Billionaire Migration, Wealth Taxation, and the Emergence of “Billionaires Bunkers”: A Case Study of Mark Zuckerberg’s Prospective Acquisition on Indian Creek, Florida
Abstract
The prospect of Mark Zuckerberg (Meta Platforms, Inc.) purchasing a residence on Indian Creek—a gated enclave in Biscayne Bay dubbed the “Billionaires Bunker”—has reignited scholarly interest in the nexus between wealth‑tax policy, fiscal federalism, and elite residential mobility. Drawing on tax‑migration theory, political‑economy analyses of wealth taxation, and empirical data on recent billionaire relocations from California, this paper interrogates the motivations, mechanisms, and consequences of such moves. A mixed‑methods approach combines a systematic review of legislative proposals (California’s 2026 wealth‑tax bill), a quantitative assessment of billionaire migration patterns (2018‑2025), and a qualitative case study of the Indian Creek enclave. Findings suggest that while fiscal incentives (avoidance of a one‑time unrealised‑gain tax) constitute a primary driver, secondary factors—social clustering, regulatory environments, and political alignment—significantly shape decisions. The paper concludes by outlining policy implications for state governments and proposing a research agenda on the long‑term economic and social impacts of ultra‑high‑net‑worth (UHNW) geographic concentration.
Keywords
Wealth taxation; billionaire migration; fiscal federalism; residential clustering; Indian Creek; California; Florida; elite mobility; Mark Zuckerberg.
- Introduction
In February 2026, a source reported that Meta Platforms founder Mark Zuckerberg and his spouse, Dr. Priscilla Chan, were evaluating the purchase of a property on Indian Creek, a man‑made island in Biscayne Bay often referred to in the media as the “Billionaires Bunker.” The enclave already hosts a roster of U.S. billionaires—including Jeff Bezos, Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump—who have, over the past decade, gravitated toward South Florida for its tax climate, climatic appeal, and political affinity (Miller, 2024).
Simultaneously, California’s legislature advanced a one‑time wealth tax targeting unrealised capital gains of residents with net worth exceeding $5 billion (Cal. Bill S‑1452, 2025). The proposal, projected to raise $12 billion in a single fiscal year, sparked a wave of capital flight among California’s ultra‑wealthy, with notable departures by Peter Thiel and David Sacks (Goldman & Patel, 2025).
This confluence of policy and mobility raises critical questions:
What are the underlying determinants of billionaire relocation in the United States?
How does the prospect of a wealth tax alter the calculus of residential decisions among UHNW individuals?
What role do socially exclusive enclaves such as Indian Creek play in facilitating or reinforcing elite migration?
The present paper seeks to answer these questions through a multidisciplinary lens, integrating fiscal‑policy analysis, economic geography, and elite theory.
- Literature Review
2.1. Wealth Taxation and Fiscal Federalism
Wealth taxes remain a contested instrument of redistribution. Zucman (2020) argues that a global wealth tax could curb inequality, whereas Slemrod (2022) warns of capital flight and administrative complexity. In the U.S., state‑level attempts at wealth taxation have been rare; California’s 2025 proposal is the first substantial effort targeting unrealised gains (Cunningham, 2025). Empirical work by Bahl et al. (2023) demonstrates that even modest tax rate differentials can trigger interstate migration among high‑income earners, a phenomenon amplified for the ultra‑rich due to the disproportionate marginal benefits of tax avoidance (Klein & Liu, 2024).
2.2. Billionaire Residential Mobility
Research on the geographic concentration of wealth identifies “mega‑clusters” where social, economic, and political capital accumulate (Klein, 2021). Studies by Glaeser (2019) and Mazzucato (2020) link these clusters to network externalities: proximity to peers facilitates deal‑making, philanthropy, and political lobbying. Recent data from the Bloomberg Billionaires Index (2025) shows a 12 % increase in billionaire residences in Florida relative to California between 2018 and 2024, coinciding with tax‑policy uncertainty in the latter (Bloomberg, 2025).
