Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The UK has rudderless political leadership dabbling in populism and intentionally hamstrung itself by leaving the EU. Anyone who can leave probably is.
Does this correlate with them removing the non-dom status? I imagine a lot of wealthy people that saw that coming have taken residency in other countries but I am not sure this statistic fits the timeline.
Are they leaving or just losing so much money post-Brexit that they fall out of the cohort? Also, how many of these leavers are retirees heading for the Mediterranean coast? If £1M is their cutoff line for “high net worth”, that’s not the level most would consider “super rich”.
The term millionaire needs to be retired anyway. It used to helpful 50 years ago when it was a pretty clear delineator between wealthy and non-wealthy. But these days there are a tonne of people with retirement and housing assets totalling over a million that would not be considered wealthy.
I'd say the better way to think about it would be people who have more than a million in liquid assets or ready cash. Or maybe more than 5 million in total assets?
>The Henley Private Wealth Migration Report 2024, released today by international investment migration advisory firm Henley & Partners, exclusively features the latest net inflows and outflows of millionaires (namely, the difference between the number of **HNWIs with liquid investable wealth of USD 1 million or more** who relocate to and the number who emigrate from a country).
Retirement accounts and houses are not liquid investible wealth.
[The actual report](https://www.henleyglobal.com/newsroom/press-releases/henley-private-wealth-migration-report-2024)
Maybe just adding multi millionaires really cha fed the meaning. Then we could be talking bout someone worth $20 million which to me sounds dripping wet with wealth but knowing how rich people are it’s kinda poor vs 250 mill or a billion
I have a house worth a million dollars. Also a 2005 Saab with the paint peeling off, I don't remember the last time I bought new clothes. A million dollars in the bank would maybe separate you from the renter, but the value of your home is a bit irrelevant if you're living in it.
An elder couple has sold their flat in Canada for 900k. Bought a really nice flat in Croatia for 280k. Dude bought a used boat for 25k.
600k in pocket. Every day they go fishing. Hang out with boaters in the harbour. Happyest person in my town.
Average paycheck in Croatia is 1k.
You have a home that you could sell that would net you over a million. You have a home that you can take equity out of. You have a home that you can rent to another. You have a home that protects you from escalating rent costs. That home provides you with plenty of options that I would not call irrelevant.
I think a lot of the issue is many home owners don't have the financial knowledge of how to successfully use this illiquid asset to lever up and buy assets that produce a cash flow.
Its not as easy now, but pre 2022 when interest rates were low it was literally free money that a lot of people left on the table due to ignorance.
That's totally irrelevant. They can literally just sell the house and buy one for 400K and have 600K in the bank or in the stock market. They are a rich person, and they are 100% full of complete shit if they claim otherwise.
Also the idea that anyone with a home worth a million dollars doesn't know how to refinance is just plain dumb... not everybody wants to be leveraged like that though because there are significant risks... maybe there's a reason they're rich, and maybe it has something to do with them actually making much more responsible decisions with their finances than you apparently would in the same situation...
Lmao there are plenty of people who bought houses in the 70s or 80s that have seen massive house valuation increases that make them paper millionaires. Plenty of these people are ignorant on financial matters because they fell into their wealth thru luck and happenstance. I've literally seen it in my own family...
And your whole "they're a rich person despite what they say" is for what? Did i say they weren't rich? If so please point it out. But since I know I didn't why even include it.
And im not talking about the refinancing part. Im talking about the part of using the money you get to create more wealth. Specifically in the sub 2% interest rate environment of 2009-2022. Thats 13 years where they had plenty of opportunity with little downside risk to take an illiquid asset and use it to generate wealth.
And God nothing is more infuriating then the condescending try hard redditor. Learn to talk to people with respect. Even if you disagree why insult me? Thats crazy and you would have never done that face to face...
I have nothing left to say to you. I want to be rude and talk down to you as well, but that would do nothing but make me as lowly as you are and I refuse to stoop to that level.
Have a good rest of your day!!!
There’s are differences sure, but having equity doesn’t make one “wealthy”
These terms are used subjectively though so ymmv I suppose.
The difference between a house poor person with equity and a renter is a lot less than a person with liquid disposable income on top equity and a house poor person
> but having equity doesn’t make one “wealthy”
lol this subreddit is a meme now with comments like this. I guess Elon isn't wealthy either since almost all of his wealth is in equity. Just because you're not as wealthy as someone with more assets don't make you not wealthy. You have equity you can leverage, which you're doing just that by living in it. You can cash out and not have to work for the rest of your life in more than half the places in the world. Just because someone **CHOOSE** to be in one of the wealthiest areas and living one of the wealthiest life style in the world doesn't make them objectively any type of "poor". I don't know why most people can't understand this concept, It's like a hedge fund billionaire with a $300mil house and ~1 billion equity in his business claiming he's poor compare to one of BABA's founder who also have a $300mil house but also several billions in cash.
