SteveW86
Head Pro
If a grandparent had made a different decision, there’s a good chance I could have been reasonably high on this list. But he didn’t and therefore I’m not
Is a millionaire rich nowadays?
- Thread starter Canfordhacker
- Start date
If a grandparent had made a different decision, there’s a good chance I could have been reasonably high on this list. But he didn’t and therefore I’m not
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
True for just about all of us, I imagine.
I had one grandparent who was full-time down a coal mine at the age of 15, served in the trenches in France in WW1, died of Hodgkin's disease in his 40s eighteen years before I was born. Little chance of him becoming a billionaire in his short and very hardworking life.
Mudball
Assistant Pro
Well... this article in the FT is scary... even if your parents are 'rich'.. the new rules means you wont be. Spend it all while you are alive.
www.ft.com
It’s been the busiest January I can remember. Three weeks into the new year and one topic dominates client meetings: pensions and inheritance tax (IHT). Some families could now be paying hundreds of thousands of pounds extra in tax on death due to coming rule changes. Many want to start planning to avoid this now.
Take two of our clients, Mark and Nicola (not their real names). Their strategy had been smart — fully funding Isas while also salary sacrificing big contributions from their business into pensions, simultaneously reducing their corporation tax bill.
They were heading for a comfortable retirement, with a nice home in Yorkshire and investable assets of more than £3mn. And they had the reassurance that their children would also be financially secure, because nearly all of what was left of their estate on death would be free of IHT.
Last year’s Budget shattered that dream. Now, if our couple die suddenly soon after April 6 2027, their sons could face an IHT bill of more than £1mn.
The total tax charge on money left in a pension to loved ones might now be 64 per cent. This is because pensions face a double tax hit. First, there is the 40 per cent IHT charge. That would make a £1mn pension pot worth £600,000. Next, the rules as they stand mean that if you die after the age of 75, anyone drawing money from that pension pot will pay income tax at their marginal rate. At 40 per cent, that could mean another £240,000 eventually going to HM Revenue & Customs.#
But it could be worse. Because of tax tapers, the marginal rate for those earning between £100,000 and £125,140 is 60 per cent — an anomaly Rachel Reeves sadly left unchanged. That would give HMRC 76 per cent on funds extracted by a beneficiary who fell within this income band.
It doesn’t end there. Adding pensions to IHT has made some families worry they’ll topple over the tax cliff edge that arises because of the gradual withdrawal of the residence nil rate band for estates over £2mn.I won’t bombard you with the maths. Suffice to say that in some circumstances the marginal rate of IHT alone becomes 60 per cent. Add in income tax and, in extremes, the tax could in effect be as much as 84 per cent. You would have to be poorly advised to pay that. At least you have control over the drawing down of benefits so you could make an inherited pension the last pot you draw from, holding off until your marginal rate is lower. But it doesn’t make life simple!
On top of the pensions issue is the halving of business property reliefs beyond £1mn, which has riled so many farming families. On some farms £1mn does not even cover the cost of machinery, leaving many wondering whether farms that go back generations can remain viable. This has rightly generated a lot of coverage, but entrepreneurs wanting to pass on businesses or who die unexpectedly while still in harness face a similar challenge. All these changes are forcing many families to bring forward gifting strategies, triggering a “beat-the-clock” game of passing on large parts of their estate seven years before they expect to die to avoid any IHT.
The new rules on pensions will not come into effect until 2027, but at a time of year when many of us are reviewing our finances, it is a good idea to start considering the implications today if IHT affects your family.
For some it will make sense to draw the tax-free lump sum from their pensions — 25 per cent of any pot up to a maximum of £268,275 — and give that to the children as a one-off gift to help with house purchases. This will be subject to the seven-year gifting rules, reducing the nil-rate band available on death within seven years of the gift. Any tax liability tapers after three years.A simpler approach is to give the money gradually, drawing down more from your pensions and investments than you need and giving the excess away. Yes, you pay income tax but remember that you enjoyed a tax break on your pension contributions and couples who pool their assets smartly may be able to reduce the impact of income taxes.
Gifts from excess income are free of IHT but I suggest making regular monthly payments and keeping a record of all transactions in case HMRC challenges your estate on death.The changes force people to review other assets, too. I have been asked about putting holiday homes into the children’s names. It is not that simple. If the property has risen in value since bought it you could find yourself with a big capital gains tax bill. Be aware too that you may have to pay rent to continue to use it. And your children will be entitled to sell it if they need the money. You will lose control. A shared ownership structure may be more effective.