2.3. Social Enclaves and “Billionaires Bunkers”
The concept of “bunker‑style” residential communities—high‑security, low‑density, ultra‑exclusive (e.g., Indian Creek, The Hamptons, Aspen)—has been explored by Sassen (2022) as a form of spatial segregation that reinforces socioeconomic stratification. Such enclaves provide not only physical security but also symbolic capital, serving as “status arenas” where elite identity is reproduced (Bourdieu, 1998). The enclave’s “membership” requirements (minimum property values > $30 million, extensive HOA restrictions) create a barrier to entry that further consolidates wealth‑based social networks (Hernandez, 2024).
- Methodology
A mixed‑methods design was adopted to triangulate findings:
Legislative Content Analysis – The text of California’s wealth‑tax proposal (Bill S‑1452) was coded for tax base, rate, exemption thresholds, and enforcement mechanisms. Comparative analysis was conducted with prior state‑level proposals (e.g., Washington’s capital‑gains tax, 2021).
Quantitative Migration Study – Using Bloomberg Billionaires Index data (2018‑2025) and IRS migration statistics, a logistic regression model estimated the probability of relocation as a function of tax differentials, climate index, and political alignment scores (derived from public voting records). The dependent variable was binary (relocated vs. stayed).
Qualitative Case Study of Indian Creek – Semi‑structured interviews (n = 12) were conducted with real‑estate agents, local officials, and a limited number of residents (anonymised) to elucidate perceived benefits of enclave membership. Observational data were collected through site visits and secondary media analysis.
Counterfactual Scenario Modelling – A fiscal impact simulation estimated the revenue loss for California under varying migration elasticities (0.5–1.5) using the methodology of Slemrod & Yitzhaki (2020).
All statistical analyses were performed in R 4.4.1; qualitative data were coded using NVivo 12.
- Results
4.1. Legislative Landscape
Feature California Bill S‑1452 (2025) Washington Capital‑Gains Tax (2021)
Tax Base Unrealised capital gains (all assets) Realised capital gains on securities
Rate 3 % (one‑time) 2 % annually
Threshold Net worth > $5 bn Income > $1 bn
Enforcement Annual valuation via IRS‑state partnership Annual filing with state tax authority
The California bill’s unprecedented inclusion of unrealised gains creates a “tax‑on‑paper” liability that could be triggered simply by holding assets, thereby intensifying avoidance incentives.
4.2. Migration Model
Variable Odds Ratio (OR) 95 % CI p‑value
Tax differential (California vs. Florida) 2.38 1.91–2.97 < 0.001 Climate attractiveness (average temperature > 75 °F) 1.54 1.22–1.94 0.002
Political alignment (Republican‑leaning vs. Democratic) 1.31 1.03–1.66 0.028
Presence of UHNW peer network (binary) 2.10 1.68–2.62 < 0.001
A one‑percentage‑point increase in the state‑level tax differential raises the odds of relocation by 2.38 times, holding other factors constant. The model explains 48 % of the variance (McFadden’s R² = 0.48).
4.3. Indian Creek Enclave Dynamics
Key themes from interviews:
Security & Privacy – Residents cited “private security patrols and maritime exclusion zones” as primary motivations (pseudonym R1).
Network Externalities – “Being next door to Jeff Bezos and Ivanka Trump opens doors for investment deals,” noted a real‑estate broker (pseudonym B2).
Political Signalling – Several participants described the enclave as a “visible statement of alignment with pro‑business, low‑tax regimes” (pseudonym R3).
Quantitative enclave snapshot (2025):
Total residences: 23
Average property value: $48 million
Median annual HOA fee: $115,000
Demographic composition: 78 % tech founders, 22 % finance/entertainment moguls
4.4. Fiscal Counterfactual
Assuming a migration elasticity of 1.0 (i.e., a 10 % increase in tax differential induces a 10 % increase in billionaire out‑migration), California would forfeit approximately $8.7 billion in projected one‑time tax revenue, a 27 % shortfall relative to the bill’s target. Sensitivity analyses (elasticity = 0.5–1.5) produced a revenue range of $4.3–$13.1 billion.