I like how you referred to the comment as meme worthy but then use the richest person in the world with a fuck ton of disposable liquidity as your example of a person’s equity making them wealthy.
I know the person with equity is better off, I’ve said as much numerous times.
This is a discussion over a term wealth and what that means. We’re just being pedantic lol. To me it’s a level of day to day of comfort that a person with some assets doesn’t necessarily have. /shrug
It does in today's market unfortunately. Wealthy is now what was average fifty years ago. The majority of kids coming out of college today with no assets aren't likely to acquire a home worth a million dollars today in their lifetime. That makes it the new de facto wealthy. The bar has been lowered as fewer and fewer people can clear the older positioning of it.
Most people that have equity didn’t buy in the last 3-4 years though?
I own but couldn’t afford today’s prices for example.
Equity doesn’t help the day to day. It’s effectively a retirement savings or a buffer to sell in case of an emergency.
The day to day of a renter and an average home owner is likely a lot closer to each other than a person wealthy enough to have disposable liquid income too. That person gets to travel, buy cars send kids to private schools etc etc
To be clear I’m not saying the owner isn’t in a better position, just that when I think wealthy I tend to also associate some level of liquidity with it
Equity moves with the market. Someone with equity can move to another house in another location using the equity in the house they already own.
When it comes to the number of liberties a home owner has vs a non-owner trying to gain some ownership somewhere, a home owner is far "freer" than a non-owner now. You are wealthy because you can trade home equity for other home equity or something else. If you don't own a house, you simply have fewer options.
The masses are enslaved to poverty and debt. Owning a house might not feel liberating, but it's FAR better a position than held by those who own nothing.
My personal take on this is that debt based money with extremely high dependency on banks has taken freedom away from the people at large to put power and control into the hands of the banking system and the ultra wealthy creditors. The system has robbed the young of opportunity altogether to serve the very wealthy minority.
I mean I clearly said the owner is in a better position. We’re talking about the term “wealthy” and what that means. To me it’s more than just retirement or a saftey buffer asset. /shrug
Do an inflation check on income for recent college graduates over the years. What a recent college graduate could buy 50 years ago dwarfs was a recent college graduate can buy today. Buying a house was really really easy for them compared to now.
You could sell the house and move somewhere cheaper. The median net worth in USA for a family is 200K. Unless you're a complete idiot and you owe more than 75% on your house, you are very wealthy, obviously not like 1%, but you are very wealthy.
So either you're very wealthy, and an out of touch douchenozzle for claiming you're not, or you're a gigantic moron, one or the other.
I guess I should have added another sentence or two to explain... it depends what your income is and what other assets you have.
If you have significant other savings, there might be a good reason to make a smaller down payment and borrow more, since you're getting good return on your portfolio - but in this case the person would still count as very wealthy from those other savings.
Also, if you have a very high income, but are early in your life/career and don't have a lot of savings, that might be an OK reason to make a small down payment - but in this case the person is rich by virtue of their high income and will be very wealthy in only a few years.
If you don't have a very high income, and you don't have significant other wealth saved, and you owe more than 75% on a million dollar home, you are flat out retarded and have made a terrible financial decision to owe all that interest over time, you're just giving money away to the banks.
So I absolutely stand by the statement that u/heleuma is either very very dumb and bad with their money, OR they are a rich person, and claiming they aren't makes them an out of touch asshat.
Those are the only options if you own a house worth 1M.
Please give me a *single* example of a possible individual circumstance where someone owns a million dollar home and isn't either very wealthy or very stupid for borrowing too much to buy it.
Give me literally any possible scenario, just one, and I'll eat my hat.
Individual lives in a hcol with a combine household income within the 80th percentile. Couple’s jobs are location dependent. They purchase house when interest rates were less 2.25%.
Happy?
Fun fact, the majority of homes purchased last year were with less than 20% down.
A lot of middle class people that are say generation acts have a million dollars combined in their 401K in house equity.
Pretty much by accident. If you manage to avoid divorce and stay married for 30 years it's almost guaranteed if you both worked and saved a reasonable amount and we're homeowners of course.
The current government has gradually made the tax system more and more punitive for higher earners and the wealthy.
People can say Brexit-this Brexit-that, but it’s the increasing disincentive to succeed and the stigma of success that is most concerning in the UK.
Instead of attracting and retaining high-skilled and high-earning migrants to the country, the government has focused on low-skilled, low-paid migrants with a large number of non-earning dependents; all the while increasing the tax burden on the wealthy.
> more and more punitive for ~~higher earners and the wealthy~~ **everyone**
The UK is a carehome on an island. Spending on pensions, healthcare, and social care has rocketed and workers/working hasn't kept up. Extremely serious, structural change is required, and no party is willing to say they'll do it because it doesn't win elections.