With any gifting strategy there is always the risk of giving too much too soon. Many clients worry about demotivating the next generation. Others are concerned about the money being lost through divorce. This last one can be addressed to some degree with legal contracts. I know some farming families, for instance, who are creating a family constitution. This includes as a condition of inheritance that any family member marrying — or remarrying (this applies as much to the parents as the children) — should agree a pre-nup. And if already married they should go for a post-nup. The constitution brings a degree of professionalism to an emotional subject. It is a way of saying: “We don’t dislike your spouse, and it is not personal. We are just trying to ensure the viability of the family’s legacy for future generations.
”The other big risk with bringing forward gifting strategies is that you end up short yourself late in life when most vulnerable and needing care. Gradual giving can help mitigate this risk.
With the best care homes costing more than £4,000 a week, you need to do some serious cash flow planning, considering possible scenarios. Your greatest gift to your children can be that you are still financially self-sufficient in later life. As ever, do not let an obsession with avoiding tax or ignorance of the rules lead you into financial folly.
Clare Munro is a tax adviser at Weatherbys Private Bank
‘Will I be caught in a 76% inheritance tax trap?’
The questions families are asking their advisers, following the IHT shake-up
‘Will I be caught in a 76% inheritance tax trap?’
The questions families are asking their advisers, following the IHT shake-upIt’s been the busiest January I can remember. Three weeks into the new year and one topic dominates client meetings: pensions and inheritance tax (IHT). Some families could now be paying hundreds of thousands of pounds extra in tax on death due to coming rule changes. Many want to start planning to avoid this now.
Take two of our clients, Mark and Nicola (not their real names). Their strategy had been smart — fully funding Isas while also salary sacrificing big contributions from their business into pensions, simultaneously reducing their corporation tax bill.
They were heading for a comfortable retirement, with a nice home in Yorkshire and investable assets of more than £3mn. And they had the reassurance that their children would also be financially secure, because nearly all of what was left of their estate on death would be free of IHT.
Last year’s Budget shattered that dream. Now, if our couple die suddenly soon after April 6 2027, their sons could face an IHT bill of more than £1mn.
The total tax charge on money left in a pension to loved ones might now be 64 per cent. This is because pensions face a double tax hit. First, there is the 40 per cent IHT charge. That would make a £1mn pension pot worth £600,000. Next, the rules as they stand mean that if you die after the age of 75, anyone drawing money from that pension pot will pay income tax at their marginal rate. At 40 per cent, that could mean another £240,000 eventually going to HM Revenue & Customs.#
But it could be worse. Because of tax tapers, the marginal rate for those earning between £100,000 and £125,140 is 60 per cent — an anomaly Rachel Reeves sadly left unchanged. That would give HMRC 76 per cent on funds extracted by a beneficiary who fell within this income band.
It doesn’t end there. Adding pensions to IHT has made some families worry they’ll topple over the tax cliff edge that arises because of the gradual withdrawal of the residence nil rate band for estates over £2mn.I won’t bombard you with the maths. Suffice to say that in some circumstances the marginal rate of IHT alone becomes 60 per cent. Add in income tax and, in extremes, the tax could in effect be as much as 84 per cent. You would have to be poorly advised to pay that. At least you have control over the drawing down of benefits so you could make an inherited pension the last pot you draw from, holding off until your marginal rate is lower. But it doesn’t make life simple!
On top of the pensions issue is the halving of business property reliefs beyond £1mn, which has riled so many farming families. On some farms £1mn does not even cover the cost of machinery, leaving many wondering whether farms that go back generations can remain viable. This has rightly generated a lot of coverage, but entrepreneurs wanting to pass on businesses or who die unexpectedly while still in harness face a similar challenge. All these changes are forcing many families to bring forward gifting strategies, triggering a “beat-the-clock” game of passing on large parts of their estate seven years before they expect to die to avoid any IHT.
The new rules on pensions will not come into effect until 2027, but at a time of year when many of us are reviewing our finances, it is a good idea to start considering the implications today if IHT affects your family.
