UK Millionaire exodus did not occur, study reveals(taxjustice.net)
taxjustice.net
UK Millionaire exodus did not occur, study reveals
https://taxjustice.net/press/millionaire-exodus-did-not-occur-study-reveals/
326 comments
Until April of this year, it was possible for a foreign national to be resident but not domiciled in the UK. Any income they earned in the UK would be subject to UK tax, but income earned abroad would not be. These non-domiciled foreign nationals could "live" in Dubai (or any other country) for tax purposes, but actually live in the UK in every practical sense.
The removal of this non-domiciled status is clearly far more significant than a normal tax increase. The UK was a uniquely attractive destination for the super-rich, because they could enjoy all the amenities of living in London with no real concerns about the tax implications. It is plausible that many of those people will decide to pay UK tax rather than move abroad, but we are talking about an exceptionally highly-mobile group who have already made the decision to move country, many primarily or solely for tax reasons.
The removal of this non-domiciled status is clearly far more significant than a normal tax increase. The UK was a uniquely attractive destination for the super-rich, because they could enjoy all the amenities of living in London with no real concerns about the tax implications. It is plausible that many of those people will decide to pay UK tax rather than move abroad, but we are talking about an exceptionally highly-mobile group who have already made the decision to move country, many primarily or solely for tax reasons.
Isn't the defining characteristic of the wealthiest demographic their ability to pay for things that they want (like living in London) without any concern over the cost of doing it?
No, just the opposite. In general, the things wealthy people buy (luxuries) experience much larger swings in demand due to price changes like added taxes (in economic terms, "the elasticity of demand"). It's because they are only wants and not needs. They are also usually easily swapped. Instead of buying your wife those diamond earrings, you could get her a painting or a trip to Spain. And rich people are often very money savvy.
It's the necessities that people will continue to buy (or at least replace with close substitutes), regardless of what happens to the price.
Obviously, in this case it worked out much differently, but no, in general you can't say the wealthy people don't respond to price changes due to their wealth.
It's the necessities that people will continue to buy (or at least replace with close substitutes), regardless of what happens to the price.
Obviously, in this case it worked out much differently, but no, in general you can't say the wealthy people don't respond to price changes due to their wealth.
> without any concern over the cost of doing it?
indeed thats why to have accountants and lawyers, the issue here is that non-dom meant that you could avoid paying tax on stuff you earnt outside of the UK. for example if you have a lot of income being generated in the USA, then being a non-dom meant that you could avoid paying tax here in the UK at the same time.
For US citizens its a bit harder, as you're liable for tax on all income, regardless of source. I'm not sure how they get round that, debt financing or something similar I imagine
indeed thats why to have accountants and lawyers, the issue here is that non-dom meant that you could avoid paying tax on stuff you earnt outside of the UK. for example if you have a lot of income being generated in the USA, then being a non-dom meant that you could avoid paying tax here in the UK at the same time.
For US citizens its a bit harder, as you're liable for tax on all income, regardless of source. I'm not sure how they get round that, debt financing or something similar I imagine
What’s the problem with that? Why should the UK or any country have a claim to money people are making elsewhere?
Morally speaking, there are two principles at play.
The first is paying your fair share of taxes for enabling the system of rule of law, financial protection, courts, stability provided by national defense, etc. that help you earn that money in the first place. This argues for paying taxes in the country where the money is earned.
The second is the principle of progressive taxation that funds the entire social system where you live -- roads, schools, parks, police, health care, retirement. The richer you are, the higher the rate you can and should give back. Thus it doesn't matter whether you make your money at home or abroad -- it counts toward the taxes you're morally obligated to pay for where you reside and/or are a citizen of.
Because these conflict, the US allows for Americans to let taxes paid abroad count against their US taxes, so they're not double-taxed. Which is one form of a reasonable compromise. There are many other forms you could imagine.
The first is paying your fair share of taxes for enabling the system of rule of law, financial protection, courts, stability provided by national defense, etc. that help you earn that money in the first place. This argues for paying taxes in the country where the money is earned.
The second is the principle of progressive taxation that funds the entire social system where you live -- roads, schools, parks, police, health care, retirement. The richer you are, the higher the rate you can and should give back. Thus it doesn't matter whether you make your money at home or abroad -- it counts toward the taxes you're morally obligated to pay for where you reside and/or are a citizen of.
Because these conflict, the US allows for Americans to let taxes paid abroad count against their US taxes, so they're not double-taxed. Which is one form of a reasonable compromise. There are many other forms you could imagine.
I lived in country A - normal apartment, I went to a really shitty school, got bullied there, didn't finish university. I had to pay out of pocket for healthcare as public option sucks and didn't want to help me. I made my money selling my software to people abroad. How is it in any way fair that I pay all my taxes in country A instead of to all the countries that really made it possible for me to earn money?
>>Thus it doesn't matter whether you make your money at home or abroad -- it counts toward the taxes you're morally obligated to pay for where you reside and/or are a citizen of.
What about all other countries that were stable and nice enough and allowed me to make money? Why should I be "morally obliged" to pay taxes in a country I didn't choose, that was shitty to me and didn't help me much if at all? I used very little resources there (now I finally moved). It would feel even more unfair if they followed me abroad and required even more taxes.
>>There are many other forms you could imagine.
Yeah, like paying proportionally (or progressively) for resources you use in a country or for business you do in that country. It seems really unfair that my country gets all my taxes for providing very little to me while all other countries that gave me business opportunities got close to nothing (some VAT in EU countries but that's it).
>>Thus it doesn't matter whether you make your money at home or abroad -- it counts toward the taxes you're morally obligated to pay for where you reside and/or are a citizen of.
What about all other countries that were stable and nice enough and allowed me to make money? Why should I be "morally obliged" to pay taxes in a country I didn't choose, that was shitty to me and didn't help me much if at all? I used very little resources there (now I finally moved). It would feel even more unfair if they followed me abroad and required even more taxes.
>>There are many other forms you could imagine.
Yeah, like paying proportionally (or progressively) for resources you use in a country or for business you do in that country. It seems really unfair that my country gets all my taxes for providing very little to me while all other countries that gave me business opportunities got close to nothing (some VAT in EU countries but that's it).
> It seems really unfair that my country gets all my taxes for providing very little to me
Do you not get police and fire protection? Health care? Rule of law? Urban and rural infrastructure? National defense? Some level of education? Courts that enforce property protection? And so forth?
We often don't see all the benefits our government provides because we take it for granted. But if you ever go visit somewhere where you need to hire bodyguards so that you're not kidnapped while driving, security forces around your compound to prevent it from being looted, and pay constant protection money to the local crime boss so he specifically doesn't kill you and take your stuff... you might realize your taxes pay for a whole lot more than you think.
Obviously every country can do more. But in a democracy that's why we try to vote in candidates who will improve things. And you can always try to move to a better country, if they'll let you. But that's up to them.
(If you live in a dictatorship, then obviously you have more reason to be able to complain since you don't have any legal ability to work for change from within the system.)
Do you not get police and fire protection? Health care? Rule of law? Urban and rural infrastructure? National defense? Some level of education? Courts that enforce property protection? And so forth?
We often don't see all the benefits our government provides because we take it for granted. But if you ever go visit somewhere where you need to hire bodyguards so that you're not kidnapped while driving, security forces around your compound to prevent it from being looted, and pay constant protection money to the local crime boss so he specifically doesn't kill you and take your stuff... you might realize your taxes pay for a whole lot more than you think.
Obviously every country can do more. But in a democracy that's why we try to vote in candidates who will improve things. And you can always try to move to a better country, if they'll let you. But that's up to them.
(If you live in a dictatorship, then obviously you have more reason to be able to complain since you don't have any legal ability to work for change from within the system.)
>>Do you not get police and fire protection? Health care? Rule of law? Urban and rural infrastructure? National defense? Some level of education? Courts that enforce property protection? And so forth?
I got some of that although I got robbed 3 times in my life and police has done nothing. The point is I got those services at the level of any other citizen. What I really benefited from are other countries than mine which I paid 0 taxes to. It would be fair if I paid proportionally to those at the price they see fit for me doing business there. As it is my (shitty) country got all the taxes how does it make sense?
>>We often don't see all the benefits our government provides because we take it for granted.
My point is that the country gets all my taxes and I pay disproportionally even though it's real other countries (the one I sell to) that made it possible for me to do well. When I spend a few months per year in Spain I don't pay taxes there eithre. I think it's unfair. It would be better if I paid proportionally to my resources usage/time there.
I got some of that although I got robbed 3 times in my life and police has done nothing. The point is I got those services at the level of any other citizen. What I really benefited from are other countries than mine which I paid 0 taxes to. It would be fair if I paid proportionally to those at the price they see fit for me doing business there. As it is my (shitty) country got all the taxes how does it make sense?
>>We often don't see all the benefits our government provides because we take it for granted.
My point is that the country gets all my taxes and I pay disproportionally even though it's real other countries (the one I sell to) that made it possible for me to do well. When I spend a few months per year in Spain I don't pay taxes there eithre. I think it's unfair. It would be better if I paid proportionally to my resources usage/time there.
> (now I finally moved)
There's your answer. I was in exactly the same position (felt what the country had to offer me was piss-poor, so I left).
Whilst I lived in that country however, _I paid taxes_. A country has costs, just like a household. There's the obvious things like police and other civil servants, but there are also countless invisible costs that go to holding a country together. To say "well I didn't choose to be here anyway" is childish.
There's your answer. I was in exactly the same position (felt what the country had to offer me was piss-poor, so I left).
Whilst I lived in that country however, _I paid taxes_. A country has costs, just like a household. There's the obvious things like police and other civil servants, but there are also countless invisible costs that go to holding a country together. To say "well I didn't choose to be here anyway" is childish.
Because physical presence incurs costs to taxpayer funded infrastructure? Why should I be able to dodge taxes by working remotely abroad? Are you saying independently wealthy people should be able to roam around and freeload without paying tax to their resident nation?
In the US many people falsely believe illegal immigrants do exactly that, and that lie has contributed to a lot of outrage, so obviously people perceive the system you're proposing as unjust.
In the US many people falsely believe illegal immigrants do exactly that, and that lie has contributed to a lot of outrage, so obviously people perceive the system you're proposing as unjust.
>>Because physical presence incurs costs to taxpayer funded infrastructure? Why should I be able to dodge taxes by working remotely abroad? Are you saying independently wealthy people should be able to roam around and freeload without paying tax to their resident nation?
Yeah so tax their presence: land, resources usage, consumption. If you insist on taxing their whole world wide revenue don't be surprised when someone living across multiple countries choose one that isn't yours and then you get 0 taxes.
I live across 4-5 countries spending a few months here and there. Fair system would tax me for my presence/consumption/resource usage accordingly. That tax might be progressive (bigger house taxed at higher rate, luxury consumption taxes at higher rate etc.) but shouldn't belong to one country if you care about fairness.
Yeah so tax their presence: land, resources usage, consumption. If you insist on taxing their whole world wide revenue don't be surprised when someone living across multiple countries choose one that isn't yours and then you get 0 taxes.
I live across 4-5 countries spending a few months here and there. Fair system would tax me for my presence/consumption/resource usage accordingly. That tax might be progressive (bigger house taxed at higher rate, luxury consumption taxes at higher rate etc.) but shouldn't belong to one country if you care about fairness.
In the US most things are funded by income and payroll tax, the taxes you mention add up to about 30% of our budget so are not enough on their own. In addition I am unconvinced that it is even possible for consumption taxes to be progressive enough to make up for their inherent regressivity at high income levels. I do think it would be reasonable for the global tax to be prorated by time spent in the US though, which would solve your objection.
But illegal immigrants indeed does not pay taxes in the place of residence, why "falsely"?
> Undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022. Most of that amount, $59.4 billion, was paid to the federal government while the remaining $37.3 billion was paid to state and local governments.
https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/
https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/
I get property and sales taxes, but how are they paying income tax? Shouldn’t they have a SSN for that?
They often use fake or stolen SSNs. That also means they're paying Social Security and Medicare taxes but will never collect those benefits.
Tax Identification Numbers are a separate ID number for people without SSNs. Loads of legal migrants don't have SSNs but still pay taxes as well.
But still, wouldn't you need some valid status to get one of those? I know from friends that had to get it for their child that they had to prove status if I remember correctly.
You do not need to prove any kind of status other than you are a foreigner and this is your identity. A foreign voter registration card, a foreign national ID card, or a USCIS-issued photo ID card can all be valid. It doesn't inherently mean you have the right to stay or work in the US.
That's a part of why there was a lot of hubub about ICE searching the IRS's databases for potential targets. There are a lot of people who are probably working in the US paying income taxes without authorization to stay or work in the US. The IRS generally doesn't care about your immigration status, it just cares about collecting taxes.
That's a part of why there was a lot of hubub about ICE searching the IRS's databases for potential targets. There are a lot of people who are probably working in the US paying income taxes without authorization to stay or work in the US. The IRS generally doesn't care about your immigration status, it just cares about collecting taxes.
You can get a tax identification number without an SSN.
An illegal / undocumented worker working a standard W-2 paycheck job is going to have taxes withheld and sent in by the employer, even if they never file their own tax return.
An illegal / undocumented worker working a standard W-2 paycheck job is going to have taxes withheld and sent in by the employer, even if they never file their own tax return.
It is not like that, usually immigrants live in grey arey keeping all contacts with govt to the minimum, the whole idea of hiring illegals is to avoid taxes.
I know that from personal experience of being illegal immigrant in US of very close person.
Are you asking why any country is able to impose a tax on its residents? Morally, because they owe an obligation to the society they live in. Practically, because the state has a local monopoly on violence and may jail them unless they pay.
Why should that obligation be proportional (or progressively proportional) to the wealth you have and not to the resources you use (or wealth you have in that country). Why someone who made millions in Poland (and paid taxed there) should pay 20x for living the same life in say Spain as a typical resident there?
It's so easy to say "moral" but I struggle to see the moral principle at play. I understand paying proportionally to resources/wealth in that country. I understand paying progressively for those or income in that country but why pay in proportion to what you have already build in another place?
It's so easy to say "moral" but I struggle to see the moral principle at play. I understand paying proportionally to resources/wealth in that country. I understand paying progressively for those or income in that country but why pay in proportion to what you have already build in another place?
Live in that other place, then, mate.
As it is I live for a few months per year in Spain for free.
One of the reasons I am advocating for sane taxation instead of knee-jerk one (like wealth tax on world wide assets). I would really like to pay my fair share there but as it's nothing or a leg I choose nothing.
> Why should that obligation be proportional (or progressively proportional) to the wealth you have and not to the resources you use
It is proportional to the resources you use in every case where that is possible. It is nonsensical to say "Well, you used only 2% of police time this year, so that's how much police-tax you'll be paying", not least because it is impossible to put a "usage" on the benefit of having police in the first place. Where it is possible, like how much land you own, you are taxed proportionately.
It is proportional to the resources you use in every case where that is possible. It is nonsensical to say "Well, you used only 2% of police time this year, so that's how much police-tax you'll be paying", not least because it is impossible to put a "usage" on the benefit of having police in the first place. Where it is possible, like how much land you own, you are taxed proportionately.
>Why should that obligation be proportional (or progressively proportional) to the wealth you have and not to the resources you use (or wealth you have in that country).
This is analogous to asking why should software be priced on value delivered, vs priced on costs incurred in producing. Value pricing is much more common.
The value you derive from living in the country of your residence is higher that your poorer neighbors; hence you are charged more.
This is analogous to asking why should software be priced on value delivered, vs priced on costs incurred in producing. Value pricing is much more common.
The value you derive from living in the country of your residence is higher that your poorer neighbors; hence you are charged more.
I think its an issue of fairness.
I, as a rich techbro, but not an Uber rich techbro, have to pay ~46% of my income in tax. (even though the majority comes from the US in USD) Don't get me wrong, I earn a fucking kings ransom, and I don't mind paying that amount of tax.
but. If I was earning maybe 4x that amount, I could probably avoid a whole bunch of tax. It doesn't seem correct that the richer you get, the more optional tax is.
I, as a rich techbro, but not an Uber rich techbro, have to pay ~46% of my income in tax. (even though the majority comes from the US in USD) Don't get me wrong, I earn a fucking kings ransom, and I don't mind paying that amount of tax.
but. If I was earning maybe 4x that amount, I could probably avoid a whole bunch of tax. It doesn't seem correct that the richer you get, the more optional tax is.
You are morally liable to pay taxes where you use services and rely on infrastructure.