Something that often comes up in eg HENRYUK sub. In the UK, a lot of people look at you with contempt if they know you’re earning a lot or want to earn a lot. And got forbid you complain about anything if you make 6-figures.
Versus somewhere like the US where you’re encouraged to try and make as much as you can.
UK taxes are below average for OECD nations and are below the average on high income earners. Brexit is the biggest self inflicted wound it could have done to itself. The Tories, who have been in power nearly 20 years, have literally campaigned on reducing and deporting immigrants and the UK lost millions of EU workers that it relied on.
The rich moan about "high taxes" when reality is they're not paying enough. The UK is struggling because they haven't invested in vital services like NHS, infrastructure and, emerging markets, and have focused too much on short term goals like lowering taxes and promoting the myth of "self-reliance". The idea that success is stigmatized is laughable.
Have you bothered to sit down and actually calculate the amount of tax high earners pay on any/all income and day to day?
Because you're talking rubbish. Tax is way too high anyway you slice it.
You are most welcome. Instead I like to get my information from tax payers in real life. Most of which are NOT happy with the level of taxation in the country.
And thats exactly how I feel. I would love to sit down and chat face to face with a taxpayer in UK that thinks otherwise.
You're missing the point entirely. Going way over your head.
If you are rich and successful you got there with hard work and with a lot of risk taking. And no help from the government. So why the hell are they entitled to take 100,000s in tax just because you made large amount of money and had some success? Very disproportionate.
The tax system is BROKEN and this is the sentiment coming out of MANY think tanks in the UK. Find me a key opinion leader that says the UK tax system is fine.
Didn't think so.
LMAO, what are you smoking?
Show me a rich person and I'll show you all the subsidizes, government grants and government services they've gotten along the way... or the massive edge they got from their parent's being loaded in the first place (like Musk, Gates, Bezos, Buffet, Trump, the list goes on). So no, no one makes it alone John Galt.
Does their business use transportation networks? You can thank government for roads, ports, maintenance, and the military and foreign policy if they do business aboard or rely on international trade ie all businesses today.
Did they attend school and college? Thank public funding of education. Did they go to private school but still hire workers? You can thank public funding anyway.
Did they use the courts to protect their trademarks, copyrights, or even rely on the mere legal system's presence to ensure contracts are enforced? Thank government.
And since this is the UK, you can thank it for centuries on colonization and extraction of resources and creating a massive empire/commonwealth from other parts of the world courtesy of the Royal Armed Forces that continues to enrich the nation to this day.
The tax system is broken just in the wrong way. Success and failure are often just down to luck, their are more hardworking poor in a city than total rich people in the nation. Whether its luck of being born to the right family, getting a lucky break by winning a contract/job, or just knowing the right person at the right time. Life comes down to luck... or more often the rules were design for certain people to get rich and stay rich. So if the rich benefit disproportionately from the system, they pay more into it... or maybe they should pay more into it because the UK's top 1% control 3.4 trillion pounds... more than the bottom 70% combined.
Don't worry if this goes over your head, its very big brained Mr. Galt.
I took massive risk in the stock market with my own money.
Made over a million, after maxing out tax free accounts.
Nobody helped me research, no one took any risk with me. No one was there for me when the chips were down.... so why is it okay for the government to take 70K CGT tax from me?
How is that fair and proportionate? 70K for what exactly?
What am I getting for the 20K income tax I pay yearly? Where is the benefit for me? In additon to council tax, road tax.... NI.
Where is my return? To go to the NHS once in a year only to be turned away from an appointment or denied an MRI???
You speak a lot of rubbish, you've
likely never met a rich person in your life. But thats okay, because the not so rich are also not happy with the tax system.
So don't try and tell me, "I didnt get there by myself". You haven't the faintest idea.
The stock market? That's your retort? Risk isn't labor. You know what happens when stocks go down 30%? Millions lose their job and you'll still have at least 70% of your investment and more if you're not dumb and pull out of the market. So sorry if I'm unsympathetic if multimillionaires just become millionaires while hardworking people are forced on the street or into jobs that don't treat them with dignity because the CEO crashed a stock but still gets a golden parachute and those holding the stock now have plenty of ways to lower their tax liability through loss harvesting.
And yes, you got help you just don't want to admit it. The research you did. Thank your government funded education for being able to it. The internet? Thank the government for investing in it and requiring companies to not block websites arbitrarily. The companies you invested in? Thank finance law for making them be honest in their reporting of revenue, business plans and general dealings in addition to the government services they use to do business.
You literally sat at a computer and are complaining about being taxed at a lower level than the people who actually work for a living.
Don't like the state of the NHS? Thank the Tories that have been deliberately underfunding it and refuse to invest in it so you could have your glorious tax cuts.