For some it will make sense to draw the tax-free lump sum from their pensions — 25 per cent of any pot up to a maximum of £268,275 — and give that to the children as a one-off gift to help with house purchases. This will be subject to the seven-year gifting rules, reducing the nil-rate band available on death within seven years of the gift. Any tax liability tapers after three years.A simpler approach is to give the money gradually, drawing down more from your pensions and investments than you need and giving the excess away. Yes, you pay income tax but remember that you enjoyed a tax break on your pension contributions and couples who pool their assets smartly may be able to reduce the impact of income taxes.
Gifts from excess income are free of IHT but I suggest making regular monthly payments and keeping a record of all transactions in case HMRC challenges your estate on death.The changes force people to review other assets, too. I have been asked about putting holiday homes into the children’s names. It is not that simple. If the property has risen in value since bought it you could find yourself with a big capital gains tax bill. Be aware too that you may have to pay rent to continue to use it. And your children will be entitled to sell it if they need the money. You will lose control. A shared ownership structure may be more effective.
With any gifting strategy there is always the risk of giving too much too soon. Many clients worry about demotivating the next generation. Others are concerned about the money being lost through divorce. This last one can be addressed to some degree with legal contracts. I know some farming families, for instance, who are creating a family constitution. This includes as a condition of inheritance that any family member marrying — or remarrying (this applies as much to the parents as the children) — should agree a pre-nup. And if already married they should go for a post-nup. The constitution brings a degree of professionalism to an emotional subject. It is a way of saying: “We don’t dislike your spouse, and it is not personal. We are just trying to ensure the viability of the family’s legacy for future generations.
”The other big risk with bringing forward gifting strategies is that you end up short yourself late in life when most vulnerable and needing care. Gradual giving can help mitigate this risk.
With the best care homes costing more than £4,000 a week, you need to do some serious cash flow planning, considering possible scenarios. Your greatest gift to your children can be that you are still financially self-sufficient in later life. As ever, do not let an obsession with avoiding tax or ignorance of the rules lead you into financial folly.
Clare Munro is a tax adviser at Weatherbys Private Bank
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Wow.
A very long and very informative post.
I don't think any of it is relevant to my wife and I on a personal level, however. I still find it very interesting.
I will read with great interest the responses from people with assets and pension funds in excess of £2 million each - or even as little as £1 million each.
Seems like an awful lot of "getting your head round stuff" is required for the wealthy to seek to pay as little tax as possible.
Somehow, I seem to struggle with summoning up a suitable level of sympathy for them and their plight. "My bad", as they say on American telly shows.
A very long and very informative post.
I don't think any of it is relevant to my wife and I on a personal level, however. I still find it very interesting.
I will read with great interest the responses from people with assets and pension funds in excess of £2 million each - or even as little as £1 million each.
Seems like an awful lot of "getting your head round stuff" is required for the wealthy to seek to pay as little tax as possible.
Somehow, I seem to struggle with summoning up a suitable level of sympathy for them and their plight. "My bad", as they say on American telly shows.
Mudball
Assistant Pro
I am assuming that a lot of people may assume that this does not hit them… but will be surprised when they realise that it will. By including primary house, I think 1m is an easy threshold to hit within 7-10 years. A 3 bed mid terrace down south with a postage sized garden now goes for 400k… it can double in 7 years + 200k in pension.. boom
Fade and Die
Medal Winner
Get professional advice. It’s an easy work around using Trust funds etc.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Yes.
I imagine that if I survive my wife and I die in, say, 15-20 years from now, my estate could exceed £1 million if the value of my house more than trebles in value and I have no huge outgoings before then.
But mitigating for the IHT that might be payable after my death does not concern me. My surviving relatives will get their fair share of up to £1 million and a good share of the amount above £1 million, if my estate should exceed that.
And I am happy for the rest of the population of this country to benefit from what I gained from the increase in my house value. I did no more than the rest of the country to produce that increase in property value, so I see no reason for my relatives to be more deserving than the rest of the country. The IHT thresholds and IHT rates seem about right to me and I have no concerns about mitigating IHT.
But I'm merely repeating what I said above, "I don't think any of it is relevant to my wife and I on a personal level."
I remain interested to read posts from those who are greatly concerned about the legal ways to enable relatives to benefit from successful IHT avoidance, and most importantly, why they feel the need to do this.
