UK Millionaire exodus did not occur, study reveals
128 comments
·September 22, 2025lordnacho
jdietrich
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
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?
KaiserPro
> without any concern over the cost of doing it?
indeed thats why to have accountants and lawyers, the issue here is that non-dom meant that you could avoid paying tax on stuff you earnt outside of the UK. for example if you have a lot of income being generated in the USA, then being a non-dom meant that you could avoid paying tax here in the UK at the same time.
For US citizens its a bit harder, as you're liable for tax on all income, regardless of source. I'm not sure how they get round that, debt financing or something similar I imagine
earnesti
I don't think these people would be superrich if they wouldn't be optimizing their taxes, at least at some level. I would guess taxes are the typically the biggest single expense the really rich people pay.
graemep
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.
gadders
Weren't there other restrictions as well? i.e could only stay 90 days at a time etc.
supportengineer
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.
ryandrake
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.
klipt
California actually has very low property taxes.
Which according to economists is the wrong way around: it's better to have taxes on land (because it doesn't discourage land existing - land is fixed) than to have taxes on work income (which on the margin, discourages working)
dfxm12
Don't discount the possibility that living in that part of California is great and this guy is just virtue signaling.
SilverElfin
Or maybe it’s just below bad enough to overcome the network effects of living in the Bay Area.
latexr
> virtue signaling
I wouldn’t call moving to another place to pay less in taxes a virtue.
jvalencia
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...
cassepipe
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 ?
ks2048
I've often asked myself with regards to the rich, "Don't they have enough money"?
I've come to realize the answer is nearly always NO. They want (and believe they need) more.
bluecalm
Well for Norway specifically they have 1.1% wealth tax and humongous 37% capital gain tax (of course it's lower for real estate because Europeans like fighting stock investments).
If you have say 4 million USD and invest in stocks expecting say 7% per year you will pay 103k USD in cap gain tax and then 44k in wealth tax for a grand total of almost 150k/year.
That's enough to fund Switzerland lifestyle let alone life in multiple other countries that levy 0 or close to 0 cap gain tax for long term gains. It's difference between comfortable retirement and having to work.
Maybe it doesn't make much difference if you're very wealthy but for those who just managed to get financial independence it's huge.
p_ing
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).
SilverElfin
The reason not to move to WA is the capital gains tax in WA is unpredictable. Someone else had explained that it’s actually against the state’s constitution but was upheld by the one sided state courts. And the legislators adjusted the rates upward once already even though it’s a very new tax. The state budget is in a bad shape and expected to get worse, so it’s likely they’ll keep increasing the tax every year.
gadders
There are businesses (such as hedge funds) that seem to have left New York and Chicago and moved to Miami, though?
SilverElfin
He may have found a clever way to structure his tax exposure.
toomuchtodo
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.
ghaff
In the specific case of Massachusetts, living in New Hampshire (no income tax or sales tax) instead is pretty practical for a lot of people. Doesn't help you that much if you commute to an MA employer but I know a lot of people who did commute in from NH and, these days, a lot of people who became officially remote workers in NH.
Of course, there are lots of other reasons why out-of-staters might choose to move to MA.
bko
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
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
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?
gadders
>>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
seanmcdirmid
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.
rsynnott
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.
codeulike
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.
gadders
See also: People that claim they will leave Country X if Person Y gets elected.
cs02rm0
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.
csb6
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.
metabagel
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.
cs02rm0
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.
logicchains
>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.
KaiserPro
> in practice Dubai is more libertarian than the UK;
> as long as you don't get on the bad side of someone well-connected.
Thats a huge fucking caveat. given that the law is very much stacked in the favour of citizens, then if you do get into trouble, you're in deep shit fast.
KaiserPro
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.
logicchains
>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.
cs02rm0
Starting every day with a swim in the sunshine does go a long way.
nxm
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.
WalterBright
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.
PickledJesus
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
walthamstow
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.
TrackerFF
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.
weberer
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.
kreyenborgi
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.
MeetingsBrowser
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
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.
eertami
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
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%.
simonsquiff
There is no UK wealth tax - just your normal income / capital gains tax etc. Dont know what your 2% is meant to be referring to here.
idiotsecant
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.
1234letshaveatw
Yes, there is such a dearth of "eat the rich" voices in the US. There is nowhere to buy cheeseburgers here either.
RegW
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.
ritzaco
> 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
dfxm12
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.
KaiserPro
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.
indeed30
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
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".
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.