I imagine the exodus was where the corporation is incorporated. And on paper someone with billions of dollars now has a mere 500k. Or whatever loophole their lawyers decided to figure out.
That's exactly what I don't get. If you're a billionaire and your whole lifestyle goes topsy-turvy because of some new legislation, what's the point of being a billionaire?
E.g. Lakshmi Mittal, one of the richest persons in the UK, was rumored to consider moving to the UAE because of the non-dom rule changes.[1] To me it's ridiculous that a person this rich feels such weak control over where they should live. And it's not like moving from the UK to the UAE is like moving from Switzerland to Austria. It's a humongous upset by most measures.
[1] https://www.cityam.com/steel-billionaire-lakshmi-mittal-to-d...
E.g. Lakshmi Mittal, one of the richest persons in the UK, was rumored to consider moving to the UAE because of the non-dom rule changes.[1] To me it's ridiculous that a person this rich feels such weak control over where they should live. And it's not like moving from the UK to the UAE is like moving from Switzerland to Austria. It's a humongous upset by most measures.
[1] https://www.cityam.com/steel-billionaire-lakshmi-mittal-to-d...
I don't think these people would be superrich if they wouldn't be optimizing their taxes, at least at some level. I would guess taxes are the typically the biggest single expense the really rich people pay.
I would have thought that being superrich would free you from worrying about 'optimizing your taxes'.
I would think so, but perhaps for the people who are self-defined by the magnitude of their wealth they become more and more obsessed by it as their expenditures on "real" things dwindles in comparison.
Yes, but if they have to pay a fair amount of tax they will only be able to afford a 40 metre yacht, rather than the 50 metre yachts that all their frenemies have and that just won't do.
There may have been a gain to attracting super-rich people to live in the UK historically (this is an OLD rule) however people no longer necessarily invest where they live so the benefit is far more limited, and is offset by effects such as making property in London a lot more expensive for everyone else.
In any case the super-rich are only taxed on income they take out of their businesses. That also limits the benefits of both attracting them, and of exempting them.
I do not see any evidence that there was a net benefit from this exemption.
In any case the super-rich are only taxed on income they take out of their businesses. That also limits the benefits of both attracting them, and of exempting them.
I do not see any evidence that there was a net benefit from this exemption.
> however people no longer necessarily invest where they live
This is a problem. The UK is experiencing what the US is experiencing so I hope you don't mind.
I'm all invested in the US. My citizenship, my family ties, my finances, and my language. Immigrating to a five-eyes nation would be far easier for me (racism aside).
There's no going back for me and my family, unless I want to immigrate out and start from the very bottom with absolutely nothing.
Because I'm a naturalized US citizen and I'm not white, I also harbor no illusions: There's every reason to believe that if this administration and its extremists continue down its trajectory, I and my family will eventually be subject to the worst.
I'm also not wealthy: So it's in my best interest to be a moderating voice, fight for the values that define my home, be seen giving back/paying it forward, and push for the best outcome for my home.
I'm not sure how to quantify the value add of this, and the wealthy transnationals who distinctly take without being a net positive--because they can so easily relocate--are a large part of the problem.
This is a problem. The UK is experiencing what the US is experiencing so I hope you don't mind.
I'm all invested in the US. My citizenship, my family ties, my finances, and my language. Immigrating to a five-eyes nation would be far easier for me (racism aside).
There's no going back for me and my family, unless I want to immigrate out and start from the very bottom with absolutely nothing.
Because I'm a naturalized US citizen and I'm not white, I also harbor no illusions: There's every reason to believe that if this administration and its extremists continue down its trajectory, I and my family will eventually be subject to the worst.
I'm also not wealthy: So it's in my best interest to be a moderating voice, fight for the values that define my home, be seen giving back/paying it forward, and push for the best outcome for my home.
I'm not sure how to quantify the value add of this, and the wealthy transnationals who distinctly take without being a net positive--because they can so easily relocate--are a large part of the problem.
I am not sure we are talking about the same thing.
> The UK is experiencing what the US is experiencing so I hope you don't mind.
Depends in what way? Economically, in some ways. Socially and politically not.
> I'm all invested in the US. My citizenship, my family ties, my finances, and my language
I assume you are saying that to agree with me, in that the super-rich are never invested in one country the same way.
However, I meant invested literally, not metaphorically. Where you invest your money.
> I'm not sure how to quantify the value add of this, and the wealthy transnationals who distinctly take without being a net positive--because they can so easily relocate
Wealthy individuals can relocate. Businesses can relocate some things, but their actual operations are tied to physical assets and to where their employees live.
> The UK is experiencing what the US is experiencing so I hope you don't mind.
Depends in what way? Economically, in some ways. Socially and politically not.
> I'm all invested in the US. My citizenship, my family ties, my finances, and my language
I assume you are saying that to agree with me, in that the super-rich are never invested in one country the same way.
However, I meant invested literally, not metaphorically. Where you invest your money.
> I'm not sure how to quantify the value add of this, and the wealthy transnationals who distinctly take without being a net positive--because they can so easily relocate
Wealthy individuals can relocate. Businesses can relocate some things, but their actual operations are tied to physical assets and to where their employees live.
> Depends in what way? Economically, in some ways. Socially and politically not.
The economics drive much of the social and political upheaval. The US is essentially performing its own flavor of brexit, though clearly there are a lot of differences.
> I assume you are saying that to agree with me, in that the super-rich are never invested in one country the same way. Yes. In the US and 100 years ago, FDR was called a traitor to his kind. I believe this disconnect remains true today.
> I assume you are saying that to agree with me, in that the super-rich are never invested in one country the same way. Mostly to have a conversation and grumble. I used to work for a UK firm many years ago and so I still have a fondness and soft-spot for (presumably) your country.
> However, I meant invested literally, not metaphorically. Where you invest your money.
Okay, that's certainly easier to measure then. If I recall in the greater London area, the most obvious problem stems from the wealthy parking their wealth in real estate, driving up the cost and lowering the supply for residents? Likewise with other services and products that have started to target only these wealth, making said services out of reach of everyone else.
Not to mention it concentrates the wealth and economy into one or two saturated areas.
Is that a correct summary of the issue at hand?
> I assume you are saying that to agree with me, in that the super-rich are never invested in one country the same way. Yes. In the US and 100 years ago, FDR was called a traitor to his kind. I believe this disconnect remains true today.
> I assume you are saying that to agree with me, in that the super-rich are never invested in one country the same way. Mostly to have a conversation and grumble. I used to work for a UK firm many years ago and so I still have a fondness and soft-spot for (presumably) your country.
> However, I meant invested literally, not metaphorically. Where you invest your money.
Okay, that's certainly easier to measure then. If I recall in the greater London area, the most obvious problem stems from the wealthy parking their wealth in real estate, driving up the cost and lowering the supply for residents? Likewise with other services and products that have started to target only these wealth, making said services out of reach of everyone else.
Not to mention it concentrates the wealth and economy into one or two saturated areas.
Is that a correct summary of the issue at hand?
> The US is essentially performing its own flavor of brexit, though clearly there are a lot of differences.
In so far as its people being dissatisfied with the current state of things, politics dominated big parties that do not want to change things, and the influence of big business lobbies.
I think the problem with drawing a parallel with Brexit is that the EU also has these problems.
> Mostly to have a conversation and grumble.
I can sympathise with that. There is much to grumble about :(
> I used to work for a UK firm many years ago and so I still have a fondness and soft-spot for (presumably) your country.
Nice to know. i am British and Sri Lankan in terms of citizenship, mostly British culturally. I do not say "origin" because that is a bit more complicated.
> Okay, that's certainly easier to measure then. If I recall in the greater London area, the most obvious problem stems from the wealthy parking their wealth in real estate, driving up the cost and lowering the supply for residents?
Yes, definitely, and pretty much nationally.
> Not to mention it concentrates the wealth and economy into one or two saturated areas.
I would say a small group of people rather than areas.
In so far as its people being dissatisfied with the current state of things, politics dominated big parties that do not want to change things, and the influence of big business lobbies.
I think the problem with drawing a parallel with Brexit is that the EU also has these problems.
> Mostly to have a conversation and grumble.
I can sympathise with that. There is much to grumble about :(
> I used to work for a UK firm many years ago and so I still have a fondness and soft-spot for (presumably) your country.
Nice to know. i am British and Sri Lankan in terms of citizenship, mostly British culturally. I do not say "origin" because that is a bit more complicated.
> Okay, that's certainly easier to measure then. If I recall in the greater London area, the most obvious problem stems from the wealthy parking their wealth in real estate, driving up the cost and lowering the supply for residents?
Yes, definitely, and pretty much nationally.
> Not to mention it concentrates the wealth and economy into one or two saturated areas.
I would say a small group of people rather than areas.
Those people are already not paying tax in the UK though. The former PM’s wife has saved more in tax because of her status than everyone who works in my company combined will pay in income tax in their entire lives.
Indeed. The millionaires that are whining about paying their fair share of tax can ** off and not pay their taxes somewhere else. Good riddance.
Exactly this.
All this talk of "oh but all the rich people will leave and investment will dry up" is really cover for "but my friends don't want to pay tax". We lose nothing (good) by them leaving, if indeed they would anyway.
All this talk of "oh but all the rich people will leave and investment will dry up" is really cover for "but my friends don't want to pay tax". We lose nothing (good) by them leaving, if indeed they would anyway.
But whatever happens the uk will not lose tax income from these people. Yes, they will not buy expensive property. Yes they will not buy designer goods... but if they leave will the impact on the average citizen be at all significant?
Exactly. These people did not come to create new companies, employ people, come up with new products. These people came to London to party, not to contribute. They will take their party with them, but not their contributions - because there are none.
And have less super wealthy people buying properties that they mostly don't live in will lower property costs for everyone else. The only people who will lose is the ecosystem of lawyers, accountants, estate agents and assorted remoras that service the super rich.
Weren't there other restrictions as well? i.e could only stay 90 days at a time etc.
To expand on my previous answer, the rules about non-dom were - https://www.bbc.com/news/business-32216346
"If you are a non-dom ... and you choose not to pay tax in the UK on your overseas earnings, you must pay:
It's a great big tax dodge and the rest of the UK population was pretty sick of it.
"If you are a non-dom ... and you choose not to pay tax in the UK on your overseas earnings, you must pay:
£30,000 if you've been here for at least seven of the previous nine tax years
£60,000 for at least 12 of the previous 14 tax years"
It's a great big tax dodge and the rest of the UK population was pretty sick of it.
It is/was several years for “non-Dom” status people. That’s one of the reasons it was seen as such a scam.
You’re living there like everyone else yet using this niche status to avoid paying tax.
You’re living there like everyone else yet using this niche status to avoid paying tax.
> The removal of this non-domiciled status is clearly far more significant than a normal tax increase. The UK was a uniquely attractive destination for the super-rich, because they could enjoy all the amenities of living in London with no real concerns about the tax implications. It is plausible that many of those people will decide to pay UK tax rather than move abroad, but we are talking about an exceptionally highly-mobile group who have already made the decision to move country, many primarily or solely for tax reasons.
Boo hoo, let them move to some remote tax haven then, and live there next to their money and incorporation documents.
Boo hoo, let them move to some remote tax haven then, and live there next to their money and incorporation documents.
If that would have been the actual response, it wouldn't have made sense to proceed with the reform. The goal of treasury should be to maximise social welfare, not lose tax money just to dunk on the ultrarich.
But a lot of them are paying little or no tax anyway, due to trusts, shell companies and other financial engineering.
They still had to pay at least the basis charge, which was 30 or 60k per head depending on how long they were here for. That alone should have more than covered the cost of providing civic services to them.
If they come and live in 10M house it's 300k/year right there if you tax properties/land (you can use progressive rate so it's higher on most valuable properties). Add consumption taxes and every rich Chinese/Arab kid is sponsoring welfare for few dozens people per year.
The yearly council tax of a £10M house in central London is the same as a £320K house:
https://www.westminster.gov.uk/council-tax/council-tax-bands...
So where did you get £300K/year from? Or are you saying that is what it should be?
https://www.westminster.gov.uk/council-tax/council-tax-bands...
So where did you get £300K/year from? Or are you saying that is what it should be?
Yes, I am saying tax land/real estate instead of complaining rich people want to live in it.
The same logic applies to California. I know a wealthy guy who would save a million a year in taxes by moving to Nevada or Washington state, but he just... hasn't. He's been talking about it for years, but no action. Because when it comes right down to it, it's too much disruption/change.
If there is anything as inevitable as death and taxes, it's "wealthy people complaining about taxes." Every year, the usual articles make the rounds about how all these wealthy people are moving out of California because they're sad about their taxes, and every year it doesn't significantly happen. I'm starting to think the "moving out of California" meme is just a media re-run that the wealthy get together and fund every year, and then it's back to sipping their wine in their mansions in Beverly Hills and Atherton.
California actually has very low property taxes.
Which according to economists is the wrong way around: it's better to have taxes on land (because it doesn't discourage land existing - land is fixed) than to have taxes on work income (which on the margin, discourages working)
Which according to economists is the wrong way around: it's better to have taxes on land (because it doesn't discourage land existing - land is fixed) than to have taxes on work income (which on the margin, discourages working)
Land value tax would solve most problems in California.
I wonder what percentage of people in California would go bankrupt if LVT were passed implemented there.
Anyone, residential or commercial, with a mortgage would simultaneously find a massive amount of their net value erased while stuck with huge monthly payments on top of massively increased tax bills, unable to sell assuming the higher taxes drive down property prices.
Anyone, residential or commercial, with a mortgage would simultaneously find a massive amount of their net value erased while stuck with huge monthly payments on top of massively increased tax bills, unable to sell assuming the higher taxes drive down property prices.
Places like AZ and Florida already solved this issue. If there is hardship the property tax accumulates as a lien on the property to be claimed when the property is sold.
You could certainly phase in an implementation over 20-30 years to give the economy time to adjust. Just interpolate the taxes.
In a state with fully implemented LVT, you would expect most people in dense cities to be living in multilevel housing that makes more efficient use of land. Eg if your condo building has 5 floors, you're splitting your land tax 5 ways.
Sprawling single level houses would be a relative luxury.
In a state with fully implemented LVT, you would expect most people in dense cities to be living in multilevel housing that makes more efficient use of land. Eg if your condo building has 5 floors, you're splitting your land tax 5 ways.
Sprawling single level houses would be a relative luxury.
Isn't it easy to implement a threshold so it's only effective on holdings above a certain value, or exemptions for primary abode or something along these lines?
It's not difficult conceptually to come up with schemes to tax wealth which doesn't unduly harm non-wealthy individuals (however you would define that level for these purposes). It's just that for one reason or another these schemes are not implemented, and one of those reasons is (plausibly) the political influence of wealthy individuals
It's not difficult conceptually to come up with schemes to tax wealth which doesn't unduly harm non-wealthy individuals (however you would define that level for these purposes). It's just that for one reason or another these schemes are not implemented, and one of those reasons is (plausibly) the political influence of wealthy individuals
Problem is land value tax makes gentrification issues even worse, it's the exact opposite of prop13. Rich people move in around you or a highrise gets built and your tax rate increases extremely quickly.
Nimbyism would become even more extreme.
Nimbyism would become even more extreme.
Flat out wrong. Your choices aren't single family home or highrise. There are numerous other options in between. Duplexs, triplexs, fourplexs, mother-in-law suites, townhomes, live-work homes, cottages. There is a gulf of options in between single family home or NYC highrise.
Sure but when neighbors improving the land next to you results in your tax rate increasing significantly people obviously tend to be against that.
You're gonna fight hard against your neighbor adding a Duplex, triplex, fourplex, etc. because with an LVT your taxes very likely go up as a result.
Imagine the uproar when a developer comes in and converts some of the SFHs next to granny's house into a 4-plex and now granny's social security doesn't cover her taxes and she has to move to the old folks home. Sure she can theoretically take out a mortgage or second mortgage against the theoretical increased land value but now you're forcing granny into debt.
You're gonna fight hard against your neighbor adding a Duplex, triplex, fourplex, etc. because with an LVT your taxes very likely go up as a result.
Imagine the uproar when a developer comes in and converts some of the SFHs next to granny's house into a 4-plex and now granny's social security doesn't cover her taxes and she has to move to the old folks home. Sure she can theoretically take out a mortgage or second mortgage against the theoretical increased land value but now you're forcing granny into debt.