Leaving the whole of £1 million behind to relatives, and a proportion of the amount above that, seems fine with me and gives me no concerns.
The money does not disappear, but goes to where it might be put to good use for the benefit of all the citizens of a country that I had the good fortune to be a citizen of.
Fade and Die
Medal Winner
Might I assume you have no children?
I am lucky that I will probably run out of time before I run out of money, now I am trying to build my estate to look after my two sons as much as I can. I pay pots of tax but I will do everything I can legally to avoid paying it. It is money I have earned and I want it to stay in my family.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
First question - if my wife and I both die tomorrow, everything is split equally between 5 beneficiaries. Their exact relationship to us is not necessary for me to disclose here.
The increase in value of our house is not money that we have earned.
Everyone in the country is responsible for its increase in value.
I see everyone in the country as deserving to share in that increase of wealth. I have merely been a temporary custodian of it being gifted to me.
If that increase means that I exceed the IHT threshold and 40% of the amount over £1 million of my estate goes back to the country - seems right to me.
My personal beneficiaries receiving a share of £1 million and a share of the 60% of whatever is over £1 million. That seems fair and sufficient to me.
Everyone who is eligible to pay tax, pays tax at the going rates. Usually this is in proportion.
Sometimes a smaller amount (not "pots") is a far greater proportion of income and wealth over a lifetime. VAT on necessities is an example of a disproportionate tax in many cases.
This can be addressed, to some extent, with effective IHT thresholds, allowances and rates to produce a fair system of taxation overall.
This allows custodians of wealth to not have to pay a direct tax on that wealth, as some countries do, during their lifetime, but make good use of it, while in custodianship.
The increase in value of our house is not money that we have earned.
Everyone in the country is responsible for its increase in value.
I see everyone in the country as deserving to share in that increase of wealth. I have merely been a temporary custodian of it being gifted to me.
If that increase means that I exceed the IHT threshold and 40% of the amount over £1 million of my estate goes back to the country - seems right to me.
My personal beneficiaries receiving a share of £1 million and a share of the 60% of whatever is over £1 million. That seems fair and sufficient to me.
Everyone who is eligible to pay tax, pays tax at the going rates. Usually this is in proportion.
Sometimes a smaller amount (not "pots") is a far greater proportion of income and wealth over a lifetime. VAT on necessities is an example of a disproportionate tax in many cases.
This can be addressed, to some extent, with effective IHT thresholds, allowances and rates to produce a fair system of taxation overall.
This allows custodians of wealth to not have to pay a direct tax on that wealth, as some countries do, during their lifetime, but make good use of it, while in custodianship.
Hxck
Active member
Exactly this.
IHT is a pointless tax because the system literally makes it optional for those who plan ahead. We all have trusts in my family and our kids will too.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
I’ll not respond against each of his posts but @Voyager EMH has been reading my mind and has expressed my thoughts on the matter far better than I could 
Fade and Die
Medal Winner
We see things differently, the house for example. I know a rising tide lifts all vessels but I am directly responsible for its disproportionate increase in value, I bought it 25 years ago as a basic house that an old lady had lived in since the 50s, over the 25 years whenever I could afford it I have extended in all directions, added heating, double glazing and new kitchens. I have regarded it as an investment in our family. I will take every opportunity I can to keep it out of the taxman’s hands.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
We bought the house we live in now in 1987. It was built in 1957 with only one family living in it before us. Very similar to you, then.
Over the years we have installed central heating, replaced all windows, refitted kitchen and bathroom, cavity wall and loft insulation, knocked down garage and replaced with recreational garden room and put a shed at the bottom of the garden. All things paid for from our wages and we have enjoyed the amenity that they have provided for us while we live.
We have enjoyed all these things that so many others can not afford.
If our IHT (but doubt there will be any) could go towards improving the standard of living for the less well off, then I see that as a wholly good thing to be part of.
Beneficiaries of our estate will be very grateful, I'm sure, whether IHT is payable or not.
I hope they will not think, "Oh, if only they had done X,Y and Z, we could have had more."
That would not be a wholly good thing to me, as it also means that they are wishing the less well off should have less.
Last edited:
Mudball
Assistant Pro
It is a very interesting angle. I can see the logic, but we can agree to disagree (my cards on the table)... If i could do anything that I can to pass what we have to the next generation, then I would.
There are few things at play here.
