UK Millionaire exodus did not occur, study reveals

https://taxjustice.net/press/millionaire-exodus-did-not-occur-study-reveals/

by mooreds • 10 months ago

253 320 10 months ago

taxjustice.net

josefritzishere• 10 months ago

Sounds like it's safe to tax the rich.

supportengineer3• 10 months ago

Always has been

fooster• 10 months ago

The rub here is the definition of rich.

SilverElfin10• 10 months ago

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.

bko3• 10 months ago

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.

ratelimitsteve• 10 months ago

Perhaps rather than focusing on the speaker, you could focus on their arguments and tell us what's actually incorrect?

1234letshaveatw6• 10 months ago

Because that wasn't their intent? Perhaps you should consider that calling out the potential bias of the authors has merit?

bko3• 10 months ago

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

del82• 10 months ago

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.)

1234letshaveatw6• 10 months ago

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.

KaiserPro8• 10 months ago

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.

SilverElfin10• 10 months ago

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.

ghurtado6• 10 months ago

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.

dfxm123• 10 months ago

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.

afavour• 10 months ago

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.

phatfish• 10 months ago

DYOR guy on the internet tells me something is bullshit. That's settled then.

youngtaff4• 10 months ago

Did you critique the Henley report too?

It was written by one guy in South Africa who didn’t really do any valid research

lordnacho• 10 months ago

The way I think of it, if you have a business that's easy to just pick up and move to Dubai, you've already done it. It's not as if tax is on the whole some sort of cliff; people have been able to leave the UK for a long time, and there isn't some particular tax that will push out everyone if it's enacted.

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.

supportengineer3• 10 months ago

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.

toomuchtodo3• 10 months ago

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.

dfxm123• 10 months ago

Don't discount the possibility that living in that part of California is great and this guy is just virtue signaling.

cassepipe2• 10 months ago

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 ?

SilverElfin10• 10 months ago

He may have found a clever way to structure his tax exposure.

ryandrake• 10 months ago

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.

p_ing• 10 months ago

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).

jvalencia• 10 months ago

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...

gadders6• 10 months ago

There are businesses (such as hedge funds) that seem to have left New York and Chicago and moved to Miami, though?

Spooky234• 10 months ago

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.

jama211• 10 months ago

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.

aeternum4• 10 months ago

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.

insane_dreamer• 10 months ago

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.

bko3• 10 months ago

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

jgeada• 10 months ago

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.

beloch• 10 months ago

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?

seanmcdirmid• 10 months ago

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.

jdietrich• 10 months ago

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.

whatshisface• 10 months ago

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?

gadders6• 10 months ago

Weren't there other restrictions as well? i.e could only stay 90 days at a time etc.

graemep3• 10 months ago

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.

palmotea• 10 months ago

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.

sgt1013• 10 months ago

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?

maccard2• 10 months ago

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.

gadders6• 10 months ago

>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

hermitcrab19• 10 months ago

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?

georgeecollins• 10 months ago

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.

jordanb• 10 months ago

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?"

varjag• 10 months ago

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.

burnte• 10 months ago

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.

dfxm123• 10 months ago

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.

KaiserPro8• 10 months ago

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.

jmyeet2• 10 months ago

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.

Nursie4• 10 months ago

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.

SilverElfin10• 10 months ago

It’s about opportunity cost. Just being profitable is not enough.

SilverElfin10• 10 months ago

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.

jmyeet2• 10 months ago

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.

ghurtado6• 10 months ago

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.

rhubarbtree8• 10 months ago

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.

rcpt2• 10 months ago

1.

The correct way to handle that is a Land Value Tax but nobody is ready for that conversation.

bluecalm10• 10 months ago

>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.

burnt-resistor• 10 months ago

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.

lowkey_2• 10 months ago

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.

ghurtado6• 10 months ago

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.

lowkey_2• 10 months ago

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.

rhubarbtree8• 10 months ago

I believe tax take is going to be up from preliminary figures.

indeed30• 10 months ago

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.

renewiltord• 10 months ago

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".

ritzaco• 10 months ago

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

ionwake2• 10 months ago

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.

dagaci2• 10 months ago

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.

ionwake2• 10 months ago

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.

xienze2• 10 months ago

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.”

adamors• 10 months ago

In the UK every 3rd older homeowner is essentially a millionaire

https://theferret.scot/27-per-cent-pensioners-millionaires-m...

dagaci2• 10 months ago

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

TrackerFF• 10 months ago

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.

idiotsecant2• 10 months ago

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.

1234letshaveatw6• 10 months ago

Yes, there is such a dearth of "eat the rich" voices in the US. There is nowhere to buy cheeseburgers here either.

weberer• 10 months ago

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.