You pay tax based on unimproved land value so what your neighbor builds doesn't matter. In your scenario, for what you're talking about to happen, everyone in the neighborhood needs to be building fourplexes and opening local businesses which would change the makeup of the entire neighborhood and taxes would adjust accordingly. So no, your neighbor building a duplex doesn't spike grandmas taxes. Under the current system, grandmas neighbor building a fourplex can increase her property value and have her paying a higher property tax anyway.
If the land around you is developed, land value generally goes up.
How are you proposing to calculate land value?
How are you proposing to calculate land value?
It would take more than just your neighbor developing their land for your land to increase in value. land value taxes calculate the value of the undeveloped land as in land in denser areas is more valuable than suburban land. Unless all of your neighbor are putting up fourplexes changing the entire makeup of the neighborhood, your land value is unlikely to increase. This can't be said of property value where if your neighbor improves their property, your property value and property taxes might increase as a result.
Very low property tax RATE, but probably the most property tax payments because everything is 1m+ for a shit house.
Property taxes usually pay for schools and there can be lines for CA schools.
Depends on the area. In the wealthy SF Bay Area, the schools are closing due to lack of enrollment. SF is "the most childless major city". Schools are drastically underfunded due to Prop 13 and the state kicks in a lot of money to make up for the difference.
LVT is the online forum dream.
Land is worth money because of improvements or detrimental choices. Manhattan and Staten Island have dramatically different valuations because of what’s there.
California needs a sane taxation system that doesn’t allow squatters to pay nothing for property taxes, but harshly punishes new homeowners.
Land is worth money because of improvements or detrimental choices. Manhattan and Staten Island have dramatically different valuations because of what’s there.
California needs a sane taxation system that doesn’t allow squatters to pay nothing for property taxes, but harshly punishes new homeowners.
> Land is worth money because of improvements or detrimental choices
It's worth money because of what's around the land. Otherwise identical houses in different locations would sell for the same price.
It's worth money because of what's around the land. Otherwise identical houses in different locations would sell for the same price.
Only in LVT fantasy land.
Improvements represent applications of labor and capital that produce value.
Improvements represent applications of labor and capital that produce value.
"Location, location, location" is "LVT fantasy land"? That's practically the first rule of real estate.
Is a 1 acre empty lot in Palo Alto worth the same as a 1 acre empty lot in Mobile, Alabama? No improvements on either one so they should go for the same price, right?
Is a 1 acre empty lot in Palo Alto worth the same as a 1 acre empty lot in Mobile, Alabama? No improvements on either one so they should go for the same price, right?
Why isn’t it?
That land wasn’t valuable when it was orange groves. The improvements make the place.
That land wasn’t valuable when it was orange groves. The improvements make the place.
Don't discount the possibility that living in that part of California is great and this guy is just virtue signaling.
Or maybe it’s just below bad enough to overcome the network effects of living in the Bay Area.
> virtue signaling
I wouldn’t call moving to another place to pay less in taxes a virtue.
I wouldn’t call moving to another place to pay less in taxes a virtue.
I complain about taxes to make my friends in Texas feel better about the raw deal they’ve got. I don’t mind paying high taxes personally. It’s more than virtue signaling, it’s about giving people something to be proud of.
Are you doing your friends a favor by pretending that the raw deal they're getting is great?
Yes because they can’t move ever
> it’s about giving people something to be proud of.
Are you talking about the very generous pensions for government officials?
Are you talking about the very generous pensions for government officials?
California refineries are set to shut down and it has huge implications for the state:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/business/energy-environme...
They are irreplaceable assets that would probably cost north of a trillion dollars if someone tried to build them today, and the oil refining countries club is pretty exclusive. Wildly shortsighted from a big picture national capacity point of view.
Also, if you have millions, does an extra million make a difference ? A even bigger house ? Boat ?
You can already have all the space you need, you can eat everywhere and go wherever you want for holidays...
Is it worth the hassle ?
I've often asked myself with regards to the rich, "Don't they have enough money"?
I've come to realize the answer is nearly always NO. They want (and believe they need) more.
I've come to realize the answer is nearly always NO. They want (and believe they need) more.
In this case, the person grew up very poor, so it's hard for them to see that much money being wasted.
Well for Norway specifically they have 1.1% wealth tax and humongous 37% capital gain tax (of course it's lower for real estate because Europeans like fighting stock investments).
If you have say 4 million USD and invest in stocks expecting say 7% per year you will pay 103k USD in cap gain tax and then 44k in wealth tax for a grand total of almost 150k/year.
That's enough to fund Switzerland lifestyle let alone life in multiple other countries that levy 0 or close to 0 cap gain tax for long term gains. It's difference between comfortable retirement and having to work.
Maybe it doesn't make much difference if you're very wealthy but for those who just managed to get financial independence it's huge.
If you have say 4 million USD and invest in stocks expecting say 7% per year you will pay 103k USD in cap gain tax and then 44k in wealth tax for a grand total of almost 150k/year.
That's enough to fund Switzerland lifestyle let alone life in multiple other countries that levy 0 or close to 0 cap gain tax for long term gains. It's difference between comfortable retirement and having to work.
Maybe it doesn't make much difference if you're very wealthy but for those who just managed to get financial independence it's huge.
> If you have say 4 million USD and invest in stocks expecting say 7% per year you will pay 103k USD in cap gain tax and then 44k in wealth tax for a grand total of almost 150k/year.
That’s only on realised gains, surely?
And if that’s the case, it’s likely cheaper than having worked for that income.
That’s only on realised gains, surely?
And if that’s the case, it’s likely cheaper than having worked for that income.
Realizing every year vs realizing at the end produces about 1% annualized return difference with those rates over 10 years. It's sure significant but not huge. In practice you are likely to be somewhere in the middle.
>>And if that’s the case, it’s likely cheaper than having worked for that income.
How is that relevant? You are investing money already heavily taxed as income before. Anyway, I am just pointing out it makes a significant difference for someone who struck a bit of gold and gained financial independence but is not yet rich.
>>And if that’s the case, it’s likely cheaper than having worked for that income.
How is that relevant? You are investing money already heavily taxed as income before. Anyway, I am just pointing out it makes a significant difference for someone who struck a bit of gold and gained financial independence but is not yet rich.
> How is that relevant?
Because income is income.
Because income is income.
So basically it's like I have 400 euros and I have to pay 15 euros on it, wait no, not on it, on the gains I made with that money so I get to keep the whole 400 euros. Plus a stable country with affordable healthcare ?
That's pretty neat if you ask me
That's pretty neat if you ask me
Yes, because it is all about status and having more money than the other guy. That is why no amount is ever going to be enough for some of these people.
But I don't really understand why they spend it on useless baubles. If you spend £50m on a fancy London house, a yacht and a some super cars, most people (British people anyway) will think you are a wanker. But if you spent some of that money on schools and hospitals in a poor country, you would probably be treated like a minor god in that country.
But I don't really understand why they spend it on useless baubles. If you spend £50m on a fancy London house, a yacht and a some super cars, most people (British people anyway) will think you are a wanker. But if you spent some of that money on schools and hospitals in a poor country, you would probably be treated like a minor god in that country.
The Starbucks CEO lives in California and flies to Washington state every week.
He could move and supposedly save money (no income tax in WA, but there are some Capital Gains taxes).
He could move and supposedly save money (no income tax in WA, but there are some Capital Gains taxes).
The reason not to move to WA is the capital gains tax in WA is unpredictable. Someone else had explained that it’s actually against the state’s constitution but was upheld by the one sided state courts. And the legislators adjusted the rates upward once already even though it’s a very new tax. The state budget is in a bad shape and expected to get worse, so it’s likely they’ll keep increasing the tax every year.
The stock market is growing, salaries aren't. Makes sense to tax the former and not the latter.
Another way to look at it is taxes aren't quite high enough yet to justify it. Many that are wealthy see the california tax as just another expense in return for good weather.
The moving will absolutely happen, and it isn't all or nothing. If you're very wealthy the CA tax board already tracks the number of days you spend in CA so the choice will be to spend fewer.
The moving will absolutely happen, and it isn't all or nothing. If you're very wealthy the CA tax board already tracks the number of days you spend in CA so the choice will be to spend fewer.
There are businesses (such as hedge funds) that seem to have left New York and Chicago and moved to Miami, though?
It’s also just probably a place he wants to live. Where you live and if you like it or not plays a huge role in life satisfaction. You couldn’t pay me to live in Nevada personally, not at double my income.
He may have found a clever way to structure his tax exposure.
Massachusetts had an increase in millionaires move there after increasing their taxes. It's all bluster that the wealthy will leave. Where will they go? Talk is cheap.
In the specific case of Massachusetts, living in New Hampshire (no income tax or sales tax) instead is pretty practical for a lot of people. Doesn't help you that much if you commute to an MA employer but I know a lot of people who did commute in from NH and, these days, a lot of people who became officially remote workers in NH.
Of course, there are lots of other reasons why out-of-staters might choose to move to MA.
Of course, there are lots of other reasons why out-of-staters might choose to move to MA.
[deleted]
So you close the gap with policy as you find folks attempting to evade it. You'll always have leakage, it's inevitable, but not an excuse to not implement progressive tax policy on the highest levels of income and wealth. Puerto Rico has very favorable income tax treatment, but outside of some crypto bros, hasn't moved the HNW or high income migration needle, for example.
I'm not sure why you consider living in NH evading anything. There are policies related to actually spending a lot of work time in other states, including MA. NH has established policies that generally work for them--and generally provide fewer services in exchange for lower taxes which seems like a valid choice to me.
I only consider it evading if claiming residency in a low or no tax jurisdiction while still maintaining business activity or presence in the jurisdiction in scope for the taxes we're discussing. If you live in NH, work in NH, and have no nexus or economic activity derived from MA, carry on.
NY sources taxes to the employer's office location in NY if a worker works remotely under certain circumstances, for example [1]. If geography can be used to shift or avoid tax exposure to income, I see no problem with using the law to prevent that, depending on the target outcome. My global income is subject to US federal taxes, regardless of my residency (although foreign exclusions apply under a reasonable income threshold, ~$120k/year, under the assumption I am paying taxes where I reside outside the US) [2].
[1] https://www.anchin.com/articles/remote-workers-and-the-conve...
[2] https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
NY sources taxes to the employer's office location in NY if a worker works remotely under certain circumstances, for example [1]. If geography can be used to shift or avoid tax exposure to income, I see no problem with using the law to prevent that, depending on the target outcome. My global income is subject to US federal taxes, regardless of my residency (although foreign exclusions apply under a reasonable income threshold, ~$120k/year, under the assumption I am paying taxes where I reside outside the US) [2].
[1] https://www.anchin.com/articles/remote-workers-and-the-conve...
[2] https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fore...
At my former company, remote employees did increasingly have to track significant time in-person at other company locations--but if you're really working remotely.... MA did try to wrest taxes from NH-resident employees when they went remote en masse during COVID but I don't think they succeeded. (The official company HQ wasn't even in MA although they had a large facility and a lot of senior people there.)
I'm not sure how you reasonably allocate state/local taxes other than by physical presence. Any reasonably large company has an economic nexus in many states and even countries.
I'm not sure how you reasonably allocate state/local taxes other than by physical presence. Any reasonably large company has an economic nexus in many states and even countries.
I know a few people in New York like this. At the end of the day, home is home and Nevada is Nevada.
The people who actually act on this stuff are usually not really wealthy, mostly just retirees finding themselves with a windfall of time and cash, who usually don’t math well.
The people who actually act on this stuff are usually not really wealthy, mostly just retirees finding themselves with a windfall of time and cash, who usually don’t math well.
Live in Nevada just to reduce my tax burden? Unless I was financially desperate (in which case my tax burden is probably low), then it's a hard no.
Yes it happens on the margin and once you have roots, it's unlikely you'll leave. But these kinds of things happen all at once and it's hard to reverse.
If you look at Detroit which was a manufacturing hub for a long time, it would be difficult to imagine a world in which they were irrelevant. All these people built lives there and there was all this specialization and industry there. And it worked well until it didn't.
Once a place loses its dynamism and people have had enough, it'll be very hard to get them back
If you look at Detroit which was a manufacturing hub for a long time, it would be difficult to imagine a world in which they were irrelevant. All these people built lives there and there was all this specialization and industry there. And it worked well until it didn't.
Once a place loses its dynamism and people have had enough, it'll be very hard to get them back
Because that was when the factories & their support infrastructure moved, not when a handful of entitled wealthy moved.
Note also that while the factories moved to China, the wealthy stayed right here in the US, & didn't go where their money was spent.
Different scale, different consequences.
Note also that while the factories moved to China, the wealthy stayed right here in the US, & didn't go where their money was spent.
Different scale, different consequences.
In theory, relatively poor people should be easy to coerce into different behaviours with taxes. In practice, that doesn't appear to be true. e.g. We've seen that carbon taxes on fuel don't really change vehicle purchases or behaviour at the pumps to a large degree unless the taxes are set very high.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that wealthier folk aren't moving to different countries over a tax that is smaller to them, in relative terms, than carbon taxes are to the poor. What is money for, after all, if not to enable you to live the life you want to live? If you need to move to Dubai to avoid taxes, how can you consider yourself wealthy?
It shouldn't surprise anyone that wealthier folk aren't moving to different countries over a tax that is smaller to them, in relative terms, than carbon taxes are to the poor. What is money for, after all, if not to enable you to live the life you want to live? If you need to move to Dubai to avoid taxes, how can you consider yourself wealthy?
Right. We have some wealthy friends here in Norway who's also bemoaning the taxes and always bringing up moving someplace like Switzerland. Except it's never going to happen: in the kind of business they are (very mundane, not any kind of natsec) once you moved out you're an outsider.
It also seems kind of short sighted to assume that there are no risks to having wealth in Dubai or citizenship there. I am not throwing shade at Dubai. The UK has been a peaceful prosperous place for over two hundred years. The future is unknown but I would assume Dubai carries some risk premium.
I remember reading Huey Long's book. The oil companies were threatening to leave Louisiana. He asked them "you going to take the oil with you?"
Tax on businesses is separate from personal wealth and income taxes. You can run IKEA from Switzerland if you want, as long as ikea pays its taxes for each country it operates in. So billionaires can definitely shop for good deals on personal wealth, they can negotiate directly with Swiss Cantons about that.
>>where a few people throw up their hands and go "oh I've had enough".
Yes, it's called the Laffer Curve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Yes, it's called the Laffer Curve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
The fact that there is an optimal tax rate somewhere between 0 and 100% seems so obvious as to hard be worth a name. Especially when no-one knows the shape of the curve. Or am I missing something?
It's obvious to us. It's not obvious to governments that think tax rates can go up and up without the tax income going down.
It's the same thing with tiny tax cuts. No business person is saying, "I'd love to hire 30 more people to fulfil customer orders, but I need a 2% reduction in my top marginal income tax rate to be able to afford that!" No one pays wages out of their post-tax personal income. Either you have the incoming business to support hiring more people or you don't. If you do, then those wages and employee taxes go in your "costs" column and is a legit business expense you wouldn't pay taxes on.
Yes a tax environment can be oppressive and make hiring unattractive, but that's not what is relevant to those "cut taxes and I'll hire more people" debates. It's pure nonsense. A drop from 42% to 40% top marginal tax rate is not going to kick off a hiring boom.
Yes a tax environment can be oppressive and make hiring unattractive, but that's not what is relevant to those "cut taxes and I'll hire more people" debates. It's pure nonsense. A drop from 42% to 40% top marginal tax rate is not going to kick off a hiring boom.
Its really easy to ask people "will you do X if change Y happens?" and get a Yes response (or the more loaded version "are you concerned that you will have to do X if Y happens?") and its very easy to then write news articles based on that survey.
How many of those people actually follow through and do X is a very different question.
How many of those people actually follow through and do X is a very different question.
See also: People that claim they will leave Country X if Person Y gets elected.
Indeed. Right now I’m hearing people will leave the UK when Reform/Farage are elected.
But countries much closer to fascism (eg turkey, USA) are not seeing a mass exodus.
I think family is the main reason. If it weren’t for my family, I would have left England a long time ago.
But countries much closer to fascism (eg turkey, USA) are not seeing a mass exodus.
I think family is the main reason. If it weren’t for my family, I would have left England a long time ago.
Can we get this reproduced by someone not as obviously biased as the "Tax Justice Network"? It's absurd that this organisation's findings would be taken at face value.
I have to ask, did you say the thing at the time the supposed exodus was getting lots of media coverage? I expressed skepticism about it at the time, although I did not pay it too much attention because I don't live int he UK. But any skepticism about such a prediction always incurs a bunch of people insisting I don't understand economics and explanation of how freely the wealthy can flee a high tax jurisdiction.