We worked hard to get this house. Fully skint paying the mortgage. We will be skint for another 15 years. All of this is being paid with a fully taxed money. So the state has had its fair share. Luckily we havent taken much from it yet. But i know my tax dollars help keep the country running and so we pay it.
However, wanting to take a share after we die, on assets that we have created as a family for the family seems a bit too much. The house has had major make overs, and it has come from holidays we have not taken. I want to give the kids a leg up. I dont know how they will turn out to be or if they will get any meaningful employment in the age of AI. I see my neighbours, same family since the 70s. Parents are now in the 80s/90s. House is possibly close to a million. Neither kids turned out to be super earners and are in their 30s/40s. They have moved back with parents since they cant buy independently. They wont be able to afford the IHT nor keep the house once the parents pass away. So they are looking to sell and cash in when possible. I can see why their parents would want the state to take a part of that.
In 10/15 years time, 1m will be worth equivalent of 500-700k of today's money (745k @3% inflation for 10 years). So it is not a lot of leg up for next gen. I dont see why the state should take part of it. Back to your point, that you did not do anything to raise the value of the house but it was a rising tide. I could argue that the state has also not done much to increase the value - so why should it get a pound of flesh. Also if I am not wrong, those inheriting from you, have to pay IHT BEFORE they get access to your assets. This is also the reason why people end up taking short term loans till they are able to liquidate your assets. Hence, while it may not be your concern after your death, you will be giving them a massive kicking in the proverbial when you kick the bucket
PS: Ever case is different and everyones view on IHT is different. So I am not trying to diss what you said, but simply putting my case across. It is not a fight
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
I think of the millions of people who have worked just as hard and have almost nothing to pass on.
Who is deserving to see some benefit of all the work done by all the previous generation? Everyone equally or are some more deserving than others based on accumulated wealth?
Is it merely to be judged by how much "hard work" has been done? It does not seem to be so to me at the moment or ever has been.
Must those who have been less fortunate in achieving wealth see no benefit from the "working hard" that they have done and the disproportionate levels of tax they have paid throughout their working lives, accept that the same existence will persist for their children and for those like them, in order for the children of the more well off to have a far better existence for ever more?
Punitive taxes for the well off during their lives can have a negative effect on the economy as a whole, sometimes.
But if you have been fortunate to live fairly well compared to most people, I think it should be acceptable to pay the going rates of IHT, because others have worked just as hard and have not been so fortunate.
The vast majority pay no IHT at all.
And those who do pay IHT should feel content with the amount that are are allowed to pass on - it is a huge amount at current rates and thresholds
As I have said before, the money does not disappear, but is put to good use for the benefit of all in the country. Everyone should feel proud and happy to be doing that.
I have said that I feel the IHT thresholds are about right. I see no arguable case for raising thresholds or lowering rates.
Who is deserving to see some benefit of all the work done by all the previous generation? Everyone equally or are some more deserving than others based on accumulated wealth?
Is it merely to be judged by how much "hard work" has been done? It does not seem to be so to me at the moment or ever has been.
Must those who have been less fortunate in achieving wealth see no benefit from the "working hard" that they have done and the disproportionate levels of tax they have paid throughout their working lives, accept that the same existence will persist for their children and for those like them, in order for the children of the more well off to have a far better existence for ever more?
Punitive taxes for the well off during their lives can have a negative effect on the economy as a whole, sometimes.
But if you have been fortunate to live fairly well compared to most people, I think it should be acceptable to pay the going rates of IHT, because others have worked just as hard and have not been so fortunate.
The vast majority pay no IHT at all.
And those who do pay IHT should feel content with the amount that are are allowed to pass on - it is a huge amount at current rates and thresholds
As I have said before, the money does not disappear, but is put to good use for the benefit of all in the country. Everyone should feel proud and happy to be doing that.
I have said that I feel the IHT thresholds are about right. I see no arguable case for raising thresholds or lowering rates.
Hxck
Active member
I'm going to assume I've misinterpreted that and you're not trying to say everyone works equally as hard as one another?
Also where exactly does fortune come into it? Is there a physical barrier preventing people from striving for more in our country? Or do people get comfortable in the position they're in, maybe sacrifice money for lifestyle, while others make huge sacrifice to pursue a better financial outcome?