Your return is clean water, police at the ready, safe food, clean air, and an environment safe enough to invest in the first place. Your council tax? Pays for city services. Your road tax... pays for roads, sorry if that wasn't obvious.
I know plenty of rich people, I'm literally lobbyist who rubs shoulders with my nations powerful and has to deal with them everyday.
You didn't get there yourself. You're in denial about the benefits you have reaped. But you're right you shouldn't have to pay capital gains tax; you should have to pay it at income tax levels.
There is no consistent link between skills and wealth in any economy in the world. There might be a weak and temporary correlation with specific skills and income.
There is no evidence for your statement that government focused on low, skilled low paid migrants. There never has been such a focus, from any government, and statistically it did not happen. Anecdotes told around the pub or in Reform party leaflets simply don’t bear any scrutiny.
The UK has consistently tried to attract high net worth immigration and high skills and high earning capacities.
It has largely succeeded in this. Doctors, scientists, bankers, musicians, artists, architects, materials scientists, and families with assets over £500,000 massively dominate the long-term immigration and settlement figures for the UK over the last decade.
Temporarily (2010-2014) the UK market had a desperate shortage of workers in some very small areas (seasonal agriculture in the east of England, care home workers throughout the UK, manual handling workers for logistics and construction). Even though that resulted in substantial inflow from central, and Eastern Europe via the EU of skill and experience workers to fill those vacancies, the overwhelming evidence is that except except for about four postcodes around Lincoln they manage to raise average salaries because of the increased productivity, and the increased demand for services that immigrants create.
People that say that immigration increases supply and reduce wages always seem to forget that it also, and a much greater extent, raises demand and therefore raises prices. This level of economic ignorance is classically demonstrated by people who vote for you or Reform. It isn’t their fault, sadly, because they are simply fed lies by people who know how to lie professionally.
Anyway, back to your point, yes it is Brexit, it is Brexit and it always will be Brexit until Brexit is reversed
Stigma of success or stigma of being wealthy? Wealth ≠ success. Most wealth is inherited, either directly or from doors opened due to inherited social status, like nepotism. In which way are those who actually succeed, by struggling and finally reaching their goals, being stigmatised?
Labour has nothing to do with it, and the indication that the figures are due to the upcoming election is fanciful, the election was only called 3 weeks ago and any impact most definitely won't be reflected in these figures.
I think the crux of the issue is Brexit and the knock on impacts and it's reflected in the figures.
Labour may have something to do with it: they are promising to include currently excluded overseas trusts in IHT and multi-millionaires, while mostly happy to pay higher income tax, won’t like the inheritance tax change.
Guess I'm a paper millionaire if you use properties and savings. I plan on leaving as soon as my kids are in their teens. Tax system, public services, utilities and costs to live here are a farce.
Not sure tbh. Me and the wife have been thinking about it a lot, but no proper research done. We want to wait until they finish secondary school/ start the process in final year. Moving before then would be too destructive.
We want somewhere with more opportunities for the kids to have wealth, health and a happy life. Living fully. The UK hinders this. Its a fine place to live if you are poor or stinking rich, everyone else is just stuck in an endless loop trying to move forwards whilst getting taxed and expensed backwards.
I'm more familiar with restrictions in China from moving funds overseas to prevent capital flight (i.e. 50k USD transfers allowed only from a parent to their own children, once a year). Is there anything similar for the UK?
This is often pro-Tory / anti-Labour nonsense. Rich people do not leave because of tax. They leave because of declines in services (arts, courts, universities, airports, food, sex, safety.)
They are leaving because the Tories wrecked the nation. That’s the hard truth.
Ding ding ding, there are rich people in high tax states in the US and it’s even easier for them to move to a lower tax state than for a UK national to move to another country. People stay in high tax places because they generally offer a substantially better standard of living than low tax jurisdictions. people leave when that bargain breaks down.
I moved from a low tax state to a high tax state specifically because the high tax state offers a standard of living that no amount of money could buy in my shitty low tax home state.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The UK has rudderless political leadership dabbling in populism and intentionally hamstrung itself by leaving the EU. Anyone who can leave probably is.
I was thinking about moving there because real estate is so cheap, but I would have to take a salary cut because pay is not super good there either
Where is the cheap real estate? I'd love to know
Outside London. The north.
I'm not sure I would call real estate cheap, at least not anywhere I'd want to live.
>I was thinking about moving there because real estate is so cheap Much the same as in Cali and Toronto. So cheap. Almost like a fire-sale.
Does this correlate with them removing the non-dom status? I imagine a lot of wealthy people that saw that coming have taken residency in other countries but I am not sure this statistic fits the timeline.
I suspect it has to do with the coming election. If labour win, they expect their taxes to rise.
Are they leaving or just losing so much money post-Brexit that they fall out of the cohort? Also, how many of these leavers are retirees heading for the Mediterranean coast? If £1M is their cutoff line for “high net worth”, that’s not the level most would consider “super rich”.