I notice you don't identify any particular investigative shortcomings or fallacies in the report; you just think it's absurd to even consider the viewpoint of an organization that argues the wealthy are undertaxed.
I notice you don't identify any particular investigative shortcomings or fallacies in the report; you just think it's absurd to even consider the viewpoint of an organization that argues the wealthy are undertaxed.
The original report this article responds to was out put by a company that sells golden passports, and their study involved trawling linkedin. If there are concerns around methodology and bias, then you are absolutely right we should start there
I'm also interested in how they've come up with the 3 million millionaires in the UK figure, they only seem to cite themselves for the data.
4.5% of the entire country are millionaires? On paper or in home equity + pension maybe... But those aren't the people we're concerned about leaving.
4.5% of the entire country are millionaires? On paper or in home equity + pension maybe... But those aren't the people we're concerned about leaving.
They cite Swiss bank UBS, there’s a table in the footnotes. I’m not convinced about that figure myself but they are responding to the announcement that was put out by UBS.
If they're counting pensions and counting married couples as two millionaires then it's quite easy to come up with a big number. The propaganda on both sides is so easy to write.
Nan is selling her home and moving to Barcelona - another mover and shaker gone!
Sounds like a gross underestimate to me. I heard something along the lines that 20% of boomers are millionaires.
paddleon(1)
The article is basically worthless. Wealth follows a power law; saying 90x% of millionaires didn’t move is noise. The very wealthy are in fact moving; they don’t want to be subject to a tax jurisdiction that claims reach on global income. Now, they weren’t paying tax on that income before, so it’s not like it will make a huge impact on UK revenues, but I know that those folks tend to hire local professional services, bankers, etc; we’ll see if they keep doing business with the UK or look elsewhere, like the US. Smart money would be on the US + Dubai right now I think.
I've been to Dubai. I can't imagine moving there just to save some tax.
Many Brits disagree with you — they’re serious about maintaining / reclaiming their class-based lifestyle in the UK - usually enabled by cheap labor — google “Happy Valley” if you’d like to see the 100 years-ago version of this.
>Many Brits disagree with you
Based on the small sample that I have had contact with - I'm quite happy to see them go.
>google “Happy Valley” if you’d like to see the 100 years-ago version of this.
In Kenya?
Based on the small sample that I have had contact with - I'm quite happy to see them go.
>google “Happy Valley” if you’d like to see the 100 years-ago version of this.
In Kenya?
Yep. As the economy changed and large estate living became untenable in England, a group moved to Kenya to sort of extend their lifestyle.
Isn't this too short of a time window to properly gauge? It takes a while to relocate and move assets. Let's see the numbers in 5 years.
I also feel the study misses the fact that it disincentives investment in the UK long term, but that's harder to objectively gauge.
It does take a good deal of time. Another missed angle is how hard this group is to study: I imagine they never respond to surveys.
From what I know from a friend in that type of group London is no longer the place to park money. Not sure where it’s switched to.
From what I know from a friend in that type of group London is no longer the place to park money. Not sure where it’s switched to.
Delaware most likely
It isn't hard to objectively gauge. The annual tax revenue shortfall is running at nearly £10bn this year, this is despite a high levels of earnings growth due to Labour agreeing to huge pay increases for the public sector.
There is an obsession on the left in the UK with the media being allowed to publish things that, as of the last election, disagree with the government narrative. Part of this is the construction of narratives that will focus on specific pieces of information that are misleading, as evidence that all associated claims are wrong.
This happens so consistently and often on almost every issue.
The UK has economic problems, lobbying groups have significant power in the UK, this lobbyist is part of the group saying that taxes aren't high enough and that if we just tax more then we will become a wealthy nation, they have been saying this since they were founded, tax revenue has gone up a lot and they are still saying it (because, as ever, it just hasn't been tried the right way).
To cut through the nonsense: we are taxing more and it doesn't appear to be working, tax revenue has gone up significantly over the past five years and we got poorer, the political requirement for more tax revenue is significantly outpacing the ability of the few paying tax to earn those amounts (there is a £50bn "black hole"...not deficit, just the shortfall that has opened up in the past year or so caused by the weak economy...senior Labour MPs/ministers are still pushing for welfare spending to increase significantly), and there is no limitless source of money that can be endlessly extracted from to generate revenue...we know this because the UK has devolved governments with higher income tax rates, these rates raise less revenue not more.
Btw, I will also add a general point that isn't acknowledged as a unfortunate result of recent events: the massive shortfall is based on numbers that are wildly optimistic. OBR growth forecasts were much higher than the market after Labour's election, they made no sense. OBR often produces numbers that are very helpful for the incumbent government, they did this for the Tories. Unsurprisingly, the OBR is now slashing forecasts and it is all going wrong...but this was all predictable from the start, it isn't hard, it is very obvious, it just requires being able to separate reality from motivated thinking (i.e. impossible for most people, let alone politicians who are simian in their capacity to see reality). The OP talks about the media...almost no-one covered these crooked numbers, no-one is covering it now, no-one will cover it because it disagrees with the political narrative of the "right-wing" media.
None of this is hard to objectively gauge, it is very easy to gauge because you just talk to people and look at the incentives they face. Labour and their associated lobbyists do not live on the same planet as normal people, they should not be taken as evidence of any kind of reality (lobbyists generally...you would think this would be obvious but politics is so embedded in life in the UK that they are the main source of reality).
There is an obsession on the left in the UK with the media being allowed to publish things that, as of the last election, disagree with the government narrative. Part of this is the construction of narratives that will focus on specific pieces of information that are misleading, as evidence that all associated claims are wrong.
This happens so consistently and often on almost every issue.
The UK has economic problems, lobbying groups have significant power in the UK, this lobbyist is part of the group saying that taxes aren't high enough and that if we just tax more then we will become a wealthy nation, they have been saying this since they were founded, tax revenue has gone up a lot and they are still saying it (because, as ever, it just hasn't been tried the right way).
To cut through the nonsense: we are taxing more and it doesn't appear to be working, tax revenue has gone up significantly over the past five years and we got poorer, the political requirement for more tax revenue is significantly outpacing the ability of the few paying tax to earn those amounts (there is a £50bn "black hole"...not deficit, just the shortfall that has opened up in the past year or so caused by the weak economy...senior Labour MPs/ministers are still pushing for welfare spending to increase significantly), and there is no limitless source of money that can be endlessly extracted from to generate revenue...we know this because the UK has devolved governments with higher income tax rates, these rates raise less revenue not more.
Btw, I will also add a general point that isn't acknowledged as a unfortunate result of recent events: the massive shortfall is based on numbers that are wildly optimistic. OBR growth forecasts were much higher than the market after Labour's election, they made no sense. OBR often produces numbers that are very helpful for the incumbent government, they did this for the Tories. Unsurprisingly, the OBR is now slashing forecasts and it is all going wrong...but this was all predictable from the start, it isn't hard, it is very obvious, it just requires being able to separate reality from motivated thinking (i.e. impossible for most people, let alone politicians who are simian in their capacity to see reality). The OP talks about the media...almost no-one covered these crooked numbers, no-one is covering it now, no-one will cover it because it disagrees with the political narrative of the "right-wing" media.
None of this is hard to objectively gauge, it is very easy to gauge because you just talk to people and look at the incentives they face. Labour and their associated lobbyists do not live on the same planet as normal people, they should not be taken as evidence of any kind of reality (lobbyists generally...you would think this would be obvious but politics is so embedded in life in the UK that they are the main source of reality).
My analysis is that if 55-64 year old were as economically active as 45-54 year olds the deficit would disappear.
The way to get this to happen is to stamp on age discrimination, provide more retraining, improve pension incentives, and tightening sick benefits sharply.
The way to get this to happen is to stamp on age discrimination, provide more retraining, improve pension incentives, and tightening sick benefits sharply.
That isn't the case. Aging has very little to do with our issues. The amount of revenue generated by people in their 30s is nowhere near enough to pay for the state as it is. The biggest marginal increase in sickness benefits has been people in 20/30s.
However, I don't think the point is an economic one anyway: age discrimination is terrible, retraining is great, etc.
Generally, I don't think the issue is as simple as sickness benefits. Fifteen years ago, that would have worked. The problem is a very systemic one of allocating massive amount of economic resources to unproductive activity. For example, the massive growth in public sector employment has created this economy of skills that have no function in any capitalist society. It is far more systemic, aging will make this worse but we are nowhere near that point and there are so many easy ways to improve growth. The ultimate issue is that the UK is a low-skill economy, and there are massive incentives for this to never change.
However, I don't think the point is an economic one anyway: age discrimination is terrible, retraining is great, etc.
Generally, I don't think the issue is as simple as sickness benefits. Fifteen years ago, that would have worked. The problem is a very systemic one of allocating massive amount of economic resources to unproductive activity. For example, the massive growth in public sector employment has created this economy of skills that have no function in any capitalist society. It is far more systemic, aging will make this worse but we are nowhere near that point and there are so many easy ways to improve growth. The ultimate issue is that the UK is a low-skill economy, and there are massive incentives for this to never change.
>That isn't the case. Aging has very little to do with our issues. The amount of revenue generated by people in their 30s is nowhere near enough to pay for the state as it is. The biggest marginal increase in sickness benefits has been people in 20/30s.
Apart from "That isn't the case" (great point there) I don't understand how any part of this paragraph refutes what I wrote.
But hey, belief beats stats every time I guess.
Apart from "That isn't the case" (great point there) I don't understand how any part of this paragraph refutes what I wrote.
But hey, belief beats stats every time I guess.
> It isn't hard to objectively gauge. The annual tax revenue shortfall is running at nearly £10bn this year, this is despite a high levels of earnings growth due to Labour agreeing to huge pay increases for the public sector.
They weren’t huge pay rises they were in line with inflation
Much of the issue with government finances relates to Hunt introducing NI cuts that weren’t affordable, the Tories giving billions to the mates during Covid, reduced GBP from Brexit and a huge hangover from the financial crisis where the public as still paying for the bankers failures
They weren’t huge pay rises they were in line with inflation
Much of the issue with government finances relates to Hunt introducing NI cuts that weren’t affordable, the Tories giving billions to the mates during Covid, reduced GBP from Brexit and a huge hangover from the financial crisis where the public as still paying for the bankers failures
Strange to see this here, it's quite delayed.
The Henley data was poor, but this criticism was too. I don't think we have the data and I fear the Henley data actually underestimates the reality.
FWIW, anecdotally my peers with the means are all looking at leaving and some have gone. I've closed down my business, my wife is looking at keeping hers running remotely because of the staff in it.
And I'm typing this from a Dubai hotel room while I spend a couple of months seeing if I can set something new up that I can do from here. I don't relish saying that, but the UK is not in a good place and there's no light at the end of the tunnel.
The Henley data was poor, but this criticism was too. I don't think we have the data and I fear the Henley data actually underestimates the reality.
FWIW, anecdotally my peers with the means are all looking at leaving and some have gone. I've closed down my business, my wife is looking at keeping hers running remotely because of the staff in it.
And I'm typing this from a Dubai hotel room while I spend a couple of months seeing if I can set something new up that I can do from here. I don't relish saying that, but the UK is not in a good place and there's no light at the end of the tunnel.
Not much in the way of details in your post. You're shutting down your business and moving for... reasons.
It boggles my mind that any westerner would choose to live and work in Dubai. Their laws and rules are very different from ours.
I do see that they have made some steps toward reform of their debtors prisons. I'm very glad to see that, but I still do not consider Dubai to be a safe place to even visit, let alone live there.
https://jamesberrylaw.com/news-details/no-prison-for-debt
It boggles my mind that any westerner would choose to live and work in Dubai. Their laws and rules are very different from ours.
I do see that they have made some steps toward reform of their debtors prisons. I'm very glad to see that, but I still do not consider Dubai to be a safe place to even visit, let alone live there.
https://jamesberrylaw.com/news-details/no-prison-for-debt
The list of reasons really is too long to include. From the continued worsening of individual bits of tax legislation such as IR35, dividend allowances, employers NI, corporation tax, etc. to the stalling of real GDP per capita combined with an increased population and the consequentially stretched hospitals, transport, etc, the draconian policing of social media... it's pointless me trying to list it all really.
Dubai is a bit of a trigger for some people. Others I know are going/gone to Portugal, Malta, Cyprus, the US, Aus, Can, NZ, Singapore, France. Your mileage may vary - people leaving can generally give you similar lists of why, but where they go seems varied.
I used to live in Saudi for a time (25+ years ago), and actually really liked much about it then and it had changed markedly when I've been back more recently. I've visited Iraq, I've been detained in Oman under suspicion of espionage and still see virtues in the place. Dubai is positively liberal by comparison and becoming more liberal, while the UK is becoming more authoritarian and despite the official crime statistics, I'm not sure it's as safe as it once was.
Dubai is a bit of a trigger for some people. Others I know are going/gone to Portugal, Malta, Cyprus, the US, Aus, Can, NZ, Singapore, France. Your mileage may vary - people leaving can generally give you similar lists of why, but where they go seems varied.
I used to live in Saudi for a time (25+ years ago), and actually really liked much about it then and it had changed markedly when I've been back more recently. I've visited Iraq, I've been detained in Oman under suspicion of espionage and still see virtues in the place. Dubai is positively liberal by comparison and becoming more liberal, while the UK is becoming more authoritarian and despite the official crime statistics, I'm not sure it's as safe as it once was.
>It boggles my mind that any westerner would choose to live and work in Dubai. Their laws and rules are very different from ours.
As long as you're not borrowing money from local entities, you're almost certainly not going to run into any trouble like that in Dubai. In practice Dubai is more libertarian than the UK; the government generally doesn't bother you or care what you're doing, as long as you don't get on the bad side of someone well-connected.
As long as you're not borrowing money from local entities, you're almost certainly not going to run into any trouble like that in Dubai. In practice Dubai is more libertarian than the UK; the government generally doesn't bother you or care what you're doing, as long as you don't get on the bad side of someone well-connected.
> In practice Dubai is more libertarian than the UK
Even for women?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_Arab_Emira...
Even for women?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_Arab_Emira...
> in practice Dubai is more libertarian than the UK;
> as long as you don't get on the bad side of someone well-connected.
Thats a huge fucking caveat. given that the law is very much stacked in the favour of citizens, then if you do get into trouble, you're in deep shit fast.
> as long as you don't get on the bad side of someone well-connected.
Thats a huge fucking caveat. given that the law is very much stacked in the favour of citizens, then if you do get into trouble, you're in deep shit fast.
Yep, but if you're moving from the UK you've probably got some kind of international business or clients so are unlikely to have much interaction with the locals. This is even formalised in the business system there; if you're not doing business with locals, you can open a free-zone company, which are much easier/cheaper to open, but restricted to primarily doing business with overseas entities.
>so are unlikely to have much interaction with the locals.
You really aren't selling it.
You really aren't selling it.
[deleted]
It shouldn’t surprise me that people are unfazed by the fact that the UAE is built on labor by indentured servants with few rights and is rife with human rights abuses, but I suppose being “business friendly” trumps all if your top priority is avoiding taxes and accumulating wealth.
When you put it that way, it's amazing Bezos hasn't already moved.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002304z
this goes over the data. But in short its super patchy, based on a very small dataset, and a whole lot of vibes.
> UK is not in a good place
That may be, but dubai is basically farage's wet dream.
this goes over the data. But in short its super patchy, based on a very small dataset, and a whole lot of vibes.
> UK is not in a good place
That may be, but dubai is basically farage's wet dream.
>I don't relish saying that, but the UK is not in a good place
And Dubai is?
And Dubai is?
Arguably not. They both have pros, they both have cons and I can't predict the future.
But my intuition is, that on balance I can give my kids a substantially better life in Dubai. Safer, more sports, more languages, better school facilities. With parents less stressed but more motivated to work.
But my intuition is, that on balance I can give my kids a substantially better life in Dubai. Safer, more sports, more languages, better school facilities. With parents less stressed but more motivated to work.
And you're ok with living somewhere built on the misery of indentured labourers from poor countries?
I think the picture of how the UK came to be what is today is a bit more complicated than just that take.
Are you ok with living in a country where the state has turned a blind eye to widespread grooming gangs?
Nowhere is perfect, to say the least. And my presence or absence has little affect on that. Labourers in the UAE are paid less than they would be in the UK, but more than they would be in their country of origin. And let's face it, the UK isn't giving them jobs. Is it better to give them low paid work as the UAE does, or better not to give them any work at all as the UK does? I don't think these ethical issues are simple, neither do I think there's one right answer.
