Oculus Founder Palmer Luckey Vows to Stay in California Despite Wealth Tax Push

Silicon Valley entrepreneur Palmer Luckey, the billionaire who co‑founded Oculus VR, told reporters that he has no intention of leaving California even as the state debates a new wealth tax aimed at its richest residents. "It's causing a lot of people to run who I don't want to be running," Luckey said, adding that he will remain in the state and continue to oppose the measure.

The proposed tax, announced by state officials earlier this year, would levy an additional levy on net worth exceeding $50 million, with rates ranging up to 3 percent. Lawmakers argue the policy could generate billions in revenue to fund education, housing and climate initiatives, while critics warn it could accelerate an exodus of high‑net‑worth individuals and investors.

California has long been a magnet for technology founders, but recent years have seen growing chatter about “tax flight” as other states lower corporate and personal tax burdens. Industry insiders have pointed to the wealth tax as a potential catalyst for relocation, prompting a wave of public statements from CEOs and venture capitalists about their future plans.

Luckey, a native Californian who grew up in the Bay Area, has deep personal and professional roots in the state. After selling Oculus to Facebook in 2014, he founded Anduril Industries, a defense technology firm headquartered in Los Angeles, and remains active in local philanthropic efforts. His decision to stay underscores a broader sentiment among some founders that California’s ecosystem, talent pool and cultural fit outweigh fiscal concerns.

Rather than packing up, Luckey indicated he will join the growing coalition of business leaders lobbying against the wealth tax. He plans to support legal challenges and public‑policy campaigns that argue the levy could harm the state’s competitiveness. By aligning with other prominent figures, he hopes to shape the legislative debate before the bill reaches a final vote.

The controversy highlights a larger tension between progressive revenue goals and the desire to retain the state’s innovation engine. As the legislature refines the proposal, stakeholders on both sides are likely to intensify their outreach to voters and lawmakers. Whether Luckey’s stance will sway the outcome remains uncertain, but his commitment to stay and fight signals that the wealth‑tax debate will continue to be a defining issue for California’s political and economic future.