How Much Could Mark Zuckerberg Save by Moving to Miami?

As if we didn’t have enough of the mega-rich types in the Sunshine State, Meta Platforms founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg may be coming to Florida. His move is in line with other billionaires (looking at you, Jeff Bezos and Ken Griffin) seemingly fleeing higher tax jurisdiction states to frolic in the 305 with extra cash in hand. Zuckerberg reportedly viewed a $200 million home in Billionaire Bunker on Indian Creek Island, according to the Real Deal.

Zuckerberg currently resides in Silicon Valley, where California’s 13.3 percent top marginal income tax rate applies. Florida, by contrast, imposes no state income tax, making it a safe haven for many imported billionaire elites. California recently proposed the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, a citizen initiative that could appear on the Golden State’s general election ballot in November. 

So how much dough might Zuckerberg save by switching coasts? We had a forensic accountant (yours, truly) crunch the numbers.

Of these corporate expenditures, only the $14 million in pre-tax security fees and the $2.6 million in personal jet costs would be taxed as income. Thus, $16.6 million at 13.3% yields $2.21 million in state tax savings for Zuckerberg (excluding the new Billionaire Tax Act).

Now, let’s bite into that wealth tax. Based on the 2024 proxy filing, Zuckerberg owns 342,747,985 shares of Meta. Those shares are worth $643.22 as of February 18, bringing his total share value to a cool $220,462,358,911.70, or $220.5 billion. A one-time five percent tax levy on this equates to $11 billion dollars. Therefore, a domicile move to Florida could potentially save Zuckerberg approximately $11 billion in taxes (feel free to factor the aforementioned $2.21 million into those savings, but the sum is so small in comparison that it doesn’t budge the total unless we add a lot more zeroes and confuse just about everyone).

It’s worth noting that the wealth tax, a one-time 5% fee, targets individuals with a net worth exceeding $1 billion. That bill is due in 2027. The tax is set to be retroactive to those who were California residents on January 1. However, many suspect that the rule, for a tax that residents wouldn’t even vote on until November, will be challenged in court. 

State taxes are based on income, property, and consumption, not unrealized gains (like stocks and cryptocurrency that haven’t been cashed out). Typically, tax laws apply prospectively, or in the future. Retroactive tax provisions are sometimes upheld, but attaching a new wealth fee to a pre-election residence would almost certainly face constitutional scrutiny. 

Now, other factors are at play: California may seek to tax former residents for years after their departure and apply anti-avoidance rules, although these plans are still in their infancy. California doesn’t currently have a wealth tax, nor an enacted exit tax. Discussions of pursuing former residents for the tax or expanding anti-avoidance rules remain in political discourse. 

Either way, this would be a landmark moment in state taxation. If California succeeds in taxing wealth rather than income, expect other states to follow, prompting those in the billionaire class to reconsider their zip codes (surely a woeful and arduous experience).

Alan Auerbach, an economist at UC Berkeley, summed up what’s on billionaires’ brains perfectly in a recent story in the Atlantic. “The real fear is less about the specific tax than the message it sends: that California is a dangerous place to be a billionaire,” he said. 

Prediction market Polymarket forecasts a 31 percent likelihood of a “Yes” outcome in November on the wealth tax. Maybe too close for comfort for some billionaires in the “Eureka” state, and apparently not ideal for our guy Zuckerberg. 

Maybe when he lands in the Magic City, with his potential billions in savings in tow, he can finally get some sun.