Are you ok with living in a country where the state has turned a blind eye to widespread grooming gangs?
Nowhere is perfect, to say the least. And my presence or absence has little affect on that. Labourers in the UAE are paid less than they would be in the UK, but more than they would be in their country of origin. And let's face it, the UK isn't giving them jobs. Is it better to give them low paid work as the UAE does, or better not to give them any work at all as the UK does? I don't think these ethical issues are simple, neither do I think there's one right answer.
>Are you ok with living in a country where the state has turned a blind eye to widespread grooming gangs?
Don't believe everything Elon Musk says.
I think the authorities were slow to go after some of these groups, perhaps in case they were perceived as being racist. But I'm not sure 'turning a blind eye' is accurate. People have gone to prison.
Don't believe everything Elon Musk says.
I think the authorities were slow to go after some of these groups, perhaps in case they were perceived as being racist. But I'm not sure 'turning a blind eye' is accurate. People have gone to prison.
The UK could be in a better position but it’s not in a bad place…
>I don't relish saying that, but the UK is not in a good place and there's no light at the end of the tunnel.
On the bright side, the weather in Dubai is much better than the UK's.
On the bright side, the weather in Dubai is much better than the UK's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Dubai
Looks unhealthy unless one has air conditioning a lot of the year.
Looks unhealthy unless one has air conditioning a lot of the year.
The heat can be uncomfortable, but doesn't bring the vitamin D deprivation and seasonal depression associated with the UK climate.
Vitamin D tablets are not expensive.
Starting every day with a swim in the sunshine does go a long way.
Yeah, it turns out that being a tax exile is not for everyone, and indeed is not for practically anyone. This is always _vastly_ overhyped as a risk.
I personally know several people who left Washington state because of the recently enacted capital gains tax.
The tax was targeted at Jeff Bezos, but he decamped to Florida just before it went into effect.
The tax was targeted at Jeff Bezos, but he decamped to Florida just before it went into effect.
It's an interesting one because its relatively mild; we decamped _to_ Washington from Oregon (very partially) because the tax was so much more favorable in Washington.
(Washington tax here is cap gains at 7% which doesn't kick in until capital gains > 250k)
(Washington tax here is cap gains at 7% which doesn't kick in until capital gains > 250k)
It was just raised to 9.9%. And the estate tax was just raised to 35%.
Adding in the 40% federal estate tax, and it's 75%.
Adding in the 40% federal estate tax, and it's 75%.
Bezos famously says that when the anecdotes conflict with the data, trust the anecdotes
Bezos leaving probably subtracted billions from the Washington economy.
The Henley and partners analysis isn't very good, but nor is this, both are from biased sources. It seems to amount to "that isn't a large proportion" rather than looking at the trend.
Dan Neidle[1] and the FT[2] have already done much better debunking of it, although that doesn't mean there isn't truth to it, just that Henley and Partners's report doesn't prove anything.
Chris Giles at the FT did a good summary[3]
[1] https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/07/27/henley-partners-milliona... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/28ebf57d-af22-48a0-91b9-880e3f1fb... https://archive.is/w6New [3] https://www.ft.com/content/0a24be5e-395e-43db-a91f-4b4f02d99... https://archive.is/Le05V
Dan Neidle[1] and the FT[2] have already done much better debunking of it, although that doesn't mean there isn't truth to it, just that Henley and Partners's report doesn't prove anything.
Chris Giles at the FT did a good summary[3]
[1] https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/07/27/henley-partners-milliona... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/28ebf57d-af22-48a0-91b9-880e3f1fb... https://archive.is/w6New [3] https://www.ft.com/content/0a24be5e-395e-43db-a91f-4b4f02d99... https://archive.is/Le05V
> Moreover, the report uses a far narrower definition of ‘millionaires’ that does not include all dollar millionaires like the standard definition (people with net worth of 1 million dollars or more), but rather only individuals with liquid assets worth 1 million dollars or more, who are thus richer and more mobile on average than a standardly defined millionaire.16 In the case of the UK, the ‘millionaires’ identified by the report represent just a fifth (20%) of the UK millionaire population.17
So the first report said people with liquid money chose to move it out of the UK. This report says actually anyone with a largish paid off house in a good area should be counted, and as they didn't sell their house and move, there's no problem.
I appreciate that they point out the biases of the first article, but I still find the 'liquid millionaire' a more interesting stat. The Times also reported that the UK collected less tax revenue after trying to tax the ultra rich more [0][1].
So at the moment I'd say both people are stating their side too strongly and the truth is maybe somewhere in the middle but I'm still leaning towards 'rich people are leaving the UK if they can' based on what I've read.
[0] https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/capital-gains-t... [1] https://archive.ph/qXcUc
So the first report said people with liquid money chose to move it out of the UK. This report says actually anyone with a largish paid off house in a good area should be counted, and as they didn't sell their house and move, there's no problem.
I appreciate that they point out the biases of the first article, but I still find the 'liquid millionaire' a more interesting stat. The Times also reported that the UK collected less tax revenue after trying to tax the ultra rich more [0][1].
So at the moment I'd say both people are stating their side too strongly and the truth is maybe somewhere in the middle but I'm still leaning towards 'rich people are leaving the UK if they can' based on what I've read.
[0] https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/capital-gains-t... [1] https://archive.ph/qXcUc
A millionaire exodus widely reported by news outlets around the world in 2024, and credited for the UK Labour government’s decision to weaken tax reforms, did not occur, the Tax Justice Network reveals.
Not to excuse Labour's part in this, but this is a side effect of most news outlets being consolidated and owned by relatively few rich people.
Not to excuse Labour's part in this, but this is a side effect of most news outlets being consolidated and owned by relatively few rich people.
well, and that its a stats heavy pre-made easy headline that doesn't take much to write.
In addition you can put any spin on it you like, to suit your agenda.
In addition you can put any spin on it you like, to suit your agenda.
£1M is middle-class levels of money, so its hardly surprising. most of this demographic is 50+ professionals with kids, where are they gonna go?
Here in Norway we have a sort of unique wealth tax, and ever since, there's been nothing but doom and gloom in the media about wealthy people exiling to Switzerland. Especially the past couple of months, in the run-up to the election. The wealth tax debate was all-consuming, and really did reach a fever pitch.
Turns out, of course, that some of the rich folks that did move to Switzerland, were funding PR and social media campaigns on this topic.
It was so omnipresent, that even high school kids had "wealth tax" as one of their most important topics.
EDIT: Personally, I think their strategy kind of backfired. There was just too much talk about wealth tax, which doesn't seriously affect too many here. They did try to angle it as "If all the billionaires leave, who's gonna create jobs for the rest?" - but it still didn't resonate too much with the average citizen.
Turns out, of course, that some of the rich folks that did move to Switzerland, were funding PR and social media campaigns on this topic.
It was so omnipresent, that even high school kids had "wealth tax" as one of their most important topics.
EDIT: Personally, I think their strategy kind of backfired. There was just too much talk about wealth tax, which doesn't seriously affect too many here. They did try to angle it as "If all the billionaires leave, who's gonna create jobs for the rest?" - but it still didn't resonate too much with the average citizen.
TrackerFF sounds like someone on the left trying to defend the wealth tax. As a Norwegian who believes in freedom and the right for anyone to start their own business, I think the wealth tax is one of the most toxic taxes ever introduced. In practice, it makes Norwegian-owned companies about 30% less competitive than foreign-owned ones.
It’s sold as a “tax on the rich,” but in reality it’s a 2.1% annual tax on businesses. The companies have to cover these costs, and the result is that everyone — rich or poor — ends up paying for it. The only winner here is the state, which wastes the money on useless projects and subsidies.
It gets even dumber: businesses that invest in emergency preparedness — like storing gravel or materials for war or disaster scenarios — actually get punished by the wealth tax. Imagine paying 2.1% tax every year on a gravel pile. No, this is not a joke: link: https://www.dn.no/innlegg/beredskap/sikkerhetspolitikk/formu...
The consequences are clear: more than half of the 400 wealthiest people in Norway have already left the country. There’s no risk capital left for startups, and outside the oil and gas sector, businesses are struggling. Plenty of smart young engineers fresh out of university can’t find work, and hiring of junior software developers has basically stopped.
When we talk about taxes, we should be talking about incentives and motivation. If you tax people so hard that they lose the drive to work and create, then you’ve got a real problem.
If I had the chance, I’d move to Sweden or Switzerland immediately. But I can’t, because I’ve got a family to take care of here.
It’s sold as a “tax on the rich,” but in reality it’s a 2.1% annual tax on businesses. The companies have to cover these costs, and the result is that everyone — rich or poor — ends up paying for it. The only winner here is the state, which wastes the money on useless projects and subsidies.
It gets even dumber: businesses that invest in emergency preparedness — like storing gravel or materials for war or disaster scenarios — actually get punished by the wealth tax. Imagine paying 2.1% tax every year on a gravel pile. No, this is not a joke: link: https://www.dn.no/innlegg/beredskap/sikkerhetspolitikk/formu...
The consequences are clear: more than half of the 400 wealthiest people in Norway have already left the country. There’s no risk capital left for startups, and outside the oil and gas sector, businesses are struggling. Plenty of smart young engineers fresh out of university can’t find work, and hiring of junior software developers has basically stopped.
When we talk about taxes, we should be talking about incentives and motivation. If you tax people so hard that they lose the drive to work and create, then you’ve got a real problem.
If I had the chance, I’d move to Sweden or Switzerland immediately. But I can’t, because I’ve got a family to take care of here.
> The only winner here is the state, which wastes the money on useless projects and subsidies.
They should use that to reduce other taxes instead. Especially income taxes.
> If you tax people so hard that they lose the drive to work and create
That a bigger problem for income taxes. If the top marginal rate is over 40% people will prefer chilling out instead of working hard for the next promotion.
> more than half of the 400 wealthiest people in Norway have already left the country
Did they take their money too? And their factories and land and patents and other assets? Does it matter that they're not physically present in the country?
> There’s no risk capital left for startups
Was Norway previously known for having a lot of capital for startups? I thought Europe was generally bad for startup funding.
> hiring of junior software developers has basically stopped
You've described the entire world in 2025.
They should use that to reduce other taxes instead. Especially income taxes.
> If you tax people so hard that they lose the drive to work and create
That a bigger problem for income taxes. If the top marginal rate is over 40% people will prefer chilling out instead of working hard for the next promotion.
> more than half of the 400 wealthiest people in Norway have already left the country
Did they take their money too? And their factories and land and patents and other assets? Does it matter that they're not physically present in the country?
> There’s no risk capital left for startups
Was Norway previously known for having a lot of capital for startups? I thought Europe was generally bad for startup funding.
> hiring of junior software developers has basically stopped
You've described the entire world in 2025.
>Did they take their money too? And their factories and land and patents and other assets? Does it matter that they're not physically present in the country?
The better question is the impact on future investment. Once a factory is in place, it's a sunk cost and it won't make sense to move it unless the political situation is dire. The same can't be said for investments that haven't been made yet.
> I thought Europe was generally bad for startup funding.
I wonder why that'd be the case...
The better question is the impact on future investment. Once a factory is in place, it's a sunk cost and it won't make sense to move it unless the political situation is dire. The same can't be said for investments that haven't been made yet.
> I thought Europe was generally bad for startup funding.
I wonder why that'd be the case...
> The same can't be said for investments that haven't been made yet.
We can debate counterfactuals all day long. People invest when there are profits to be made and refrain when there aren't. Everything else is bullshit.
> I wonder why that'd be the case...
Definitely not wealth taxes because most European countries don't have them. It might be because they don't have the world's reserve currency. Or the million other reasons commentators and economists have written about elsewhere.
We can debate counterfactuals all day long. People invest when there are profits to be made and refrain when there aren't. Everything else is bullshit.
> I wonder why that'd be the case...
Definitely not wealth taxes because most European countries don't have them. It might be because they don't have the world's reserve currency. Or the million other reasons commentators and economists have written about elsewhere.
>We can debate counterfactuals all day long.
It's not really a counterfactual. My point was that deployed capital is less subject to flight, so using that as a measure for a policy's impact is incomplete and short sighted.
>People invest when there are profits to be made and refrain when there aren't. Everything else is bullshit.
This is also incomplete. People also seek the highest returns. That's why the magnificent 7 tech companies (which happen to be all American) have seen their valuations skyrocket, whereas the appetite for Volkswagen is tepid, despite it turning a profit. That's not to say there's no investment in Europe, but based on startup funding and IPOs, it's pretty clear that the US is the favored place to invest.
>Definitely not wealth taxes because most European countries don't have them.
My point is that europe is generally business-hostile. Wealth taxes is only one of the factors. There's also high taxes and onerous regulations.
It's not really a counterfactual. My point was that deployed capital is less subject to flight, so using that as a measure for a policy's impact is incomplete and short sighted.
>People invest when there are profits to be made and refrain when there aren't. Everything else is bullshit.
This is also incomplete. People also seek the highest returns. That's why the magnificent 7 tech companies (which happen to be all American) have seen their valuations skyrocket, whereas the appetite for Volkswagen is tepid, despite it turning a profit. That's not to say there's no investment in Europe, but based on startup funding and IPOs, it's pretty clear that the US is the favored place to invest.
>Definitely not wealth taxes because most European countries don't have them.
My point is that europe is generally business-hostile. Wealth taxes is only one of the factors. There's also high taxes and onerous regulations.
> There's also high taxes
This is correct, I called out high income taxes as a problem in my original post. There's no point in working harder when more than half the gain is taken away.
Wealth taxes != income taxes.
> onerous regulations
When I wrote "the million other reasons" - this is one of them.
This is correct, I called out high income taxes as a problem in my original post. There's no point in working harder when more than half the gain is taken away.
Wealth taxes != income taxes.
> onerous regulations
When I wrote "the million other reasons" - this is one of them.
The negative impact of wealth taxes is vastly over-stated.
Obviously the impact depends on the level of taxation, but it is instructive to compare it with inflation. Typical wealth taxes are in the region of 1% per year; a 1% (additional) annual rate of inflation would have the same impact on wealth as the tax and not be considered disastrous for any business except those with very marginal profitability.
Obviously the impact depends on the level of taxation, but it is instructive to compare it with inflation. Typical wealth taxes are in the region of 1% per year; a 1% (additional) annual rate of inflation would have the same impact on wealth as the tax and not be considered disastrous for any business except those with very marginal profitability.
>Typical wealth taxes are in the region of 1% per year; a 1% (additional) annual rate of inflation would have the same impact on wealth as the tax
Or to put it another way: a 50% rise in the "normal" level of inflation (assuming 2% target that most countries target). Moreover this is a bad comparison because most rich people don't keep their wealth in cash, they invest it which mostly shields it from inflation. You end up overstating the current costs that capital owners are paying.
Or to put it another way: a 50% rise in the "normal" level of inflation (assuming 2% target that most countries target). Moreover this is a bad comparison because most rich people don't keep their wealth in cash, they invest it which mostly shields it from inflation. You end up overstating the current costs that capital owners are paying.
All assets are denominated in currency, so there exists no "shield" from inflation, except perhaps government-issued bonds that guarantee a return above inflation. Most so-called shields against inflation are investments that yield more than the rate of inflation.
The reason I used the comparison between wealth tax and inflation is to illustrate that modest wealth taxes in the order of 1% are not more onerous than many other influences on wealth.
The reason I used the comparison between wealth tax and inflation is to illustrate that modest wealth taxes in the order of 1% are not more onerous than many other influences on wealth.
> All assets are denominated in currency
False.
All assets can be valued in currency, but most are not denominated in currency (and even more are not denominated in whichever specific currency it is that you are trying to hedge against inflation in.) Debt instruments are usually denominated in some currency, but stocks are a claim on a particular share of the assets of a corporation at dissolution, not denominated in a particular currency.
A stock of a physical commodity is denominated in the physical commodity, not a currency.
False.
All assets can be valued in currency, but most are not denominated in currency (and even more are not denominated in whichever specific currency it is that you are trying to hedge against inflation in.) Debt instruments are usually denominated in some currency, but stocks are a claim on a particular share of the assets of a corporation at dissolution, not denominated in a particular currency.
A stock of a physical commodity is denominated in the physical commodity, not a currency.
You are correct.
Inflation affects the value of all assets whose value is frequently traded using currency (which is most of stock markets, property, etc). To argue otherwise would be to deny the seriously negative impact high inflation can have on all aspects of the economy.
There are assets whose value is mostly not financial, e.g. physical, social, intellectual, or otherwise. These retain their value despite inflation.
