> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
39 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 59.2 ms ] threadFrom 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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
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.”
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.
"Frances riches man opposes new tax".
Response: "Ok that's one vote against. Now how many for the new tax?"
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
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
How many of those people actually follow through and do X is a very different question.
'Tax justice' is a political group. Just stop citing such drivel as almost mathematical fact.
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 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 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?
Good question, and I guess “to fix the mess they caused” doesn’t usually come up.
The tax was targeted at Jeff Bezos, but he decamped to Florida just before it went into effect.