It's such a shame that the adopted attitude in our country is to penalise success rather than strive for it
No wonder we have one of the highest net negative migration rates of millionaires in the world. Unfortunately by the time someone in the government realises the cost of that it'll be too late, and it'll be at the cost of the working & middle class.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Over the whole of the last 100 years, I would say that the least wealthiest 80% of the people have worked harder than the 20% wealthiest people.
There are certain to be many exceptions - this is a generalisation.
And just being in the poorest 5% is very hard work.
But everyone is worthy of their labour.
Fortune?
I said "Fortunate".
That is how I see it. Some work hard and do not achieve wealth, some work hard and do. That makes them the fortunate ones.
I don't believe there is any penalty for success.
But those who spend a lifetime of hard work and do not achieve significant wealth. Has their hard work been penalised?
The wealth of the nation increases.
Into whose hands does it go? Why?
This has been the puzzlement of the centuries.
Who deserves to share in that increased wealth? Those who have done the hardest work or those who have been fortunate? Both are worthy of their labours.
A fair tax system addresses this. No over-taxing of low-paid hard-workers and no over-taxing of the innovators - a tricky balancing act.
Rewards are there for the innovators during their life.
IHT is there to address the imbalance of the rewards for low paid hard-worker to share in the whole prosperity of the whole country.
Tax revenue is used to benefit the whole country and this includes the wealthy people.
There has always been migrating millionaires and those who wish to stay in their own country.
The ones who stay are generally those who wish to see improvements to the plight of everyone in the country.
The migrating ones are a fairly fickle bunch who just look to buy a ticket for the best ride.
There was a very interesting article in yesterday's Observer about the rise in wealth inequality.
It seems that the plight of the wealthy is not something that is in any way a discouragement for or to them.
Rlburnside
Challenge Tour Pro
I agree it’s refreshing to hear a different viewpoint
Another point I thought about,
The way our personal pension system works favors the more wealthy in our society, the more money a person puts into a pension pot the bigger they gain from the government.
That doesn’t seem right to me, if your lucky enough to put a large lump sum in you gain far more than a person less fortunate to take advantage of this system.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
But that large pension pot is deferred wages in a way.I agree it’s refreshing to hear a different viewpoint
Another point I thought about,
The way our personal pension system works favors the more wealthy in our society, the more money a person puts into a pension pot the bigger they gain from the government.
That doesn’t seem right to me, if your lucky enough to put a large lump sum in you gain far more than a person less fortunate to take advantage of this system.
Income tax is payable once it is taken.
The money does not disappear. If it gets spent then it is back in the circulation of the economy. If it not spent, it might become subject to IHT eventually.
If a lot of it is passed on after death - that might get spent.
It is profits from this country that are extracted and end up in anonymous companies in the British Virgin Islands, Panama etc that concerns me.
Who are they and what happens to that money that could/should have stayed in this country? Hard to find answers to that.
Mudball
Assistant Pro
Report from earlier this week >>I'm going to assume I've misinterpreted that and you're not trying to say everyone works equally as hard as one another?
Also where exactly does fortune come into it? Is there a physical barrier preventing people from striving for more in our country? Or do people get comfortable in the position they're in, maybe sacrifice money for lifestyle, while others make huge sacrifice to pursue a better financial outcome?
It's such a shame that the adopted attitude in our country is to penalise success rather than strive for it
Britain’s exodus of millionaires last year was as damaging as the UK losing half a million taxpayers, a study has claimed.
The country lost 10,800 millionaires to foreign countries last year, more than double the number who left in 2023. It means that, one millionaire left the UK every 45 minutes. The exodus was sparked by Labour’s tax raids on private schools and non-doms as well as a general collapse in business confidence after Rachel Reeves’ October Budget.
Adam Smith Institute (ASI) research, seen by The Daily Telegraph, showed that each of the millionaires who left Britain last year would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
The free market think tank said one millionaire’s tax payment is equivalent to that of 49 average taxpayers, meaning the millionaire exodus is comparable to 529,200 average taxpayers leaving the country.
The millionaire exodus has been driven by taxes, the growing dominance of the US and Asia in the global hi-tech sector, the “dwindling” importance of the London Stock Exchange and the “deteriorating” state of the health system, according to the New World Wealth (NWW) global analytics firm.
Only China lost more wealthy residents in 2024 than the UK, it found.