MeetingsBrowser• 10 months ago

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.

LM358• 10 months ago

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.

kreyenborgi• 10 months ago

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.

RegW• 10 months ago

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.

eertami• 10 months ago

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.

xur17• 10 months ago

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%.

tchalla• 10 months ago

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.

olavgg• 10 months ago

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.

pcrh3• 10 months ago

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.

triceratops7• 10 months ago

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.

AnotherGoodName3• 10 months ago

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?"

rcpt2• 10 months ago

Fun fact: in France the median pensioner earns more than the median worker now

klipt3• 10 months ago

Gerontocracy?

AnotherGoodName3• 10 months ago

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.

drstewart• 10 months ago

Or the actors signing a petition for Jimmy Kimmel. Okay, 300 rich actors are for him. Now how many want him off the air?

PickledJesus• 10 months ago

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

CommanderData• 10 months ago

Tax wealthy elite AND make it illegal for them to fund PR stories.

Andrew_nenakhov9• 10 months ago

Free speech is always the first victim of socialists.

ghurtado6• 10 months ago

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.

nick__m• 10 months ago

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...

barbazoo4• 10 months ago

Always?

youngtaff4• 10 months ago

That’s what all the right wingers say while they’re busy suppressing free speech as we see in the US right now

rhubarbtree8• 10 months ago

And the first victim of capitalists is democracy.

antman• 10 months ago

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.

slater• 10 months ago

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

codeulike• 10 months ago

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.

gadders6• 10 months ago

See also: People that claim they will leave Country X if Person Y gets elected.

rhubarbtree8• 10 months ago

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.

keyme2• 10 months ago

"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.

0xy• 10 months ago

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.

keyme2• 10 months ago

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.

teamonkey2• 10 months ago

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...

CrulesAll• 10 months ago

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.

rhubarbtree8• 10 months ago

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.

walthamstow2• 10 months ago

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.

cs02rm06• 10 months ago

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.

metabagel• 10 months ago

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

logicchains4• 10 months ago

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.

cs02rm06• 10 months ago

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.

logicchains4• 10 months ago

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.

cs02rm06• 10 months ago

Starting every day with a swim in the sunshine does go a long way.

barbazoo4• 10 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Dubai

Looks unhealthy unless one has air conditioning a lot of the year.

KaiserPro8• 10 months ago

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.

csb6• 10 months ago

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.

floren• 10 months ago

When you put it that way, it's amazing Bezos hasn't already moved.

youngtaff4• 10 months ago

The UK could be in a better position but it’s not in a bad place…

hermitcrab19• 10 months ago

I don't relish saying that, but the UK is not in a good place

And Dubai is?

cs02rm06• 10 months ago

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.

tremarley• 10 months ago

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?

kimixa• 10 months ago

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

rhubarbtree8• 10 months ago

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.

nxm• 10 months ago

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.

ineedaj0b• 10 months ago

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.

CyberMacGyver• 10 months ago

Delaware most likely

skippyboxedhero2• 10 months ago

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).

sgt1013• 10 months ago

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.

youngtaff4• 10 months ago

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

WalterBright3• 10 months ago

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.

seizethecheese• 10 months ago

Bezos famously says that when the anecdotes conflict with the data, trust the anecdotes

WalterBright3• 10 months ago

Bezos leaving probably subtracted billions from the Washington economy.

cloverich• 10 months ago

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)

WalterBright3• 10 months ago

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%.

rsynnott• 10 months ago

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.

djohnston4• 10 months 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.

anigbrowl• 10 months ago

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.

WickyNilliams• 10 months ago

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

swarnie• 10 months ago

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.

djohnston4• 10 months ago

Nan is selling her home and moving to Barcelona - another mover and shaker gone!

teamonkey2• 10 months ago

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.

walthamstow2• 10 months ago

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.

rhubarbtree8• 10 months ago

Sounds like a gross underestimate to me. I heard something along the lines that 20% of boomers are millionaires.

vessenes3• 10 months ago

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.

hermitcrab19• 10 months ago

I've been to Dubai. I can't imagine moving there just to save some tax.

kragen• 10 months ago

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.

ackers• 10 months ago

Well I know of at least 1 person that left.

webdevver• 10 months ago

£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?

jt2190• 10 months ago

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.

zipy124• 10 months ago

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.

hermitcrab19• 10 months ago

'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.

hermitcrab19• 10 months ago

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)

JdeBP• 10 months ago

In case dang is watching, at least one past discussion two months ago:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44623091

coldtea• 10 months ago

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.

rich_sasha• 10 months ago

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...

UK Millionaire exodus did not occur, study reveals

Related Stories