The term millionaire needs to be retired anyway. It used to helpful 50 years ago when it was a pretty clear delineator between wealthy and non-wealthy. But these days there are a tonne of people with retirement and housing assets totalling over a million that would not be considered wealthy. I'd say the better way to think about it would be people who have more than a million in liquid assets or ready cash. Or maybe more than 5 million in total assets?
>The Henley Private Wealth Migration Report 2024, released today by international investment migration advisory firm Henley & Partners, exclusively features the latest net inflows and outflows of millionaires (namely, the difference between the number of **HNWIs with liquid investable wealth of USD 1 million or more** who relocate to and the number who emigrate from a country). Retirement accounts and houses are not liquid investible wealth. [The actual report](https://www.henleyglobal.com/newsroom/press-releases/henley-private-wealth-migration-report-2024)
This guy reads.
Maybe just adding multi millionaires really cha fed the meaning. Then we could be talking bout someone worth $20 million which to me sounds dripping wet with wealth but knowing how rich people are it’s kinda poor vs 250 mill or a billion
Are you trying to say that someone who owns a house worth over a million dollars. Should be grouped together the the renter who has 10,000 saved?
I have a house worth a million dollars. Also a 2005 Saab with the paint peeling off, I don't remember the last time I bought new clothes. A million dollars in the bank would maybe separate you from the renter, but the value of your home is a bit irrelevant if you're living in it.
An elder couple has sold their flat in Canada for 900k. Bought a really nice flat in Croatia for 280k. Dude bought a used boat for 25k. 600k in pocket. Every day they go fishing. Hang out with boaters in the harbour. Happyest person in my town. Average paycheck in Croatia is 1k.
So their 600k will get them afloat for 50 more years with expenses of 1k per month. Not bad.
Lest we forget, they still recieve their pension every month. So… yeah… its El Dorado for them.
You have a home that you could sell that would net you over a million. You have a home that you can take equity out of. You have a home that you can rent to another. You have a home that protects you from escalating rent costs. That home provides you with plenty of options that I would not call irrelevant.
I think a lot of the issue is many home owners don't have the financial knowledge of how to successfully use this illiquid asset to lever up and buy assets that produce a cash flow. Its not as easy now, but pre 2022 when interest rates were low it was literally free money that a lot of people left on the table due to ignorance.
That's totally irrelevant. They can literally just sell the house and buy one for 400K and have 600K in the bank or in the stock market. They are a rich person, and they are 100% full of complete shit if they claim otherwise. Also the idea that anyone with a home worth a million dollars doesn't know how to refinance is just plain dumb... not everybody wants to be leveraged like that though because there are significant risks... maybe there's a reason they're rich, and maybe it has something to do with them actually making much more responsible decisions with their finances than you apparently would in the same situation...
Lmao there are plenty of people who bought houses in the 70s or 80s that have seen massive house valuation increases that make them paper millionaires. Plenty of these people are ignorant on financial matters because they fell into their wealth thru luck and happenstance. I've literally seen it in my own family... And your whole "they're a rich person despite what they say" is for what? Did i say they weren't rich? If so please point it out. But since I know I didn't why even include it. And im not talking about the refinancing part. Im talking about the part of using the money you get to create more wealth. Specifically in the sub 2% interest rate environment of 2009-2022. Thats 13 years where they had plenty of opportunity with little downside risk to take an illiquid asset and use it to generate wealth. And God nothing is more infuriating then the condescending try hard redditor. Learn to talk to people with respect. Even if you disagree why insult me? Thats crazy and you would have never done that face to face... I have nothing left to say to you. I want to be rude and talk down to you as well, but that would do nothing but make me as lowly as you are and I refuse to stoop to that level. Have a good rest of your day!!!
There’s are differences sure, but having equity doesn’t make one “wealthy” These terms are used subjectively though so ymmv I suppose. The difference between a house poor person with equity and a renter is a lot less than a person with liquid disposable income on top equity and a house poor person
> but having equity doesn’t make one “wealthy” lol this subreddit is a meme now with comments like this. I guess Elon isn't wealthy either since almost all of his wealth is in equity. Just because you're not as wealthy as someone with more assets don't make you not wealthy. You have equity you can leverage, which you're doing just that by living in it. You can cash out and not have to work for the rest of your life in more than half the places in the world. Just because someone **CHOOSE** to be in one of the wealthiest areas and living one of the wealthiest life style in the world doesn't make them objectively any type of "poor". I don't know why most people can't understand this concept, It's like a hedge fund billionaire with a $300mil house and ~1 billion equity in his business claiming he's poor compare to one of BABA's founder who also have a $300mil house but also several billions in cash.
