According to elite state agents Knight Frank the rich are getting richer, and are in London:
London has been home to more of the ultra-rich than any other city for the past three years (4,364 in 2014), with New York in second place.
London should still be in the top spot 10 years from now, Knight Frank said, but Singapore will be snapping at its heels, with 54% growth in its wealth brigade over that period, against a 21% rise in the UK capital.
Let's not mention the domicile rule for a moment, and let's instead look at what the rich are, apparently worried about, which is:
Number two on their list, after maintaining the dynasty, is wealth taxation.
And rightly so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If 80% of them view taxation as one of the highest priority items it gives you a hint how many would leave if the domicile rule was dropped. The answer being most of them.
Their departure would probably lead to a collapse in property prices at the highest end of the market, which might be beneficial to the wealthiest UK resident individuals, but I don’t see how the freeing up of a few thousand homes in London would really help to solve housing issues.
How do you think the rest of the UK population would benefit from their departure?
Worried about and actually move for are very, very different things
A few would go
So what? Their cash would remain behind
The idea that London exists to service this tiny elite is absurd
Why would their wealth stay behind if they were worried about wealth taxes?
Would they just forget it?
The 75% tax rate in France was a disaster. Why would it be any different here?
So you can’t tell the difference between a wealth tax and a high income tax?
I think it’s really time you stopped wasting my time
Oh please…the same old crap! We demand that the rich pay their fair whack of tax, there are threats they will leave and take their money with them. Strangely…it never turns out like that!
And if some did leave – great! I’d help the buggers pack! 🙂
Agreed
I disagree, for the simple reason that in my opinion we do not have a political party with enough hunger to go after the mega rich.
The conservatives are too “friendly” with them and worried about upsetting their major donors, while labour are too busy tip-toeing around SME’s and not wanting to upset them, the Liberals won’t even feature in politics as a major party for the next 10 years after their pathetic contribution in the coalition.
I really do wish it was different and we did have a party willing to take on the super wealthy, but as far as I can see there is little hope of us seeing one for some time to come. Although I would be very happy to be proved wrong on this one.
“I really do wish it was different and we did have a party willing to take on the super wealthy”
But we do have and they’re happily doing quite well, the Green Party are a party for us the people, of social justice, equalty etc…
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/sw.html
Further proof (if needed) of how wealth decouples one from the rest of society.
Richard, while watching an episode of the third series of the US version of House of Cards, I noticed this quotation on a wall in the Roosevelt memorial garden:
“The test of our progress is not whether we add much to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
It would seem beyond a doubt that London, perhaps more than any other city on the planet, has failed that test of progress.
And on a related note (and from the same source), I thought this highly relevant to the Tory Party, its puppet masters in the City of London, supporters and manipulators in the right wing press, and all others who daily promote neofeudalism.
“They who seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order.”
I like those
And this:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Very good.
And realising some years ago that it cannot be found they had instead to resort to a bogus form of economics – neoliberalism.
True
Richard,
As with everything related to this infinitesimal parasitic class, quite distasteful business. However, a few thoughts, on which, I would enjoy hearing your thoughts, as well as others:
– Instituting an “exit tax”
– Instituting a tax on non-doms who continue to siphon off wealth from the UK
– Instituting a wealth tax (not one off, mind you, yearly)
– Raising progressive income and wealth taxes dramatically
– Instituting a passport based system of taxation
I would think, rationally, that the first two would engender no opposition, but it would be critical to implement them first. Once the trap is set, the remaining three items should be sprung. I can imagine, happily, the bleating would be enormous. But, alas, too late for these moneyed fools.
James
Exit taxes are illegal under EU law
Non-doms we can just abolish as a category
Wealth tax is required, and it should be progressive
And the passport tax is something I have called for over many years
You’re right – the bleating would be enormous
Richard, I think you been unfair to Don. At least you have been unfair if you don’t clarify what you mean by “So what, their cash would remain behind”.
That is an odd statement. It might only be a throwaway, but if it is meant to have meaning perhaps you should be clear what it is.
People do not save under their beds
They save in major financial centres like London
Their consumer and housing spend may well cause as much harm as good in breaking the cohesion of society
Please Richard, this really doesn’t help. In fact that reads like an answer ro.an entirely different question. If it was just a throwaway remark rhen just say so. However, it reads at the moment as some sort of threat of capital control or of sequestration of assets. Is my inference wrong?
I was proposing neither, although I have no problem with capital controls
I was saying that the UK’s fortunes would be little impacted by many of the rich leaving because they would still invest here
How hard is that to understand?
“I was saying that the UK’s fortunes would be little impacted by many of the rich leaving because they would still invest here.
How hard is that to understand?”
It is hard to understand because firstly you contradict yourself and secondly it lacks logic.
You say that the UK’s fortunes would not be impacted by the rich leaving because the rich would still invest here. In that statement you are explicitly saying that the rich and their investments in the UK make a positive contribution to the UK economy and we would be poorer without them. Which is odd, albeit welcome, as you always seem to be claiming that rich foreigners are the root of all the UK’s problems.
If the rich leave (as you want them to) but their investments remain in the UK, then what you are basically advocating is restricted movement of labour but free movement of capital. Which again is odd, as you usually argue the opposite (i.e. that we should limit free movement of capital, but broadly allow free movement of labour).
