As the Financial Times notes this morning:
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is exploring reversing a decision to charge UK inheritance tax on the global assets of non-doms, following a spate of departures and lobbying by the City of London, according to government officials and financiers briefed on the discussions.
They added:
The exposure of worldwide assets to inheritance tax at 40 per cent — which came into force in April — is the element of scrapping the non-dom regime that is “causing most heartburn”, one government official said. The Treasury is reviewing the decision, they added.
Another official confirmed the Treasury would change the inheritance tax regime for non-doms if it was found to be good for Britain's international competitiveness.
As I have noted elsewhere this morning (with some light editing added for this context):
If the wealthy leave, so what?
According to those who advise them, and who make a fuss about this issue, apparently they don't really pay enough tax to make a difference to the economy, meaning that there is supposedly nothing more they can add by way of taxation, which is the excuse offered for saying that they should not be taxed more, and yet, despite that things are already terrible in our economy. In that case, why worry whether they stay or go, because things are terrible either way? At least we'll have a fairer, more equal and more democratic society if they go, with more opprtunity for all, which the wealthy block at present.
But the reality is the vast majority of them will stay, because they have nowhere else they want to go, their partners and children don't want to leave, their in-laws, dogs and horses want them to stay, and they can't tear themselves away from the social hierarchies they have created for themselves at the golf club or wherever else it might be and then face having to do that all over again.
So, why are we making concessions to the wealthy? Answers, written on £50 notes, to Rachel Reeves, c/o The Treasury, please. She's very keen to find out.
These are some previous blog posts by me on this issue.
- Murphy, R. (2024) ‘Poor, petrified, non‑doms are terrified that they might have to pay some tax', Tax Research UK Blog. Available here.
- Murphy, R. (2024) ‘The tax avoiders are working overtime to save the domicile rule', Tax Research UK Blog. Available here.
- Murphy, R. (2024) ‘Removing the domicile rule would be a rare smart move by Jeremy Hunt', Tax Research UK Blog. Available here.
- Murphy, R. (2019) ‘Non‑doms may not be going. They might just be paying tax', Tax Research UK Blog. Available here.
- Murphy, R. (2015) ‘A temporary residence rule is not the same as continuing non‑dom status', Tax Research UK Blog. Available here.
- Murphy, R. (2008) ‘Putting the non‑dom whingers in their place', Tax Research UK Blog. Available here.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Why do we make concessions to the wealthy?
1 Timothy 6:10. It doesn’t mean that money itself is evil, but rather that an unhealthy desire for money can lead to various harmful behaviors and consequences.
i.e. The love of money (and political “donations”) is the root of all evil.
Q. Why do we make concessions to the wealthy?
A. Because as a political collective, we tend to be cowardly and are afraid to do the right thing.
What is wealthy in this context? Someone with net assets of over £1 million is wealthy by by some standards but we are really thinking of the relatively few multimillionaires (10s or 100s) and billionaires.
Anecdotally, some of these people have already left the UK. (Speak to any adviser in this space and they can reel off a list.). But some would have left already anyway. Some were planing to leave eventually and have just brought plans forward. Some would ideally have liked to stay but it made no economic sense for them to stay and expose worldwide assets to UK tax. And when you have tens of millions you can relatively easily settle elsewhere. Italy. Switzerland. Monaco. Dubai. Etc.
Whether that suits a person’s business and lifestyle and family is another matter. Are there houses and schools and restaurants and other wants?
But as well as leavers from the UK there are always arrivers in the UK. Many will come anyway because they need, because business or family in the UK needs them here. Some are leaving the US. Others will come for four years but not longer. Some will not come.
Some empty vessels are making a lot of noise but it is far too early to tell what the economic result of the changed policy is.
I am sure some have left, but since this group are mobile, they always will. Why anyone should suggest they are mobile and then be surprised when they move – and very rarely for tax reasons – always surprises me.
One might reasonably argue that the wealthy that stay are the ones with some social conscience or good social ties, while the ones that go are the greedy ones that would rather other people starve and the country struggles than for their kids to have a slightly less vast inheritance.
In other words, it sounds like a sensible way to filter out the bad apples.
Stephen Kinsella, a lawyer, Patriotic Millionaire and LP member, was speaking at a meeting run by Arise, with Richard Burgon last night. This is what Patriotic Millionaires say.
https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/latest-news/uk-millionaire-poll-2025
But, they want a wealth tax, and that makes no sense.
Can you not explain to them what does make sense?
I try, and they seem indifferent to logic. They cannot possibly win their campaign.
I think they should change their name as well. Those at the top of reform could claim to be patriotic millionaires, and lots of their followers would agree with them. Although Farage et al would not want to be known as millionaires.
I have suggested that while the government gets its act together, they could all pay to their local hospices. That would get them lots of mentions in MSM, I would think. No response.
I don’t like their name….I am never sure why anyone wants to say they are a millionaire. So what, I always think.
The wealthy will always maintain a foothold in this country due to its rule of law, which is crucial for holding onto wealth, and increasingly, its potential stability in a changing world. We are listed as a possible climate change bastion, along with New Zealand, Japan, and maybe Australia. Of course, they are being very naive about the actual effects climate change could have, but England is a better option than Dubai.
The wealthy are not stupid.
They know what they have done, and how it benefits them. They want to be a big fish in a small pond.
Your post is spot on.
“The exposure of worldwide assets to inheritance tax at 40 per cent — which came into force in April — is the element of scrapping the non-dom regime that is “causing most heartburn”,
Telling isn’t it, that with 1/6 of our populace in poverty, this is the issue that causes heartburn? – not children going to bed hungry, or the infirm unable to get treatment, or our schools and hospitals collapsing, or social care in disarray – nope – it’s the taxing of the worldwide assets of the superfluously wealthy.