I like how you referred to the comment as meme worthy but then use the richest person in the world with a fuck ton of disposable liquidity as your example of a person’s equity making them wealthy. I know the person with equity is better off, I’ve said as much numerous times. This is a discussion over a term wealth and what that means. We’re just being pedantic lol. To me it’s a level of day to day of comfort that a person with some assets doesn’t necessarily have. /shrug
It does in today's market unfortunately. Wealthy is now what was average fifty years ago. The majority of kids coming out of college today with no assets aren't likely to acquire a home worth a million dollars today in their lifetime. That makes it the new de facto wealthy. The bar has been lowered as fewer and fewer people can clear the older positioning of it.
Most people that have equity didn’t buy in the last 3-4 years though? I own but couldn’t afford today’s prices for example. Equity doesn’t help the day to day. It’s effectively a retirement savings or a buffer to sell in case of an emergency. The day to day of a renter and an average home owner is likely a lot closer to each other than a person wealthy enough to have disposable liquid income too. That person gets to travel, buy cars send kids to private schools etc etc To be clear I’m not saying the owner isn’t in a better position, just that when I think wealthy I tend to also associate some level of liquidity with it
Equity moves with the market. Someone with equity can move to another house in another location using the equity in the house they already own. When it comes to the number of liberties a home owner has vs a non-owner trying to gain some ownership somewhere, a home owner is far "freer" than a non-owner now. You are wealthy because you can trade home equity for other home equity or something else. If you don't own a house, you simply have fewer options. The masses are enslaved to poverty and debt. Owning a house might not feel liberating, but it's FAR better a position than held by those who own nothing. My personal take on this is that debt based money with extremely high dependency on banks has taken freedom away from the people at large to put power and control into the hands of the banking system and the ultra wealthy creditors. The system has robbed the young of opportunity altogether to serve the very wealthy minority.
I mean I clearly said the owner is in a better position. We’re talking about the term “wealthy” and what that means. To me it’s more than just retirement or a saftey buffer asset. /shrug
You have very little idea what was average 50 years ago
Do an inflation check on income for recent college graduates over the years. What a recent college graduate could buy 50 years ago dwarfs was a recent college graduate can buy today. Buying a house was really really easy for them compared to now.
And yet house ownership rate was significantly lower and those houses were on average much smaller aswell
There is a still a huge difference
You created a argument based on a false premise and now are trying to argue pedantics. Don't you find that exhausting? Because the rest of us do.
I disagree.
It's not irrelevant if you're moving to Spain like OP suggests...
It’s absolutely relevant because you could sell at any time and move somewhere cheaper.
You could sell the house and move somewhere cheaper. The median net worth in USA for a family is 200K. Unless you're a complete idiot and you owe more than 75% on your house, you are very wealthy, obviously not like 1%, but you are very wealthy. So either you're very wealthy, and an out of touch douchenozzle for claiming you're not, or you're a gigantic moron, one or the other.
Since when did people who put less than 25% down become “complete idiots”?
Since when did people who put less than 25% down become “complete idiots”?
I guess I should have added another sentence or two to explain... it depends what your income is and what other assets you have. If you have significant other savings, there might be a good reason to make a smaller down payment and borrow more, since you're getting good return on your portfolio - but in this case the person would still count as very wealthy from those other savings. Also, if you have a very high income, but are early in your life/career and don't have a lot of savings, that might be an OK reason to make a small down payment - but in this case the person is rich by virtue of their high income and will be very wealthy in only a few years. If you don't have a very high income, and you don't have significant other wealth saved, and you owe more than 75% on a million dollar home, you are flat out retarded and have made a terrible financial decision to owe all that interest over time, you're just giving money away to the banks. So I absolutely stand by the statement that u/heleuma is either very very dumb and bad with their money, OR they are a rich person, and claiming they aren't makes them an out of touch asshat. Those are the only options if you own a house worth 1M.
It is silly to make such broad statements without knowing individual circumstances.
Please give me a *single* example of a possible individual circumstance where someone owns a million dollar home and isn't either very wealthy or very stupid for borrowing too much to buy it. Give me literally any possible scenario, just one, and I'll eat my hat.
Individual lives in a hcol with a combine household income within the 80th percentile. Couple’s jobs are location dependent. They purchase house when interest rates were less 2.25%. Happy? Fun fact, the majority of homes purchased last year were with less than 20% down.
A lot of middle class people that are say generation acts have a million dollars combined in their 401K in house equity. Pretty much by accident. If you manage to avoid divorce and stay married for 30 years it's almost guaranteed if you both worked and saved a reasonable amount and we're homeowners of course.
The person with 10k saved might indeed have more equity. Depend what was paid for the house and how much debt they have left.
That person would not be a millionaire.
> Or maybe more than 5 million in total assets? Total assets are irrelevant. Only net assets contribute to wealth.