Nevertheless, I aimed to show that a modest 1% tax is not onerous compared to other impacts on accumulated wealth.
Inflation affects the value of all assets whose value is frequently traded using currency (which is most of stock markets, property, etc). To argue otherwise would be to deny the seriously negative impact high inflation can have on all aspects of the economy.
There are assets whose value is mostly not financial, e.g. physical, social, intellectual, or otherwise. These retain their value despite inflation.
Nevertheless, I aimed to show that a modest 1% tax is not onerous compared to other impacts on accumulated wealth.
> Inflation affects the value of all assets whose value is frequently traded using currency (which is most of stock markets, property, etc).
Affects them all, sure, but it doesn't affect them all in the same way, even on a broad qualitative level.
Affects them all, sure, but it doesn't affect them all in the same way, even on a broad qualitative level.
[deleted]
The threshold for Norway's wealth tax is having a total net worth around 150,000 euros, regardless of income. That should affect pretty much everyone who's owned a house for more than a decade.
Is this meant to say 1,500,000 euros? 150,000 euros is ~$175k USD and the average US home price is currently sitting around $500k for reference.
edit: it does appear that 150,000 is correct, but it is an additional 0.1% tax on wealth above 150,000 euros.
Still basically nothing for the overwhelming majority of people. An additional $1,000 a year for every $1,000,000 you are worth.
edit: it does appear that 150,000 is correct, but it is an additional 0.1% tax on wealth above 150,000 euros.
Still basically nothing for the overwhelming majority of people. An additional $1,000 a year for every $1,000,000 you are worth.
Wealth tax on houses (and apartments, cabins etc..) are calculated as 25% of market value up to 10 MNOK and 70% over that. So you'd need to own a rather luxurious house before having to pay a rather modest tax.
Some municipalities also have a separate property tax which iirc is usually an order of magnitude lower than the wealth tax.
Some municipalities also have a separate property tax which iirc is usually an order of magnitude lower than the wealth tax.
Buying a house is actually a simple way to avoid the wealth tax.
If you've owned a house for a decade you typically have like 15 or 20 years left on your mortgage and are in debt. The tax worth of the house is some fraction of the sale price, so for a house that one might sell today for €500k the tax value could be like €50k. At the same time, typical debt after only ten years is probably almost half the house price (assuming you had some savings before buying the house). And with debt, that's what your earnings go to... I as an above-median earning Norwegian with house (and thus very negative worth) will probably have decades before getting anywhere near the threshold. And even then you only pay for what's over the threshold, so if you're At the threshold you pay nothing.
If you've owned a house for a decade you typically have like 15 or 20 years left on your mortgage and are in debt. The tax worth of the house is some fraction of the sale price, so for a house that one might sell today for €500k the tax value could be like €50k. At the same time, typical debt after only ten years is probably almost half the house price (assuming you had some savings before buying the house). And with debt, that's what your earnings go to... I as an above-median earning Norwegian with house (and thus very negative worth) will probably have decades before getting anywhere near the threshold. And even then you only pay for what's over the threshold, so if you're At the threshold you pay nothing.
If someone's aim is to avoid a wealth tax, then moving to Switzerland (one of the few other countries with a wealth tax) seems like a confusing choice. The Swiss wealth tax is payable in some cantons from ~50k Euros.
Switzerland's wealth tax is a lot more reasonable though. UK is 2%, Norway is 1.1%, the Swiss ones are all below 1% (depends on your canton), ex the Zug canton is 0.21%.
There is no UK wealth tax - just your normal income / capital gains tax etc. Dont know what your 2% is meant to be referring to here.
All that matters is the total tax. You calculate the toes tax in Switzerland (including wealth tax) to that of Norway and then you may see it’s a clear choice.
What a delightfully sane and refreshing response. It's nice to hear that places outside the US are capable of rational discourse. I'll go back to my burning dumpster fire now.
Yes, there is such a dearth of "eat the rich" voices in the US. There is nowhere to buy cheeseburgers here either.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Steinbeck (disputed)
you say that like it is a bad thing...
I find it amusing, because clearly everyone can't be super rich. It is an interesting alternative to telling poor people that, if they behave well, they will be reincarnated as something better in the next life.
I find it inspiring to live in a place where the possibility is there for anyone
It seems to be a lot more there for some people than others.
Got us an embarrassed billionaire over here.
ever think of why that would be a thing? perhaps because we live in the land of opportunity?
Oh, I remember the joy I felt when Phil Collins finally f'd off to Switzerland.
I can't wait for Ed Sheeran to follow him - clearly we need to more to make those pips squeak.
I can't wait for Ed Sheeran to follow him - clearly we need to more to make those pips squeak.
> For example, the 9500 millionaires widely reported to be leaving the UK in 2024 represented 0.3% of the UK’s 3.06 million millionaires.
I think this study is a bit misleading. If the UK truly has 3M millionaires I strongly suspect a large majority of them are regular people with OK jobs that are “millionaires” by virtue of owning a house and having retirement savings. The vast majority of these people are likely making decent but not remarkable incomes and likely can’t afford to relocate to another country. Without breaking this down into income groups, this article seems fairly misleading. But that’s par for the course I guess, since media and politicians a) frequently conflate wealth with income and b) are counting on people thinking a net worth of a million (dollars|pounds) makes a person “rich.”
I think this study is a bit misleading. If the UK truly has 3M millionaires I strongly suspect a large majority of them are regular people with OK jobs that are “millionaires” by virtue of owning a house and having retirement savings. The vast majority of these people are likely making decent but not remarkable incomes and likely can’t afford to relocate to another country. Without breaking this down into income groups, this article seems fairly misleading. But that’s par for the course I guess, since media and politicians a) frequently conflate wealth with income and b) are counting on people thinking a net worth of a million (dollars|pounds) makes a person “rich.”
The criteria is someone with 1 million in liquid investable wealth - homes are not investable assets or liquid.
This is actually stated in the report xD
This is actually stated in the report xD
In the UK every 3rd older homeowner is essentially a millionaire
https://theferret.scot/27-per-cent-pensioners-millionaires-m...
https://theferret.scot/27-per-cent-pensioners-millionaires-m...
The original analysis piece by Henley & Partners (clue's in the name) has to be one of the most successful pieces of marketing by a financial manager in quite some time.
The real test of this pudding will be income tax receipts, maybe luxury VAT.
I know as a whole, budget is undershooting massively - small few 10s of £B - but I don't know if it's specifically this.
Meanwhile, anecdotally, I know so many people who left recently I'm not sure where to start. They mostly work in finance, so are well off but not "super rich" (not my friends anyway). Ok the flip side, this is the social stratum that actually pays taxes...
I know as a whole, budget is undershooting massively - small few 10s of £B - but I don't know if it's specifically this.
Meanwhile, anecdotally, I know so many people who left recently I'm not sure where to start. They mostly work in finance, so are well off but not "super rich" (not my friends anyway). Ok the flip side, this is the social stratum that actually pays taxes...
Yeah thats because the INCREASE in capital gains tax occured recently, so the data that matters is the 2025 cohort surely. I would bet my left squirrel nut that there is a massive outflow in 2025. If anything the 2024 concerns were prescient.
The media hysteria about a millionaire exodus happened in 2024, not 2025.
10900 articles were in 2024 not 2025 so the hysteria happened in 2024.
The interesting part is: those spreading hysteria don’t need to provide evidence; they just simply repeat.
Then those locked into the X-rinse-and-repeat-loop echo the same hysteria, as if they’ve just discovered some kind of wisdom when they have simply been overtrained.
Then those locked into the X-rinse-and-repeat-loop echo the same hysteria, as if they’ve just discovered some kind of wisdom when they have simply been overtrained.
Im not trying to be difficult Im just saying that there is a mass exodus, its probably late, but getting worse so the articles were in a sense a good warning for things to come.
[deleted]
Why would it be?
It's still as secure as a tax haven (if not more so) outside of the EU, and all of the actual changes supposed to be done as part of Brexit were effectively reversed by the following administrations.
The threat of their exodus was just blackmail.
It's still as secure as a tax haven (if not more so) outside of the EU, and all of the actual changes supposed to be done as part of Brexit were effectively reversed by the following administrations.
The threat of their exodus was just blackmail.
In case dang is watching, at least one past discussion two months ago:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44623091
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44623091
As long as UK taxes are flow-based and not stock-based, it seems a bit silly to base analysis on a stock-based denominator like the number of millionaires.
Only sound comment here.
You can usually tell message board prevalent politics by seeing which stuff gets demands for rigor and which stuff is accepted as-is.
It's a progressive organization releasing a "study".
You can usually tell message board prevalent politics by seeing which stuff gets demands for rigor and which stuff is accepted as-is.
It's a progressive organization releasing a "study".
> Moreover, the [Henley] report uses a far narrower definition of ‘millionaires’ that does not include all dollar millionaires like the standard definition (people with net worth of 1 million dollars or more), but rather only individuals with liquid assets worth 1 million dollars or more, who are thus richer and more mobile on average than a standardly defined millionaire. In the case of the UK, the ‘millionaires’ identified by the report represent just a fifth (20%) of the UK millionaire population. Even then, the report is based on a small sample from within these narrowly defined millionaires and the sample is skewed towards centi-millionaires and billionaires, who are also likely to be the most easily mobile.
Are "people with net worth of 1 million dollars or more" considered very wealthy in the U.K. these days? In the U.S. there are many many homeowners who are millionaires by this definition, and that's not a population that would be likely to have the means to buy their way into another country.
Are "people with net worth of 1 million dollars or more" considered very wealthy in the U.K. these days? In the U.S. there are many many homeowners who are millionaires by this definition, and that's not a population that would be likely to have the means to buy their way into another country.
The UK government defines wealthy as £2 million, or an income of £200k a year or more over three years.
But also your average UK home isn't worth $1 million.The average house is £269k, so a house worth a million dollars is worth 3 average houses.
But also your average UK home isn't worth $1 million.The average house is £269k, so a house worth a million dollars is worth 3 average houses.
0% is not a valid approximation of "0.3% per year" (the relative error is (0 - 0.3) ÷ 0 = ∞ or (0 - 0.3) ÷ 0.3 = 100%), and I note that this article is strangely silent on what fraction of the total wealth of the 3.06 million millionaires was owned by those 9500 millionaires who left in 02024. Given that the rest of the article is mostly talking about golden-passport schemes which I think typically cost about a million dollars, it would be unsurprising to find that the majority of millionaires don't have enough money to participate.
My take is that, despite the ersatz news headline "...study reveals", this is a propaganda piece tailored to promote a predetermined conclusion by selective reporting of only the evidence that supports that predetermined conclusion, just like the marketing piece from Henley it is criticizing.
My take is that, despite the ersatz news headline "...study reveals", this is a propaganda piece tailored to promote a predetermined conclusion by selective reporting of only the evidence that supports that predetermined conclusion, just like the marketing piece from Henley it is criticizing.
Well did their millions leave? Did the overall tax from millionaires change? The actual people count is irrelevamt, one tax was decreased humdreds of other loopholes probably exist. Omly the total tax collected counts the rest is for media consumption.
"The UKs 3.06 million millionaires". LOL. Every geriatric with a centrally located apartment is a "millionaire" nowdays. But I'm sure the "tax justice" network doesn't actually understand the difference.
That figure came from Swiss bank UBS, one of the reports that made the news making the claim that millionaires would leave if taxes were raised.
https://www.ft.com/content/a578561c-05de-402b-8ba7-91f2d77c5...
https://www.ft.com/content/a578561c-05de-402b-8ba7-91f2d77c5...
The boomers with million pound houses are all leeching pensions too. The society is disintegrating. The young are milked like tax livestock while they import millions of people.
Indeed, as is obvious to anyone productive. Taxes come from the productive and entrepreneurial, of which of the 10k that did leave are a big portion, and that's before actually comparing the incomes as opposed to the net worth.
Reminds me of some commentary on Frances new billionaire tax.
"Frances riches man opposes new tax".
Response: "Ok that's one vote against. Now how many for the new tax?"
"Frances riches man opposes new tax".
Response: "Ok that's one vote against. Now how many for the new tax?"
Fun fact: in France the median pensioner earns more than the median worker now
To be clear the statement is that people of pension age earn more than others. Not that they earn more from the pension specifically. Retirement account investments have been generating huge returns for a while now and wages have been stagnating. Which is a problem but no one should read this as "Frances pension is too high" since that's not what this statement is about.
The median person does not have a investment account so that is completely moot. The bottom 50% probably owns less than 1% of stock in aggregate.
Not quite true everywhere. ie. The median wealth per adult in France is higher than the median wealth per adult in the USA since there's a better Gini coefficient over there.
Gerontocracy?
Or the actors signing a petition for Jimmy Kimmel. Okay, 300 rich actors are for him. Now how many want him off the air?
Three notes after reading, the first one being glaringly disingenuous and weird:
> The Tax Justice Network’s review – co-published with Patriotic Millionaires UK and Tax Justice UK – of the Henley report finds that the number of millionaires claimed by Henley & Partners to be leaving countries in “exodus” in 2024 represented near-0% of those countries’ millionaire populations. For example, the 9500 millionaires widely reported to be leaving the UK in 2024 represented 0.3% of the UK’s 3.06 million millionaires.
#1: The data is completely arbitrary, incorrectly compared, and adds no new insights.
The tax changes, AFAIK, are specifically aimed at generating more tax revenue from the foreign millionaires who have been using the UK's non-dom tax advantages, by getting rid of that status.
The counter rhetoric was "if even a fraction of those millionaires leave, the UK will actually lose tax revenue instead."
This article does not report on any actual adjusted numbers to the 9500 millionaires reported leaving, it just says "guys we have a lot more millionaires" — vast majority of whom are not foreign / dom-status, and therefore will not be affected anyways. No new tax revenue from them by eliminating non-dom status. It's apples-to-oranges.
Basically, they're not even using the correct denominator (foreign millionaires).
#2: This was written by an organization seeking to end tax havens, which doesn't really acknowledge that, while calling out the bias of the original report by the organization that helps secure golden visas.
#3: "credited for the UK Labour government’s decision to weaken tax reforms" — it sounds like the original government decision wasn't even passed, though I'm not sure about this, it would mean that you can't say "X didn't cause Y as was predicted" when X didn't actually occur in full.
> The Tax Justice Network’s review – co-published with Patriotic Millionaires UK and Tax Justice UK – of the Henley report finds that the number of millionaires claimed by Henley & Partners to be leaving countries in “exodus” in 2024 represented near-0% of those countries’ millionaire populations. For example, the 9500 millionaires widely reported to be leaving the UK in 2024 represented 0.3% of the UK’s 3.06 million millionaires.
#1: The data is completely arbitrary, incorrectly compared, and adds no new insights.
The tax changes, AFAIK, are specifically aimed at generating more tax revenue from the foreign millionaires who have been using the UK's non-dom tax advantages, by getting rid of that status.
The counter rhetoric was "if even a fraction of those millionaires leave, the UK will actually lose tax revenue instead."
This article does not report on any actual adjusted numbers to the 9500 millionaires reported leaving, it just says "guys we have a lot more millionaires" — vast majority of whom are not foreign / dom-status, and therefore will not be affected anyways. No new tax revenue from them by eliminating non-dom status. It's apples-to-oranges.
Basically, they're not even using the correct denominator (foreign millionaires).
#2: This was written by an organization seeking to end tax havens, which doesn't really acknowledge that, while calling out the bias of the original report by the organization that helps secure golden visas.
#3: "credited for the UK Labour government’s decision to weaken tax reforms" — it sounds like the original government decision wasn't even passed, though I'm not sure about this, it would mean that you can't say "X didn't cause Y as was predicted" when X didn't actually occur in full.
I believe tax take is going to be up from preliminary figures.
If you are going to quote half the article (that I've just read) to make your point, I'm definitely not going to make it to the end of your comment.
I don't need to read it again, thank you.
I don't need to read it again, thank you.
TL;DR:
They're using the wrong denominator, comparing apples-to-oranges. They aren't actually revealing that an exodus didn't occur, they aren't debating any numbers or adding any new data.
I added context for people who aren't familiar with the UK non-dom status, or the original intention of the legislation.
They're also a very biased organization, same as the organization behind the original report apparently.
They're using the wrong denominator, comparing apples-to-oranges. They aren't actually revealing that an exodus didn't occur, they aren't debating any numbers or adding any new data.
I added context for people who aren't familiar with the UK non-dom status, or the original intention of the legislation.
They're also a very biased organization, same as the organization behind the original report apparently.