You can’t have it both ways. Either investment by rich foreigners into the UK is bad, and we should seek to discourage both rich people and their capital from coming to the UK with punitive taxation; or investment by rich foreigners into the UK is good, and we should encourage it.
The rich don’t leave when taxes rise
The evidence on that is clear
So please stop wasting my time
OK, so that’s what you mean by “So what, their cash would remain behind”. May I suggest an alternative view;
They are worried about, 1. Succession, 2. Wealth taxes. Woried, in other words, that we might take their wealth away by taxing their UK assets or their UK income and gains (we can’t attack their assets and profits outside the UK).
So, if they leave to avoid that happening, what on earth makes you think they’re going to leave that very wealth in the UK? Surely that would only happen if they felt secure that there weren’t going to be taxed (your headline is “The wealthy are worried we might tax them”).
And they know that Switzerland won’t tax them and that Zurich and Zug are very liveable places (Jolyon Maugham noted how many millionaires there are in Zurich).
Finally, the line “So what, their cash would remain behind” suggests to me you welcome their cash, even if you personally don’t like them (“I’d help the buggers pack. Agreed”)
I am sorry to say that this is just too tedious provide a response to
I have heard all this so often, and the rich do not leave
The evidence on that point is overwhelming
Is that an evidence-based statement Richard? If so, tedious as it may be for you, we would be enlightened by seeing it. At the moment though we have the evidence of Zurich and Zug. Why else would it have such a very high number of non-Swiss millionaires living there if not for the tax arrangements? You are not suggesting Zurich thrives on its own inherent, non-tax factors are you?
Look at the research in the US on people moving for tax reasons – even across nearby state borders
They just don’t do it
A few sad individuals, on whom you are relying, excepted
Excuse me David – I believe that Richard is right because a lot of the rich just use the nom-dom rule at the moment don’t they to disappear for 6 months or whatever and return to dear olde blighty afterward.
So they don’t really leave. The fact is that the rich can afford to pay taxes if they want to and still lead a very luxurious life; the additional fact is that if they can get out of paying tax, they will do because the rules as they are enable them to do this. The latter is the situation that we are in now.
First of all, I am not “relying” on anything. I am not wealthy and so have no dog in the fight. It does not serve any genuine public discussion to descend into personal abuse a tht e first sign of disagreemnt. I ahven’t earned, so please don’t do it.
Yes indeed that is what the research into intra-state movement has found. However, – as you know because it has been subject to much discussion – the authors and many others note that differences between U.S. states are marginal. Certainly these differences bare no comparison with the variances offered by international options available such as the UK’s non-dom rules or Switzerland’s tax agreements. Secondly, U.S. nationals are ‘at home’ in each state, whether its there original state or not, always being in the same nation with the same cultural references. Again there is no comparison with UK non-doms or foreign nationals in Sitzerland, living in a foreign country and operating in second or third languages. So the impact of marginal fiscal differences between U.S. states simply isn’t the evidence you suggest.
I would refer you to Jolyon’s maugham’s thoughts on his blog. He notes the marked difference between the attitude of a wealthy individual deciding where to move to and a wealthy individual who has been settled in a new country for a period of time. That, coupled with the undoubted impact on Zurich of its tax rules and evidence base is there. There is a clear effect, diminishing over time. Jolyon has sem curt words for anyone disputing these conclusions; I do not intend to.
I have read Jolyon
You clearly misinterpret him and the US data
In the US there are big tax differentials and it is easy to move but people don’t
So they won’t when there are cultural differences too
Unless they’re really sad
A few thousand exiles are not the basis for a tax policy
Especially when most eventually come back
You’re just wasting my time because I have heard this from the 80s and it is always complete nonsense, to be very polite
Please go to Zurich if you want. But I’ll tell you, it’s night life makes Norfolk look like Soho
“Please go to Zurich if you want. But I’ll tell you, it’s night life makes Norfolk look like Soho”
Doesn’t that support David’s point, though? If Zurich has no culture going for it whatsoever (and I would tend to agree with you there), then there must be something pulling rich people there, and I would suggest that something is low taxes. I am making no comment about whether that is desirable or not, merely observing that many people choose to live in boring places so they can pay little tax. So people do leave, move, and not move in response to taxation.
I agree
I few sad people do move
And my answer is “so what?”
And that’s the end of the debate
It is unfortunate that you do feel the need to deal in personal invective and I don’t know what Norfolk has done to offend you! It’s your issue though. I don’t feel any need to defend myself or Zurich. I would say though that a link to Jolyon’s blog would be a good idea. Anyway, have a pleasant weekend. I think the idea of a weekend in Norfolk, say, birdwatching sounds very agreeable.
I am a fan of Norfolk
Can you read anything right?
It’s Zurich I was being, appropriately, rude to
I’m afraid Richard is right David – you are not really reading this properly – he was having a dig at Zurich and not lovely old Norfolk.
Calm down. Please.
“A few sad people do move And my answer is “so what?””
The UK loses tax revenue. Isn’t that the whole point?
Diddly squit in the scheme of things
Let’s move on, shall we?
We don’t need to be held to ransom by a very, very few