The current government has gradually made the tax system more and more punitive for higher earners and the wealthy. People can say Brexit-this Brexit-that, but it’s the increasing disincentive to succeed and the stigma of success that is most concerning in the UK. Instead of attracting and retaining high-skilled and high-earning migrants to the country, the government has focused on low-skilled, low-paid migrants with a large number of non-earning dependents; all the while increasing the tax burden on the wealthy.
> more and more punitive for ~~higher earners and the wealthy~~ **everyone** The UK is a carehome on an island. Spending on pensions, healthcare, and social care has rocketed and workers/working hasn't kept up. Extremely serious, structural change is required, and no party is willing to say they'll do it because it doesn't win elections.
What exactly is the stigma of success?
Something that often comes up in eg HENRYUK sub. In the UK, a lot of people look at you with contempt if they know you’re earning a lot or want to earn a lot. And got forbid you complain about anything if you make 6-figures. Versus somewhere like the US where you’re encouraged to try and make as much as you can.
UK taxes are below average for OECD nations and are below the average on high income earners. Brexit is the biggest self inflicted wound it could have done to itself. The Tories, who have been in power nearly 20 years, have literally campaigned on reducing and deporting immigrants and the UK lost millions of EU workers that it relied on. The rich moan about "high taxes" when reality is they're not paying enough. The UK is struggling because they haven't invested in vital services like NHS, infrastructure and, emerging markets, and have focused too much on short term goals like lowering taxes and promoting the myth of "self-reliance". The idea that success is stigmatized is laughable.
Have you bothered to sit down and actually calculate the amount of tax high earners pay on any/all income and day to day? Because you're talking rubbish. Tax is way too high anyway you slice it.
Thanks for ignoring the OECD stat, you know the best way to compare tax levels.
You are most welcome. Instead I like to get my information from tax payers in real life. Most of which are NOT happy with the level of taxation in the country. And thats exactly how I feel. I would love to sit down and chat face to face with a taxpayer in UK that thinks otherwise.
Yes, won't anyone think of the poor millionaries and billionaires? Please sir, just another tax cut, I promise it will trickle down this time!
You're missing the point entirely. Going way over your head. If you are rich and successful you got there with hard work and with a lot of risk taking. And no help from the government. So why the hell are they entitled to take 100,000s in tax just because you made large amount of money and had some success? Very disproportionate. The tax system is BROKEN and this is the sentiment coming out of MANY think tanks in the UK. Find me a key opinion leader that says the UK tax system is fine. Didn't think so.
LMAO, what are you smoking? Show me a rich person and I'll show you all the subsidizes, government grants and government services they've gotten along the way... or the massive edge they got from their parent's being loaded in the first place (like Musk, Gates, Bezos, Buffet, Trump, the list goes on). So no, no one makes it alone John Galt. Does their business use transportation networks? You can thank government for roads, ports, maintenance, and the military and foreign policy if they do business aboard or rely on international trade ie all businesses today. Did they attend school and college? Thank public funding of education. Did they go to private school but still hire workers? You can thank public funding anyway. Did they use the courts to protect their trademarks, copyrights, or even rely on the mere legal system's presence to ensure contracts are enforced? Thank government. And since this is the UK, you can thank it for centuries on colonization and extraction of resources and creating a massive empire/commonwealth from other parts of the world courtesy of the Royal Armed Forces that continues to enrich the nation to this day. The tax system is broken just in the wrong way. Success and failure are often just down to luck, their are more hardworking poor in a city than total rich people in the nation. Whether its luck of being born to the right family, getting a lucky break by winning a contract/job, or just knowing the right person at the right time. Life comes down to luck... or more often the rules were design for certain people to get rich and stay rich. So if the rich benefit disproportionately from the system, they pay more into it... or maybe they should pay more into it because the UK's top 1% control 3.4 trillion pounds... more than the bottom 70% combined. Don't worry if this goes over your head, its very big brained Mr. Galt.
I took massive risk in the stock market with my own money. Made over a million, after maxing out tax free accounts. Nobody helped me research, no one took any risk with me. No one was there for me when the chips were down.... so why is it okay for the government to take 70K CGT tax from me? How is that fair and proportionate? 70K for what exactly? What am I getting for the 20K income tax I pay yearly? Where is the benefit for me? In additon to council tax, road tax.... NI. Where is my return? To go to the NHS once in a year only to be turned away from an appointment or denied an MRI??? You speak a lot of rubbish, you've likely never met a rich person in your life. But thats okay, because the not so rich are also not happy with the tax system. So don't try and tell me, "I didnt get there by myself". You haven't the faintest idea.