It’s not 1/6 of then population.
It’s a few thousand people, at most.
About 21% of the UK population—roughly 14.3 million people—lived in poverty in 2022/23.
The latest data shows that more than one in five people in the UK are living in poverty, a figure that has remained stubbornly high and largely unchanged for over two decades. This translates to approximately 14.3 million individuals, including 8.1 million working-age adults, 4.3 million children, and 1.9 million pensioners. The poverty rate for children is even starker: about 30% of all children in the UK are affected, with the rate rising to 45% for children in larger families (three or more children) and 44% for those in lone-parent households. 
Poverty in the UK is not a static or shallow wound. It deepens and spreads, with 6 million people—four in ten of those in poverty—living in what is termed “very deep poverty,” their incomes far below the standard poverty line. The gap between the poorest and the poverty line has widened over the past 25 years, and the number of people experiencing destitution (unable to meet basic needs for warmth, food, and shelter) has more than doubled since 2017. 
Certain groups are disproportionately affected: minority ethnic communities, disabled people, informal carers, and those in workless households all face much higher rates of poverty. For example, over half of people in Bangladeshi and nearly half in Pakistani households live in poverty, and the rate for disabled people is 30%, compared to 20% for those without disabilities. 
The numbers are not just statistics—they are the quiet, persistent ache beneath the surface of daily life in Britain, a reminder that for millions, the promise of security remains out of reach.
In 2025, about 2.3 to 2.5 million people in the UK rely on food banks.
The numbers are stark, and the story they tell is one of a country where the safety net has frayed to threads. In the year ending March 2025, food banks in the Trussell Trust network alone distributed 2.9 million emergency food parcels—a figure that, while not a direct count of unique individuals, signals a persistent and widespread need. The Trust’s own research and parliamentary briefings estimate that between 2.3 and 2.5 million people in the UK—roughly 3% to 4% of the population—lived in households that used a food bank in the past year. This includes hundreds of thousands of children, working adults, and pensioners, each parcel a quiet testament to a moment of desperation. https://www.trussell.org.uk/news-and-research/latest-stats/end-of-year-stats https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/food-bank-usage-up-over-50-per-cent-in-five-years-trussell-trust#:~:text=In%20a%20report%20published%20on,food%20parcel%20every%2011%20seconds. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9209/#:~:text=Food%20bank%20use%20in%20the%20UK&text=In%202022%2F23%2C%202.3%20million,and%20around%201%25%20of%20pensioners.
But the parcels are only the visible tip of the iceberg. The Trussell Trust and independent food aid networks together operate more than 2,500 food banks across the UK, outnumbering the country’s McDonald’s restaurants by a wide margin. The need is not abating: demand for food banks has risen by over 50% in five years, and more than 655,000 people used a Trussell Trust food bank for the first time in the last year. https://factcheckni.org/articles/does-the-uk-have-more-food-banks-than-mcdonalds-%EF%BF%BC%EF%BF%BC/#:~:text=Although%20exact%20figures%20for%20the,with%20over%202%2C500%20food%20banks. https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/food-bank-usage-up-over-50-per-cent-in-five-years-trussell-trust#:~:text=In%20a%20report%20published%20on,food%20parcel%20every%2011%20seconds.
Behind these numbers are stories of families skipping meals, children arriving at school hungry, and pensioners choosing between heating and eating. The cost-of-living crisis, rising food prices, and stagnant wages have made food banks a fixture in the British landscape—an institution as familiar as the post office or the corner shop, but infinitely more sobering. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jun/11/how-britain-became-a-food-bank-nation#:~:text=The%20food%20bank%20has%20become,again%20to%201%2C300%20in%202019.
The numbers are not just statistics; they are a ledger of hardship, a record of a nation’s unfinished business with poverty.
Sorry – I got wires crossed when moderating in haste and when being distracted by other issues in life. I disputed your number in error. I can’t say it plainer than that.
A few thousand? JRF say that 1 in 5 people in poverty. Did you misunderstand that, or have I?
I was referring to the number of ultra wealthy people who might leave
About 21% of the UK population lives in poverty in 2025.
More than one in five people in the UK—roughly 21%—are living in poverty in 2025, according to the latest data from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the House of Commons Library. This equates to about 14.3 million people, including 8.1 million working-age adults, 4.3 million children, and 1.9 million pensioners. The poverty rate has remained broadly flat, hovering at pre-pandemic levels, despite the churn of political promises and the slow grind of economic recovery. The numbers are not just statistics; they are the quiet, persistent ache beneath the surface of daily life, the kind that shapes the texture of a nation’s mornings and the hush of its nights.  
Poverty in the UK is measured as living in a household with income below 60% of the median, after housing costs. The figures are stubborn, resistant to the tides of government and the rhetoric of reform. Child poverty is even starker: about 30% of children are in poverty, and the rates are higher still for children in larger families, minority ethnic groups, and those with disabilities. The landscape of poverty is not uniform; it is a patchwork of hardship, with deeper shadows in some regions and among certain groups. 
The story these numbers tell is not one of sudden crisis, but of a long, slow erosion—a country where, for millions, economic security remains just out of reach, and the promise of a better tomorrow is a thin, wavering line on the horizon. 
[Joseph Rowntree Foundation]
Very hard to see how a few thousand people would have consumed 2.9 million food parcels in a year.
Sorry – wires got crossed here.
The way things are in the world at the moment it’s hard to keep track of anything at all. Idiots pretending to be presidents, fascists slaughtering the innocent and AI pumping out an ever-increasing stream of hype, hallucinations and regurgitated propaganda.