Building a Better California has raised over $333 million against billionaire tax

Zuckerberg could owe more than $11 billion under California’s proposal

Building a Better California has raised more than $333 million, with 30% of the money coming from Sergey Brin. The political action committee opposes California’s proposed wealth tax and backs other ballot measures designed to nullify it. Brin and other tech moguls and venture capitalists have poured millions into the committee. By comparison, the “Yes on 40” campaign has raised $32.7 million.

Other billionaires have taken a different approach by starting to cut ties with California, including Google co-founders Brin and Larry Page. Voters could decide on Nov. 3 whether to approve a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of people who had a primary residence in California as of Jan. 1, 2026, and whose net worth exceeds $1 billion.

A few hundred billionaires live in California, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. The tax would apply to anyone who had a primary residence in California as of Jan. 1, 2026.

Most of the money would backfill federal funding cuts to healthcare, and 10% would go toward education and food-assistance programs. Forbes ranked Zuckerberg as the world’s sixth-richest person, with an estimated net worth of more than $220 billion. At the proposed rate, his potential liability would exceed $11 billion if the tax were approved.

Proponents, including SEIU United Healthcare Workers West and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, say the tax would help ensure the ultra-rich pay their fair share. Opponents, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, have warned it could prompt the state’s wealthiest to leave the state. Opponents said such departures could cause budget problems down the line because California relies heavily on the wealthy for income-tax revenue.

Regulatory filings published this week show Zuckerberg made a deal with Meta’s board to help him pay the proposed tax without losing his ownership stake in the company he founded. Actions Meta announced Wednesday will keep him the majority owner and give him the ability to sell some of a new class of non-voting shares “for any reason,” including to pay potential bills from the wealth tax.

Meta said the new stock he will be allowed to sell represents 10% of his overall economic stake in the company and would help mitigate the tax exposure. The filings maintained that Zuckerberg would receive no additional compensation and noted that he had taken a salary of $1 each year since 2013 as the company’s chief executive officer. Meta argued in those filings that, if the state’s wealth tax is enacted, Zuckerberg would “effectively be paying to serve as the Company’s chief executive officer while residing in California.”

The compromise came after Zuckerberg told the board he was considering selling his Palo Alto home last month in anticipation of the proposed tax. He later struck the deal and committed to staying in California for eight years, unless “material unforeseen circumstances” arise that make it “prudent or advisable for him to reside elsewhere,” according to the filings.

SEIU United Healthcare Workers West said the Zuckerberg deal proves its opponents wrong. Suzanne Jimenez, the union’s chief of staff, said in a statement, “This is the nail in the coffin to months of scare tactics claiming that billionaires are fleeing California.”

Beyond securing Zuckerberg’s future in California, Meta’s new class of shares is intended to boost the company’s ability to raise capital for its investments in artificial-intelligence infrastructure, according to the filings. Meta also said it established the new shares for employee compensation and acquisitions, among other reasons. Meta Chief Financial Officer Susan Li said on an earnings call, “It will expand our funding tools and give us flexibility to invest behind the unprecedented momentum we’re seeing across every part of our business driven by AI.”

The proposed measure targets the main way the ultrawealthy make money — through their investments — rather than by raising taxes on the income they receive from work. Voters in the Nov. 3 election will decide whether to approve the one-time tax.

Sophie Austin reported from Sacramento, Calif.; Grantham-Philips reported from Chicago.