added costs. Certain assets like real estate, retirement accounts, and pensions would generally be exempt. The initiative aims to assist with funding, particularly in light of cuts to healthcare, food assistance, and public education at both federal and state levels, according to the California Budget & Policy Center. A special fund called the 2026 Billionaire Tax Reserve Fund would be established to manage the revenue.
Zuckerberg recently purchased a $170 million mansion in Miami, not far from former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who made a similar move after Washington state introduced a 9.9% tax on earnings over $1 million. This pattern is seen with former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who also relocated to Miami post-tax implementation.
There are concerns among some regarding the measure being a one-time tax, limited in duration. Critics worry it wouldn’t help other essential state services, and there’s uncertainty about how billionaires will react to this tax.
Estimating potential revenue from this initiative carries some uncertainty. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has estimated that it could generate “tens of millions” of dollars initially but might also lead to a reduction in state income tax collections of about $1 billion annually.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has expressed opposition to Proposition 40, arguing that it wouldn’t effectively fund critical areas like public schools, housing, and child care.
“I understand the anxiety driving the wealth tax proposal in California. But I’m voting no because this measure dedicates almost all of the revenue it raises to a single category of state spending. It ignores our public schools, as the California Teachers Association has rightly pointed out, by failing to provide sustainable funding that our communities, parents, and children deserve,” Newsom stated.
He also emphasized that the proposal overlooks vital services like safety-net clinics and reproductive healthcare, which organizations like Planned Parenthood strive to protect. He added, “There is nothing for housing, nothing for childcare, nothing for public safety workers who must answer 911 calls, and nothing for our public universities that have powered California’s economy for a decade.”
Some Democrats, such as Rep. Ro Khanna from California, have supported the initiative.