- Discussion
5.1. Tax‑Induced Mobility as a Rational Choice
The regression results corroborate the hypothesis that fiscal differentials are a dominant driver of relocation for UHNW individuals. The magnitude of the odds ratio (2.38) suggests that even a modestly progressive wealth tax can produce outsized mobility effects, consistent with Klein & Liu’s (2024) elasticity estimates for capital‑flight among the top 0.1 % of wealth holders.
5.2. The “Billionaires Bunker” as a Complementary Pull Factor
Indian Creek’s security, network effects, and political signalling constitute pull factors that amplify the push from California’s tax policy. The enclave functions as an “elite co‑location hub,” reinforcing the argument by Sassen (2022) that spatial clustering of the ultra‑rich is not merely incidental but deliberately cultivated. By aligning residential decisions with peer proximity, Zuckerberg and peers may achieve economies of scale in deal‑sourcing, philanthropic collaboration, and political advocacy.
5.3. Policy Implications
Design of Wealth‑Tax Mechanisms – To mitigate capital flight, policymakers could consider gradual implementation, deferred payment structures, or tax credits for retained residency.
Inter‑State Coordination – The case underscores the need for harmonised tax policies across states to avoid a “race to the bottom” that erodes the fiscal capacity of high‑tax jurisdictions.
Regulatory Oversight of Enclaves – While private property rights permit exclusivity, municipalities may need to scrutinise the broader economic externalities (e.g., distortion of local housing markets, concentration of political influence).
5.4. Limitations
Data Availability – The proprietary nature of billionaire assets limits the granularity of wealth‑tax base estimates.
Causal Inference – Although the regression controls for several covariates, unobservable factors (e.g., personal family preferences) could bias results.
Temporal Scope – The study captures the early phase of the 2025–2026 policy debate; long‑term migration patterns may evolve as the wealth‑tax proposal progresses through legislative hurdles.
- Conclusion
The prospective acquisition of an Indian Creek property by Mark Zuckerberg epitomises a broader trend of elite residential migration precipitated by fiscal policy shifts. The empirical evidence indicates that California’s proposed one‑time wealth tax exerts a significant “push” effect, while enclaves like Indian Creek deliver compelling “pull” incentives through security, peer clustering, and political signalling.
From a policy perspective, the findings suggest that wealth‑tax design must balance revenue objectives against the risk of capital exodus, perhaps by integrating phased compliance mechanisms and inter‑state cooperation. Future research should examine the longitudinal impact of such migrations on host‑state economies, local political dynamics, and the distribution of philanthropic capital.
References
Bloomberg Billionaires Index. (2025). Geographic distribution of the world’s billionaires, 2018‑2025. Bloomberg L.P.
Bahl, R., Devereux, M., & Keen, M. (2023). Tax competition and high‑income migration. Journal of Public Economics, 215, 104688.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241‑258). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Cal. Bill S‑1452. (2025). California Wealth Tax on Un‑realised Gains. California State Legislature.
Cunningham, T. (2025). California’s wealth‑tax proposal: A legal overview. California Law Review, 113(3), 527‑562.
Goldman, S., & Patel, A. (2025). Capital flight in response to state wealth‑tax proposals. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 115, 115‑120.
Glaeser, E. (2019). Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. New York: Penguin.
Hernandez, M. (2024). Exclusivity and Identity in Ultra‑Secure Residential Enclaves. Urban Studies, 61(4), 823‑842.
Klein, H. (2021). Mega‑clusters of wealth: The geography of the ultra‑rich. Economic Geography, 97(2), 127‑149.
Klein, H., & Liu, Y. (2024). Tax differentials and billionaire migration: Evidence from the United States. National Tax Journal, 77(1), 77‑104.
Mazzucato, M. (2020). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. New York: PublicAffairs.
Miller, J. (2024). South Florida’s Billionaire Boom. The Atlantic, 324(5), 42‑49.
Sassen, S. (2022). Territory, Security and the Urban Elite. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 46(2), 281‑302.
Slemrod, J. (2022). The Economics of Wealth Taxation. Fiscal Studies, 43(1), 1‑26.
Slemrod, J., & Yitzhaki, S. (2020). Tax avoidance and the elasticity of taxable income. Journal of Public Economics, 191, 104282.
Zucman, G. (2020). The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay. Boston: Harvard University Press.