California’s billionaire class has poured money and melodrama into fighting a proposed tax, but some of the loudest voices appear likely to remain in the state even if voters approve it. The threats, in other words, may have considerably more bark than bite.

Proposition 40 would impose a one time 5% tax on California’s billionaires. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg had threatened to sell his multimillion dollar home in Palo Alto, California, if the measure passed.

Yet Zuckerberg has now reached a deal with his own board that would keep him in California for at least eight years, regardless of how the Proposition 40 vote turns out. That agreement sharply undercuts the spectacle surrounding his earlier threat.

Leaving California rather than helping fund health care for less fortunate residents would not exactly deliver flattering publicity for Meta. Instead, Securities and Exchange Commission filings show that Zuckerberg negotiated terms involving stock sales to cover the tax bill he could face.

The New York Times estimated that Zuckerberg would owe approximately $12.5 billion under the proposal. That is no small check, even for a billionaire, but the arrangement suggests he is preparing to pay rather than bolt.

Zuckerberg is far from the only wealthy Californian with strong feelings about Proposition 40. Google giants Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt are among those who contributed to the staggering $304 million spent on advertisements opposing the wealth tax and promoting Proposition 42.

Proposition 42 functions as the sinister twin of Proposition 40. If approved instead, it would prevent future wealth tax proposals from reaching the ballot, shutting the door before voters could consider another such measure.

Possible presidential candidate Gavin Newsom has also stepped into the fight by supporting Proposition 42. That decision has irritated some members of his own voter base, adding another political complication to an already expensive ballot battle.

Still, the billionaire response is not unanimous. Nvidia’s Jensen Huang has said he is comfortable paying the tax bill and described doing so as a privilege rather than some unbearable injustice inflicted upon the ultrawealthy.

During a conversation with CBS News, Huang said that “it’s a privilege, it’s a responsibility.” His remarks offered a stark contrast to the wealthy interests pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into defeating Proposition 40.

Huang explained, “The fact that I can afford to pay $8 billion in taxes over five years is a privilege.” That assessment cuts directly against the endless billionaire lament that taxation is an existential burden.

“The more you make, the more taxes you pay. So, I’m okay with that.” Huang’s view is refreshingly uncomplicated: Extraordinary wealth comes with an extraordinary ability to contribute.

United’s CEO Scott Kirby also backed the broader idea, arguing that wealth inequality has become dangerous and should be addressed. He went beyond the California proposal by supporting a national wealth tax.

“Wealth inequality has become a danger to our society, and we need to address that,” Kirby told The New York Times. His argument focused on the national scale, where a tax would not depend on individual state policies.

“We should have a national wealth tax—it won’t work by state because people will just move,” Kirby said. That position acknowledges the relocation threats regularly deployed whenever wealthy people face the possibility of a larger tax bill.

“And I think we should have inheritance taxes that get close to 100% at some level. I would pay them.” Unlike the billionaires financing the campaign against Proposition 40, Kirby explicitly included himself among those who should pay.

California’s fight echoes the wealthy reaction in New York City after Mayor Zohran Mamdani won. Rich residents threatened to sever ties, yet they are still occupying their high rises rather than carrying out the dramatic departure they advertised.

Whether voters choose Proposition 40 or Proposition 42, California’s billionaires have already demonstrated their willingness to spend heavily and complain loudly. Zuckerberg’s agreement to remain for at least eight years suggests the latest warnings of an elite exodus may once again amount to crying wolf.