How Google's Founders and Other Billionaires Left $29 Billion of Tax Behind

Fortune reported on August 23, 2026, that a wave of billionaires, including Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, left California for Florida ahead of a proposed one-time state wealth tax, and estimated the moves could cost California roughly $29 billion in potential revenue from that tax alone. The departures highlight how quickly ultra-wealthy households can relocate once a specific, dated tax proposal creates a clear deadline to beat.

What changed

California's proposed Billionaire Tax Act would impose a one-time levy of 5% on the total net worth of residents who lived in the state after January 1, 2026, a snapshot date meant to capture roughly 200 people and raise an estimated $100 billion for healthcare, education, and food assistance programs. Because the tax turns on residency as of a fixed date, anyone who established residency elsewhere before January 1 falls outside its reach entirely, an incentive structure that produced a rush of last-minute moves in late 2025. Page and Brin, along with Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick and PayPal and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, are among those Fortune identified as having relocated to Florida or Texas before the deadline.

Who is affected

Very few households face a 5% wealth tax on total net worth, since the California proposal targets roughly 200 people. But the underlying dynamic, states experimenting with novel taxes tied to a specific residency date, is relevant to a much larger group of affluent families in high-tax states who have already been weighing a move to Florida, Texas, Nevada, or another no-income-tax state for ordinary income tax reasons. Washington State's newer 9.9% surcharge on earnings above $1 million, enacted separately, shows the same trend playing out at a lower wealth threshold that touches far more households.

Why the $29 billion figure is an estimate, not a bill

Fortune's $29 billion figure is a projection of foregone revenue built from the net worth of specific individuals who left, multiplied by the proposed 5% rate, not an amount anyone was ever actually assessed. The California measure has not been enacted, so the number describes what the state's own proposal would have collected from these households had they stayed past the January 1 snapshot date, not a tax bill that was avoided through any aggressive maneuver. That distinction matters for how the figure should be read: it is a measure of the proposal's design, a narrow window that rewards moving before a specific date, rather than evidence of tax avoidance after the fact.

The after-tax math

The mechanics of the California proposal show why a snapshot date matters so much. Example: a founder with a net worth of $2 billion who remained a California resident past January 1, 2026, would face a one-time bill of roughly $100 million under the proposed 5% rate, a liability that does not depend on selling any assets or realizing any income. The same founder who established residency in Florida, which has no personal income tax and no wealth tax, before that date would owe nothing under the proposal regardless of how much wealth was created afterward. That asymmetry, an unrealized, dated liability that can be erased entirely by moving in time, is what drove the pace of departures Fortune documented rather than a gradual drift.

Moves to discuss with your advisor

Households considering a change of domicile for tax reasons, whether prompted by a proposed wealth tax, an existing high income tax rate, or an estate tax exposure, should discuss with a CPA or estate attorney what actually establishes residency: physical presence day counts, driver's license and voter registration changes, where a primary home and family are located, and where business and banking relationships are centered. A state government challenging a claimed change of domicile, as California has done aggressively in disputes with departing high earners, generally wins by pointing to any of these threads left unresolved.

What to watch

California's Billionaire Tax Act remains a proposal, not law, and its constitutionality under the state and federal constitutions would likely be challenged if enacted. Whether it advances, and whether other states pursue similar wealth-based or high-earner surcharges, will determine if 2026's exodus was a one-time event tied to a single ballot fight or the start of a broader pattern of tax-driven relocation among the ultra-wealthy.

After TAX is an independent publication. Articles are general information, not tax, legal or investment advice. Consult a licensed professional about your situation.