Well I know of at least 1 person that left.
> The Tax Justice Network’s review – co-published with Patriotic Millionaires UK and Tax Justice UK – of the Henley report finds that the number of millionaires claimed by Henley & Partners to be leaving countries in “exodus” in 2024 represented near-0% of those countries’ millionaire populations.3 For example, the 9500 millionaires widely reported to be leaving the UK in 2024 represented 0.3% of the UK’s 3.06 million millionaires.
From a quick search:
>> Patriotic Millionaires UK is a nonpartisan network of wealthy individuals in the UK who publicly advocate for higher taxes on the rich and progressive economic reform.
>> Tax Justice UK is a non-profit, politically non-aligned campaigning and advocacy organization working to ensure that everyone benefits from a fair and effective tax system. The group focuses on building a movement for progressive tax reform, pushing for policies that tax wealth and excessive corporate profits at higher rates in order to better fund public services and redistribute wealth
I'm sorry but if someone posts a study conducted by NRA on gun violence, most would view it with suspicion. I think we should probably view this study with suspicion as well given the groups that were conducting it.
From a quick search:
>> Patriotic Millionaires UK is a nonpartisan network of wealthy individuals in the UK who publicly advocate for higher taxes on the rich and progressive economic reform.
>> Tax Justice UK is a non-profit, politically non-aligned campaigning and advocacy organization working to ensure that everyone benefits from a fair and effective tax system. The group focuses on building a movement for progressive tax reform, pushing for policies that tax wealth and excessive corporate profits at higher rates in order to better fund public services and redistribute wealth
I'm sorry but if someone posts a study conducted by NRA on gun violence, most would view it with suspicion. I think we should probably view this study with suspicion as well given the groups that were conducting it.
It's absolutely true that we should consider the source for this and any other reviews / studies / news articles etc., and be aware of their likely position.
We should also recognize that, for all but the most mainstream possible questions or topics, most of the study is going to come from interest groups-- they're the ones who are interested enough to do the work to look at the data and publish their results!
If we dismiss reviews like this out-of-hand simply because they are created by an interest group, then we'll miss out on a lot of information and opportunity for reasonable discourse.
(Note that I'm not saying the parent comment is advocating this, but it did raise the point in my mind.)
We should also recognize that, for all but the most mainstream possible questions or topics, most of the study is going to come from interest groups-- they're the ones who are interested enough to do the work to look at the data and publish their results!
If we dismiss reviews like this out-of-hand simply because they are created by an interest group, then we'll miss out on a lot of information and opportunity for reasonable discourse.
(Note that I'm not saying the parent comment is advocating this, but it did raise the point in my mind.)
Studies largely come from academia, and (in theory) would be/should be independent. Studies coming from authors with a bias or conflict of interest should be flagged, not dismissed, which appeared to be the intent of the parent.
>Studies largely come from academia
Source? I'd imagine for public policy think thanks and government agencies make up a significant chunk as well.
Source? I'd imagine for public policy think thanks and government agencies make up a significant chunk as well.
There are two types of study.
A peer reviewed study, with published data and methodology. (it might even be accurate, unless you're a sociologist)
then there is a "study" created by a think tank, PR firm pretending to be a think tank, or a dipshit company pushing something or other.
The latter a good for seeing which rich prick, or group of pricks has the time and money to push a specific agenda. and not much else.
A peer reviewed study, with published data and methodology. (it might even be accurate, unless you're a sociologist)
then there is a "study" created by a think tank, PR firm pretending to be a think tank, or a dipshit company pushing something or other.
The latter a good for seeing which rich prick, or group of pricks has the time and money to push a specific agenda. and not much else.
I’d react the same way as I would to an NRA gun violence study: can we verify the results?
In this instance there are copious footnotes and citations of data backing up the argument. If they’re falsified, yes, we should disregard the study. But they don’t seem to be.
In this instance there are copious footnotes and citations of data backing up the argument. If they’re falsified, yes, we should disregard the study. But they don’t seem to be.
The review appears to be cited. If you suspect it, by all means, review it.
Also, the NRA has a long history of suppressing gun violence research in general (through their lobbying efforts of the CDC and NIH, the Dickey Amendment, etc.). This would contribute more to suspicion than anything else.
Also, the NRA has a long history of suppressing gun violence research in general (through their lobbying efforts of the CDC and NIH, the Dickey Amendment, etc.). This would contribute more to suspicion than anything else.
Perhaps rather than focusing on the speaker, you could focus on their arguments and tell us what's actually incorrect?
Because that wasn't their intent? Perhaps you should consider that calling out the potential bias of the authors has merit?
Sure! Here's a source from Adam Smith institute that shows UK millionaires / billionaires decreased during that time period and high taxes are partly to blame
https://www.adamsmith.org/millionaire-tracker2024
https://www.adamsmith.org/millionaire-tracker2024
You can pretty much be assured of bias if the word “justice” appears in the name of an organization or project or whatever. It has been co-opted all over, in settings where the word doesn’t really even make sense. After all, the only just and fair outcome would be if everyone paid the same amount.
Speaking of - why don’t government services just charge transparent rates for the services they’re providing like any business? Everyone else figures out how to charge for a product or service. A lot of waste is normalized and hidden in the vague sums thrown at agencies, with no competition to drive prices down since it’s a government service. Taxpayers could get better outcomes by pushing for better governance instead of more unjust redistribution continually.
Speaking of - why don’t government services just charge transparent rates for the services they’re providing like any business? Everyone else figures out how to charge for a product or service. A lot of waste is normalized and hidden in the vague sums thrown at agencies, with no competition to drive prices down since it’s a government service. Taxpayers could get better outcomes by pushing for better governance instead of more unjust redistribution continually.
> why don’t government services just charge transparent rates for the services they’re providing like any business?
Donald Trump is already president of the US. You are not going to beat him at the "stupid questions about the government" game, so I would just sit back and let him show you how it's done.
Donald Trump is already president of the US. You are not going to beat him at the "stupid questions about the government" game, so I would just sit back and let him show you how it's done.
Did you critique the Henley report too?
It was written by one guy in South Africa who didn’t really do any valid research
It was written by one guy in South Africa who didn’t really do any valid research
DYOR guy on the internet tells me something is bullshit. That's settled then.
'Millionaire flight' and 'trickle down economics' are both bullshit 'theories' invented by lackeys of the rich to explain which the rich shouldn't pay their fair of taxes.
However I am uncomfortable by the use of the term 'near 0%' twice in the article. What the hell does that mean? One of the footnotes says:
"The total number of millionaires reported on the Henley & Partners website to have migrated every year since 2013 to 2023 consistently represented around 0.2% of millionaires annually. "
So why not say 0.2% per year? 'near 0%' just seems slippery and dishonest.
However I am uncomfortable by the use of the term 'near 0%' twice in the article. What the hell does that mean? One of the footnotes says:
"The total number of millionaires reported on the Henley & Partners website to have migrated every year since 2013 to 2023 consistently represented around 0.2% of millionaires annually. "
So why not say 0.2% per year? 'near 0%' just seems slippery and dishonest.
From first hand experience, every British millionaire I grew up with or know, have left the UK for a country that treats them better.
The only ones that haven’t moved, are those who are considering it, can’t move cause their business is dependant on the UK, or their family/kids need them in the UK.
If your income doesn’t require you to stay in the UK, why would you stay there?
The only ones that haven’t moved, are those who are considering it, can’t move cause their business is dependant on the UK, or their family/kids need them in the UK.
If your income doesn’t require you to stay in the UK, why would you stay there?
Why would stay in Britain after the rich and powerful asset stripped the country and ran it into the ground?
Good question, and I guess “to fix the mess they caused” doesn’t usually come up.
Good question, and I guess “to fix the mess they caused” doesn’t usually come up.
And yet none of the richer people I know have left[0], despite some of them making a lot of noise about it .
Sometimes an anecdote is just an anecdote I guess.
[0] or at least haven't spent any less time in the UK, and are still resident, as some already spend a lot of time in a number of different countries
Sometimes an anecdote is just an anecdote I guess.
[0] or at least haven't spent any less time in the UK, and are still resident, as some already spend a lot of time in a number of different countries
Sounds like it's safe to tax the rich.
The rub here is the definition of rich.
Yep. Rich can mean a lot of things. In Norway the wealth tax starts applying at about $150K USD of assets, which is a very low threshold. The pattern I see across countries is that over time the tax rates keep increasing and the thresholds at which apply keep coming down. And that is because governments are badly mismanaged most of the time and they rely on a tax base Ponzi scheme. When your tax base isn’t growing you have to extract more from the existing one. Rarely is efficiency or waste talked about.
> The pattern I see across countries is that over time the tax rates keep increasing and the thresholds at which apply keep coming down. And that is because governments are badly mismanaged most of the time
Sort of, but it goes back to the overwhelming size of government budgets. In the US for example, even if all of the assets of the wealthiest individuals could be converted 1:1 into cash (it can’t) and the government took 100% of it, congratulations, we’ve fully funded the government for perhaps one year. There’s nowhere to go at that point except to revise the definition of “rich.”
Sort of, but it goes back to the overwhelming size of government budgets. In the US for example, even if all of the assets of the wealthiest individuals could be converted 1:1 into cash (it can’t) and the government took 100% of it, congratulations, we’ve fully funded the government for perhaps one year. There’s nowhere to go at that point except to revise the definition of “rich.”
Yup, In the Netherlands the de facto wealth tax starts applying at €58k of assets (to be lowered to €51 next year), with exemptions for primary residence, pensions and bank savings.
It started off at 1.2% about 2 decades ago (legislated as a 30% rate on a deemed 4% return), but has increased to 2.1% last year (36% rate on deemed 5.88% return), and in the current government budget proposal is set to increase to 2.8% next year (36% rate on deemed 7.78% return).
It started off at 1.2% about 2 decades ago (legislated as a 30% rate on a deemed 4% return), but has increased to 2.1% last year (36% rate on deemed 5.88% return), and in the current government budget proposal is set to increase to 2.8% next year (36% rate on deemed 7.78% return).
Always has been
Brian Klass wrote an excellent article on this topic. However it is behind a paywall:
https://www.forkingpaths.co/p/does-taxing-the-rich-cause-mil...
(I subscribe to his substack)
https://www.forkingpaths.co/p/does-taxing-the-rich-cause-mil...
(I subscribe to his substack)
What always gets me with this kind of "millionaires will take their money away!!!" story is that, for one, they weren't paying much to begin with (thanks to tax dodges, endless tax relief due to various forms of "philanthropy", etc.), and two, we used to soak the rich six ways from Sunday up to the 50s/60s, and we got to go to the moon. Then the 70s rolled around, the hippies grew up and said "no more of that", and presto-change-oh, https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Oh and three, for all the warnings and blackmailing, as the studies show, they never actually go through with their threats. MACO - Millionaires Always Chicken Out? /s
Oh and three, for all the warnings and blackmailing, as the studies show, they never actually go through with their threats. MACO - Millionaires Always Chicken Out? /s
Tax wealthy elite AND make it illegal for them to fund PR stories.
Free speech is always the first victim of socialists.
There a significant difference between a paid PR campaign and a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal. Parent didn't said silence the rich, he says ban PR stories.
Personally I would ban unattributed PR. If Larry Ellison want to buy a thousand billboard and write: "Don't taxe me or I will leave. I am Larry and endorse this message" that's ok.
But if he use a PR firm to shift the public opinion with unattributed advertisement and paid-for journal articles that should not be acceptable.
Alas the US Supreme Court decied otherwise in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission...
Personally I would ban unattributed PR. If Larry Ellison want to buy a thousand billboard and write: "Don't taxe me or I will leave. I am Larry and endorse this message" that's ok.
But if he use a PR firm to shift the public opinion with unattributed advertisement and paid-for journal articles that should not be acceptable.
Alas the US Supreme Court decied otherwise in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission...
Always?
Pretty much. USSR, Maoist China, Castro's Cuba, Putin's Russia, Nazi Germany, Starter's Britain. Everywhere you can find socialism, you find that opposing views is the first thing socialists suppress.
I think you gotta be more specific. Socialism isn’t what these systems have in common. Nazi Germany was against what we’d call socialism today [1].
[1] https://fee.org/articles/were-the-nazis-really-socialists-it...
[1] https://fee.org/articles/were-the-nazis-really-socialists-it...
Yeah right, socialist party of workers was against socialism. /s
Socialism is ecinomic system where state ("workers") control the means of production. Nazi Germany fully controlled all production in Germany, in full accordance with this definition.
Socialism is ecinomic system where state ("workers") control the means of production. Nazi Germany fully controlled all production in Germany, in full accordance with this definition.
That’s what all the right wingers say while they’re busy suppressing free speech as we see in the US right now
And the first victim of capitalists is democracy.
Yes, we've been reading a lot in the media lately about the LEFT attacking free speech with unprecedented zeal and cancelling all manner of right wing opinions, shows and pundits that don't support their dogma 100%.
Wait, no. The exact opposite is happening. My bad, it's easy to get confused.
Wait, no. The exact opposite is happening. My bad, it's easy to get confused.
Are we ignoring the vast censorship schemes on social media that all lean left? You can’t discuss certain topics or viewpoints in these public squares at all. Both sides are capable of acting against a free speech. But I think in the last 10 years in America, it has been the left acting against it.
Can you name a platform capable of censorship, other than Reddit, that leans left?
From my experience, YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook. I can't personally say about BlueSky, but I heard it is a very left leaning also.
TikTok. Bluesky (more nuances here). YouTube. Maybe it has reduced a bit in YouTube. But it’s still there.
Last year, YouTube removed a video I posted in 2017, supposedly for "medical misinformation." When I watched my copy to see what the heck they were talking about, I had to laugh, because I wasn't sharing a medical opinion at all. I was pointing to vaccines as an example of an issue on which Google might someday censor one side if things continued as they were going.
Nice of them to prove my point, I guess.
Nice of them to prove my point, I guess.
You must have been asleep for the last 10+ years when leftist cancel culture was all the rage. Should I remind you how LEFT reacted to deplatforming Trump, Parler, Gab, firing of Carlsen? Everyone of note cheered for it and celebrated.
Now, when they are getting some slight taste of their own medicine and act very very upset: they can't to that to us!!!
Now, when they are getting some slight taste of their own medicine and act very very upset: they can't to that to us!!!
It's easy to get confused if you have amnesia and forget the previous presidential term.
Shooting someone through the throat with a high-powered rifle during a university debate certainly seems like an attack on free speech, but maybe I don't have your nuanced understanding of the issue.
> I don't have your nuanced understanding of the issue.
Let me help unconfuse you, then:
- government swiftly, immediately and directly cancelling a show from a private company because someone said something that's not good for "the party": attack on free speech.
- murder of Charlie Kirk: politically motivated murder by a deranged psycho, which is immediately exploited to AMPLIFY right wing views and cancel left wing ones.
So tell me again, based on what one is currently allowed to say about this very topic: what ideas is the right no longer able to express openly and loudly as a result of this murder?
Don't say "Charlie Kirk": I've heard more of his ideas in recent weeks than I would have if he hadn't been shot.
Let me help unconfuse you, then:
- government swiftly, immediately and directly cancelling a show from a private company because someone said something that's not good for "the party": attack on free speech.
- murder of Charlie Kirk: politically motivated murder by a deranged psycho, which is immediately exploited to AMPLIFY right wing views and cancel left wing ones.
So tell me again, based on what one is currently allowed to say about this very topic: what ideas is the right no longer able to express openly and loudly as a result of this murder?
Don't say "Charlie Kirk": I've heard more of his ideas in recent weeks than I would have if he hadn't been shot.
> government swiftly, immediately and directly cancelling a show from a private company
That appears to be a false statement. Private company made that decision on their own after public pressured it to.
A fitting quote by no other but Mr Kimmel himself, who said this in a very similar situation:
I want to say kudos to my bosses at ABC for doing the right thing and canceling Roseanne’s show today. It’s not an easy thing to do when a show is successful, but it’s the right thing.
That appears to be a false statement. Private company made that decision on their own after public pressured it to.
A fitting quote by no other but Mr Kimmel himself, who said this in a very similar situation:
I want to say kudos to my bosses at ABC for doing the right thing and canceling Roseanne’s show today. It’s not an easy thing to do when a show is successful, but it’s the right thing.
> and cancel left wing ones.
"Left ones" being, celebrating murder? Assuming you weren't living under a rock for the past decade, do you think celebrating murder is less severe than right-wing views (critical of BLM, critical of feminism, critical of pro-choice) that were routinely cancelled by left-wing institutions (social media, university) over this time frame?
