According to CNBC, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says he’s “perfectly fine” with a proposed California ballot measure that could cost him a staggering $7.75 billion. The initiative, proposed in November by a healthcare workers’ union and backed by lawmakers like Rep. Ro Khanna and Sen. Bernie Sanders, would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on California residents with a net worth exceeding $1.1 billion as of January 2026. Huang, whose net worth is estimated at $155 billion, would be a primary target. The tax would fund the state’s healthcare budget, public schools, and food assistance programs, and it needs over 870,000 signatures to appear on the November 2026 ballot. Billionaires would be taxed on all assets except real estate and could spread payments over five years.
The billionaire tax blueprint
So here’s how this would actually work. It’s not an income tax. It’s a straight-up levy on total net worth. If you were a California resident on January 1, 2026, and you’re worth more than $1.1 billion, you owe 5% of everything—stocks, private businesses, the whole portfolio. The only major carve-out is real estate, since, as the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office notes, property is already taxed annually. And look, the real kicker is in the fine print: you’d owe this even if you packed your bags and left California later in 2026. It’s a one-time snapshot with a five-year payment plan. Proponents think this could raise about $100 billion from roughly 200 people. That’s a massive sum, but is it politically feasible? The full text of the initiative is available here for the truly detail-oriented.
Huang’s calculated calm
Now, Jensen Huang’s reaction is fascinating. “I have not even thought about it once,” he told Bloomberg. That seems almost impossible, right? I mean, we’re talking about a sum that could fund entire national space programs. But his stance is pragmatic Silicon Valley: “We chose to live in Silicon Valley, and whatever taxes they like to apply, so be it.” Part of this is probably the reality that his wealth is so overwhelmingly tied to Nvidia stock—Forbes estimates about 3% of the company, which is now worth over $4.6 trillion. For someone in that position, a tax bill, even a huge one, is just another line item in a portfolio that’s seen astronomical growth. It’s also a starkly different public posture than we often see from the ultra-wealthy, who typically fund fierce opposition to such measures. Bernie Sanders certainly took note, posting on X about the need to “tax the oligarchy.”
The very real roadblocks
But let’s be skeptical for a second. This has a mountain to climb. First, it needs those signatures, which is a costly and complex campaign in itself. Then it has to win at the ballot box. And even if it passes, the legal challenges would be immediate and brutal. Critics will argue it’s a “direct tax” or constitutes an illegal “taking,” or that it violates interstate commerce clauses by trying to tax people after they leave. There’s also the practical nightmare of valuation. How do you accurately and fairly appraise the net worth of someone with vast holdings in private companies, art, yachts, and other hard-to-value assets? The administrative overhead could be a beast. And historically, these kinds of aggressive wealth taxes have a poor track record in the U.S. They often fail to generate projected revenue or get struck down.
The broader context and why it matters
Here’s the thing: this isn’t happening in a vacuum. The push is explicitly tied to filling a budget hole. As the California Budget & Policy Center has outlined, federal funding cuts are threatening health programs, creating a real need. Proponents are framing this as a simple choice: fund essential services with money from a tiny group that has seen wealth explode, or cut services for millions. It’s a powerful political argument. Academics have also weighed in; a detailed analysis from UC Berkeley economists argues the tax is constitutionally sound and economically efficient. But the ultimate test is with voters. You can track the initiative’s progress toward the ballot on the Secretary of State’s site. Whether you see it as a bold step toward equity or a legally dubious overreach, it’s a direct challenge to the concentration of wealth, and Huang’s seemingly relaxed response is its first major stress test.