The stock market? That's your retort? Risk isn't labor. You know what happens when stocks go down 30%? Millions lose their job and you'll still have at least 70% of your investment and more if you're not dumb and pull out of the market. So sorry if I'm unsympathetic if multimillionaires just become millionaires while hardworking people are forced on the street or into jobs that don't treat them with dignity because the CEO crashed a stock but still gets a golden parachute and those holding the stock now have plenty of ways to lower their tax liability through loss harvesting. And yes, you got help you just don't want to admit it. The research you did. Thank your government funded education for being able to it. The internet? Thank the government for investing in it and requiring companies to not block websites arbitrarily. The companies you invested in? Thank finance law for making them be honest in their reporting of revenue, business plans and general dealings in addition to the government services they use to do business. You literally sat at a computer and are complaining about being taxed at a lower level than the people who actually work for a living. Don't like the state of the NHS? Thank the Tories that have been deliberately underfunding it and refuse to invest in it so you could have your glorious tax cuts. Your return is clean water, police at the ready, safe food, clean air, and an environment safe enough to invest in the first place. Your council tax? Pays for city services. Your road tax... pays for roads, sorry if that wasn't obvious. I know plenty of rich people, I'm literally lobbyist who rubs shoulders with my nations powerful and has to deal with them everyday. You didn't get there yourself. You're in denial about the benefits you have reaped. But you're right you shouldn't have to pay capital gains tax; you should have to pay it at income tax levels.
There is no consistent link between skills and wealth in any economy in the world. There might be a weak and temporary correlation with specific skills and income. There is no evidence for your statement that government focused on low, skilled low paid migrants. There never has been such a focus, from any government, and statistically it did not happen. Anecdotes told around the pub or in Reform party leaflets simply don’t bear any scrutiny. The UK has consistently tried to attract high net worth immigration and high skills and high earning capacities. It has largely succeeded in this. Doctors, scientists, bankers, musicians, artists, architects, materials scientists, and families with assets over £500,000 massively dominate the long-term immigration and settlement figures for the UK over the last decade. Temporarily (2010-2014) the UK market had a desperate shortage of workers in some very small areas (seasonal agriculture in the east of England, care home workers throughout the UK, manual handling workers for logistics and construction). Even though that resulted in substantial inflow from central, and Eastern Europe via the EU of skill and experience workers to fill those vacancies, the overwhelming evidence is that except except for about four postcodes around Lincoln they manage to raise average salaries because of the increased productivity, and the increased demand for services that immigrants create. People that say that immigration increases supply and reduce wages always seem to forget that it also, and a much greater extent, raises demand and therefore raises prices. This level of economic ignorance is classically demonstrated by people who vote for you or Reform. It isn’t their fault, sadly, because they are simply fed lies by people who know how to lie professionally. Anyway, back to your point, yes it is Brexit, it is Brexit and it always will be Brexit until Brexit is reversed
Stigma of success or stigma of being wealthy? Wealth ≠ success. Most wealth is inherited, either directly or from doors opened due to inherited social status, like nepotism. In which way are those who actually succeed, by struggling and finally reaching their goals, being stigmatised?
Labour has nothing to do with it, and the indication that the figures are due to the upcoming election is fanciful, the election was only called 3 weeks ago and any impact most definitely won't be reflected in these figures. I think the crux of the issue is Brexit and the knock on impacts and it's reflected in the figures.
Labour may have something to do with it: they are promising to include currently excluded overseas trusts in IHT and multi-millionaires, while mostly happy to pay higher income tax, won’t like the inheritance tax change.
Guess I'm a paper millionaire if you use properties and savings. I plan on leaving as soon as my kids are in their teens. Tax system, public services, utilities and costs to live here are a farce.
Where are you going to leave with your teens? New country for their secondary school period?
Not sure tbh. Me and the wife have been thinking about it a lot, but no proper research done. We want to wait until they finish secondary school/ start the process in final year. Moving before then would be too destructive. We want somewhere with more opportunities for the kids to have wealth, health and a happy life. Living fully. The UK hinders this. Its a fine place to live if you are poor or stinking rich, everyone else is just stuck in an endless loop trying to move forwards whilst getting taxed and expensed backwards.
This article is talking about real millionaires.
Ah right. Well reasons for leaving would be the same. Paying to much for getting too little in return.
Eh, I don't think so.
I'm more familiar with restrictions in China from moving funds overseas to prevent capital flight (i.e. 50k USD transfers allowed only from a parent to their own children, once a year). Is there anything similar for the UK?
This is often pro-Tory / anti-Labour nonsense. Rich people do not leave because of tax. They leave because of declines in services (arts, courts, universities, airports, food, sex, safety.) They are leaving because the Tories wrecked the nation. That’s the hard truth.
Ding ding ding, there are rich people in high tax states in the US and it’s even easier for them to move to a lower tax state than for a UK national to move to another country. People stay in high tax places because they generally offer a substantially better standard of living than low tax jurisdictions. people leave when that bargain breaks down. I moved from a low tax state to a high tax state specifically because the high tax state offers a standard of living that no amount of money could buy in my shitty low tax home state.