"Left ones" being, celebrating murder? Assuming you weren't living under a rock for the past decade, do you think celebrating murder is less severe than right-wing views (critical of BLM, critical of feminism, critical of pro-choice) that were routinely cancelled by left-wing institutions (social media, university) over this time frame?
Please tell us how Matthew Dowd celebrated Kirk's murder? Or Kimmel?
Furthermore, celebrating murder is still free speech. For example, we've had to endure years of jokes about the murders of George Floyd and Trayvon Martin, the flame continuously stoked by Charlie Kirk and his colleagues.
Kirk was ultimately "cancelled" by the same society that he fomented. He was against empathy, used his platform to disparage and attack vulnerable groups, against gun control, and literally said that gun deaths are a worthy price for the 2nd amendment. He was a victim of a violent society he actively encouraged and campaigned for. Pointing this out is not celebrating murder.
Furthermore, celebrating murder is still free speech. For example, we've had to endure years of jokes about the murders of George Floyd and Trayvon Martin, the flame continuously stoked by Charlie Kirk and his colleagues.
Kirk was ultimately "cancelled" by the same society that he fomented. He was against empathy, used his platform to disparage and attack vulnerable groups, against gun control, and literally said that gun deaths are a worthy price for the 2nd amendment. He was a victim of a violent society he actively encouraged and campaigned for. Pointing this out is not celebrating murder.
> and literally said that gun deaths are a worthy price for the 2nd amendment
This is, of course, a lie. By omitting important context you present it as a political point for what you perceive to be your side.
In fact, strict gun control does not prevent political assassinations. It didn't prevent it in Russia, in Japan, nowhere. So all arguments that "he wouldn't get assassinated if we didn't have 2nd amendment" are simply not valid and proven wrong.
Since I think you didn't really read into the full text of a quote in question, I'll provide you a link [0].
[0]: https://cleverjourneys.com/2025/09/15/full-text-of-charlie-k...
This is, of course, a lie. By omitting important context you present it as a political point for what you perceive to be your side.
In fact, strict gun control does not prevent political assassinations. It didn't prevent it in Russia, in Japan, nowhere. So all arguments that "he wouldn't get assassinated if we didn't have 2nd amendment" are simply not valid and proven wrong.
Since I think you didn't really read into the full text of a quote in question, I'll provide you a link [0].
[0]: https://cleverjourneys.com/2025/09/15/full-text-of-charlie-k...
Your link doesn't prove me wrong? It's what he said:
"You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
That's his point of view. He became a victim of gun violence which he said is worth the cost.
> This is, of course, a lie. By omitting important context you present it as a political point for what you perceive to be your side.
Thanks for projecting! Try to focus on what we're discussing instead of descending into ad hominem.
> strict gun control does not prevent political assassinations. It didn't prevent it in Russia, in Japan, nowhere
I'm not discussing political assassinations, and neither was Kirk. I'm discussing Kirk's own views on gun violence in the United States and the "cost" of unrestricted access to firearms, of which he himself was a victim. Political assassinations are a small subset of this "cost." Would you like to compare the number of mass shooting events in these countries, or is it too inconvenient that the US is #1 in mass/school shootings?
"You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
That's his point of view. He became a victim of gun violence which he said is worth the cost.
> This is, of course, a lie. By omitting important context you present it as a political point for what you perceive to be your side.
Thanks for projecting! Try to focus on what we're discussing instead of descending into ad hominem.
> strict gun control does not prevent political assassinations. It didn't prevent it in Russia, in Japan, nowhere
I'm not discussing political assassinations, and neither was Kirk. I'm discussing Kirk's own views on gun violence in the United States and the "cost" of unrestricted access to firearms, of which he himself was a victim. Political assassinations are a small subset of this "cost." Would you like to compare the number of mass shooting events in these countries, or is it too inconvenient that the US is #1 in mass/school shootings?
> That's his point of view. He became a victim of gun violence which he said is worth the cost.
You are lying again. He became a victim of a targeted political assassination. Such assassinations happen in every society, whether they have the 2nd amendment or not.
His opponents argued that restricting access to guns would reduce gun violence — as in school shootings, etc — and that might be true, at the cost of having no protection from the tyranny of the government. But such restrictions would not help prevent Kirk's own assassination, as evidenced by thousands of political assassinations everywhere around the world where access to guns is restricted, and this makes your statement a lie. This is nothing more than a rather distasteful attempt to score some political points.
You are lying again. He became a victim of a targeted political assassination. Such assassinations happen in every society, whether they have the 2nd amendment or not.
His opponents argued that restricting access to guns would reduce gun violence — as in school shootings, etc — and that might be true, at the cost of having no protection from the tyranny of the government. But such restrictions would not help prevent Kirk's own assassination, as evidenced by thousands of political assassinations everywhere around the world where access to guns is restricted, and this makes your statement a lie. This is nothing more than a rather distasteful attempt to score some political points.
Nope, once again you are misconstruing my words. I don't take kindly to being called a liar by a fool. I originally said the following:
> Kirk was ultimately "cancelled" by the same society that he fomented. He was against empathy, used his platform to disparage and attack vulnerable groups, against gun control, and literally said that gun deaths are a worthy price for the 2nd amendment. He was a victim of a violent society he actively encouraged and campaigned for.
I am talking about the kind of society that Charlie Kirk wanted. One without empathy, where vulnerable people are attacked, and there are no guardrails on access to firearms, which he encouraged. Yes, political assassinations exist, but that doesn't change the fact that Charlie Kirk died because he encouraged a violent society; one that ultimately made him a victim.
You've decided to focus on one aspect of what I said, creating a strawman claiming that it's my entire argument, and continue to engage in ad hominem. Please use more critical thinking skills, as I'm tiring of you projecting your own insecurities and motivations onto me. I suggest reading more books from experts in their fields, instead of right-wing blogs like the one you linked (focus on sociology and anthropology may help with this specific topic). A course on formal logic may also help, along with introductory philosophy.
You seem to think I'm trying to "score points" in some kind of game here. I don't consider this a game at all and it says a lot that you do.
> Kirk was ultimately "cancelled" by the same society that he fomented. He was against empathy, used his platform to disparage and attack vulnerable groups, against gun control, and literally said that gun deaths are a worthy price for the 2nd amendment. He was a victim of a violent society he actively encouraged and campaigned for.
I am talking about the kind of society that Charlie Kirk wanted. One without empathy, where vulnerable people are attacked, and there are no guardrails on access to firearms, which he encouraged. Yes, political assassinations exist, but that doesn't change the fact that Charlie Kirk died because he encouraged a violent society; one that ultimately made him a victim.
You've decided to focus on one aspect of what I said, creating a strawman claiming that it's my entire argument, and continue to engage in ad hominem. Please use more critical thinking skills, as I'm tiring of you projecting your own insecurities and motivations onto me. I suggest reading more books from experts in their fields, instead of right-wing blogs like the one you linked (focus on sociology and anthropology may help with this specific topic). A course on formal logic may also help, along with introductory philosophy.
You seem to think I'm trying to "score points" in some kind of game here. I don't consider this a game at all and it says a lot that you do.
Btw, the latest news just dropped:. somehow private company defied the 'fascist' government and reinstated the cancelled show in question. Uh oh how do you even explain it to yourself?!
If you fail to understand the context of this farce, with the UK economy tanking, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Ignoring those who have left(and completely ignoring a six figure engineer, medical doctor etc are as valuable as millionaires) you don't invest in the UK. You don't hire. You let people go. You don't increase wages. You don't take any risks, and you lower the amount of labour you supply. You get the exact economic results the UK have now. Taxing success has never and will never work. Jesus, even all the Nordic PM's had to come to Harvard to make this point.
'Tax justice' is a political group. Just stop citing such drivel as almost mathematical fact.
'Tax justice' is a political group. Just stop citing such drivel as almost mathematical fact.
Sir, I think you will find that the private sector have always failed to invest in the UK, and that is one of the major reasons the country is right royally screwed.
Of all the systemic failures of uk government and industry, “taxing the rich” is so far down the list it’s a rounding error.
More free market capitalism on the bonfire of free market capitalism is unlikely to rescue Britain from the ashes.
Of all the systemic failures of uk government and industry, “taxing the rich” is so far down the list it’s a rounding error.
More free market capitalism on the bonfire of free market capitalism is unlikely to rescue Britain from the ashes.
The "but the millionaires will leave" trope is just propaganda to justify massive wealth transfers from the poor to the already rich. There are two big reasons why this isn't true:
1. Physical assets, particularly real estate, can't leave. You can't pick up parts of Manhattan and move them elsewhere. Likewise, resource assets like mines, farms and oil wells can't move either; and
2. As long as there's profit to be made, companies won't leave regardless of tax rates. This one comes up a lot with the rent-seeking pharma companies in the US who will sell something here for $1000 but sell it in France for $10. What you have to remember is that if selling for $10 in France wasn't profitable, they wouldn't do it.
The one thing we need to clamp down is allowing people to avoid paying for the society that makes wealth possible. Want to own property in the US? Great. Your worldwide income is now taxable. Want to avoid tax by transferring your "IP" to an Irish subsidiary and then paying royalty payments? Yeah, let's stop that.
We need to stop people getting the benefits of owning assets in a society while avoiding all the obligations.
1. Physical assets, particularly real estate, can't leave. You can't pick up parts of Manhattan and move them elsewhere. Likewise, resource assets like mines, farms and oil wells can't move either; and
2. As long as there's profit to be made, companies won't leave regardless of tax rates. This one comes up a lot with the rent-seeking pharma companies in the US who will sell something here for $1000 but sell it in France for $10. What you have to remember is that if selling for $10 in France wasn't profitable, they wouldn't do it.
The one thing we need to clamp down is allowing people to avoid paying for the society that makes wealth possible. Want to own property in the US? Great. Your worldwide income is now taxable. Want to avoid tax by transferring your "IP" to an Irish subsidiary and then paying royalty payments? Yeah, let's stop that.
We need to stop people getting the benefits of owning assets in a society while avoiding all the obligations.
2 comes up in Australia a lot in regards to levying taxes on the resource sector, whose business model is digging up bits of Australia and selling it overseas.
Any/all attempts to levy more taxes on their vast profits are met with claims that they’ll just pack up and leave, even though the activity would still be profitable.
It never really made sense, but they always manage to drum up enough fear to scupper any plans.
Any/all attempts to levy more taxes on their vast profits are met with claims that they’ll just pack up and leave, even though the activity would still be profitable.
It never really made sense, but they always manage to drum up enough fear to scupper any plans.
It’s about opportunity cost. Just being profitable is not enough.
Not really, no. And when the measures very occasionally pass, oh look, nobody actually packs up and leaves.
>>The one thing we need to clamp down is allowing people to avoid paying for the society that makes wealth possible. Want to own property in the US? Great. Your worldwide income is now taxable.
Imagine I own property in country A and conduct most of my business and own most of my assets in country B. Why should A have a claim to my world wide income and not B? What about a situation when I conduct my business in 20 different countries. Why should country A get the claim for my income?
The way to make it sane is to tax local assets, local consumption and doing business at specific location (IP protection revenue based taxes for example). If you attempt to tax world wide assets you will always get a situation when people choose another country to tax them. You can't claim it's exactly your country that deserves all the tax.
The way to make it sane is to tax local assets, local consumption and doing business at specific location (IP protection revenue based taxes for example). If you attempt to tax world wide assets you will always get a situation when people choose another country to tax them. You can't claim it's exactly your country that deserves all the tax.
> The one thing we need to clamp down is allowing people to avoid paying for the society that makes wealth possible.
How does society make this wealth possible? Things like roads or schooling or electricity are deserving of a fee for the service provided. Not a perpetual share of your wealth. Imagine if every business you purchase from did the same thing. It doesn’t make sense.
As an example, nothing SF does (as a government) causes it to be a good place to build companies. That’s just network effects between VCs and founders and others. If the ecosystem were elsewhere it would still function just as well.
How does society make this wealth possible? Things like roads or schooling or electricity are deserving of a fee for the service provided. Not a perpetual share of your wealth. Imagine if every business you purchase from did the same thing. It doesn’t make sense.
As an example, nothing SF does (as a government) causes it to be a good place to build companies. That’s just network effects between VCs and founders and others. If the ecosystem were elsewhere it would still function just as well.
> electricity are deserving of a fee for the service provided
You should take your revolutionary business ideas and make a business with them.
Anyway, I'm gonna go pay my power bill.
You should take your revolutionary business ideas and make a business with them.
Anyway, I'm gonna go pay my power bill.
Unsure if sarcasm or genuine.
This reminds of silly lines like “all tax is theft”.
It’s hard to even counter such absurdities.
I think you’ll find education, infrastructure, the financial system - those small things governments create and maintain - are somewhat essential to having a society that enables companies to exist. I don’t really know what else to say.
This reminds of silly lines like “all tax is theft”.
It’s hard to even counter such absurdities.
I think you’ll find education, infrastructure, the financial system - those small things governments create and maintain - are somewhat essential to having a society that enables companies to exist. I don’t really know what else to say.
> How does society make this wealth possible?
You're kidding right? A stable society is necessary for wealth to exist. A lot goes into creating a stable society. Education, law and order, roads, access to food and drinking water, affordable shelter and giving people hope for their futures.
War and revolution are the ultimate forms of wealth redistribution. It's why the descendants of the descendants of monarchs and wealthy families don't control all the wealth today.
Leftists (of which I include myself) are demonized by neofeudal serfs who have replaced Catholicism with Capitalism but all we're trying to do is avoid the outcome we're hurtling towards where the heads of the wealthy end up on spikes outside the city walls and we have land reforms.
You're kidding right? A stable society is necessary for wealth to exist. A lot goes into creating a stable society. Education, law and order, roads, access to food and drinking water, affordable shelter and giving people hope for their futures.
War and revolution are the ultimate forms of wealth redistribution. It's why the descendants of the descendants of monarchs and wealthy families don't control all the wealth today.
Leftists (of which I include myself) are demonized by neofeudal serfs who have replaced Catholicism with Capitalism but all we're trying to do is avoid the outcome we're hurtling towards where the heads of the wealthy end up on spikes outside the city walls and we have land reforms.
> You're kidding right? A stable society is necessary for wealth to exist.
Unfortunately, you are not going to reach this kind of "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" with logic.
These people think that "wealth" is some kind of magical golden poop that millionaires produce every day from their golden toilets, for the betterment of society. "trickle down" economics I believe they call it.
How do you even begin to talk to someone like that?
Unfortunately, you are not going to reach this kind of "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" with logic.
These people think that "wealth" is some kind of magical golden poop that millionaires produce every day from their golden toilets, for the betterment of society. "trickle down" economics I believe they call it.
How do you even begin to talk to someone like that?
I think this is accurate and it applies to both sides of the spectrum.
It’s just impossible to engage with polarised people. Either you’re open minded and humble, and able to learn, or you’re certain you’re correct and angry about it.
This is social media’s bequest to humanity. I don’t know how people can work for those companies.
Social media was the death of nuance, critical thinking, and self-reflection.
It’s just impossible to engage with polarised people. Either you’re open minded and humble, and able to learn, or you’re certain you’re correct and angry about it.
This is social media’s bequest to humanity. I don’t know how people can work for those companies.
Social media was the death of nuance, critical thinking, and self-reflection.
> 1.
The correct way to handle that is a Land Value Tax but nobody is ready for that conversation.
The correct way to handle that is a Land Value Tax but nobody is ready for that conversation.
Trying to convince rich people that their extreme selfishness leads to externalities like unnecessary suffering of others and destruction of the planet is like trying convince a cult member that they're happy, secure, and not abused. Good luck with that because trickle-down economics, unregulated capitalism, and "family values" nationalism are the ones who have more power here and in the world. It doesn't have to be this way if there were greater solidarity, (rational/productive) action, and civic participation amongst non-capital owners to limit the power of a small cadre of destructive individuals who horde wealth, but great numbers of people choose head in the sand learned helplessness or inaction, foolishly believing their interests align with the very rich, accelerationist terrorism, or ineffective shouting into the void like this here. :) Revolutionary communism, anarchocapitalism, nor any utopia ain't the way but certainly maximum corruption like gold bars, dark pools of PAC money, getting away with accepting $50k bribes, or using office to launch a crypto coin ain't sustainable.
So whatever exodus occurs will be on the margin, where a few people throw up their hands and go "oh I've had enough".
At the same time, you have plenty of things tying people down: friends and family, business opportunities, kids in school.