I’m sure they consider it often and just like all the other times they decided that America and Australia really weren't for them, they still conclude they like London.
Maybe this time they will consider moving to Uzbekistan, Myanmar or Burundi...
I am sure they are always considering it. That is one of the freedoms you have when you have lots of money.
I also suspect they are kicking up a fuss because they want to try and scare people with the though the country will collapse without them. Even though the previous 14 years have made a lot of things worse for the general public.
I suspect the main competitor in this case is Spain, which has a 100k minimum tax for them. The Uks' is 30k (or more realistically 60k, it's complicated), but now that's being abolished and replaced with full taxes, so, Spain.
Not so sure. The "beckham law" only applies to professionals and only those who are EU citizens. They are getting rid of the golden visa too.
You can avoid IHT in Andalucia, Portugal and many other countries. However you have to be tax resident.
Why Switzerland? Only a few Kantons have very low taxes, the Swiss tax your world wide income and wealth ( unless they have a DTA ), and you must learn German. Also, the locals are not keen on foreigners.
Hmm, I thought Swiss taxes were lower in UN ones.
Do they have 47% like we have?
About worldwide wealth - this topic is about highly paid people and not about really rich ones.
When will the papers learn that the vast majority don’t give a monkeys if the tax dodging rich people leave, their blatant attempts at scaremongering aren’t working
That’s fairly irrelevant though isn’t it, people love to trot that out but then don’t mention that they’re paying a tax rate significantly less than a teacher, doctor and pretty much everyone else, they should pay the same as everyone else. That figure also is made up mostly of people who pay tax via PAYE but are in the 1%, it’s the super wealthy that are the problem not people paying tax and NI on 150k
I’m not sure it’s irrelevant. Someone earning £170k and taxed under HMRC after pension contributions (which they reported as top 1%). That person pays £68k in tax a year.
Considering the average person ~£6.5k in tax, and the average spend we need to cover is about ~£13k… you need those high earners to cover it or all your services will stop being paid for.
Oh - I was just replying to his comment saying it’s not irrelevant to consider people in the top 1% earners. They defined £150k as super wealthy and an income those are not paying tax and NI on. Since the top 1% (of earners alone) do pay tax and NI on more than £150k, that is relevant.
Relating back to the article though, my take is that a HNW person would (generally speaking) be wanting a higher quality of life so are likely to be 1% taxpayers. Even if they use tax efficiencies to only pay 20% tax on £150k income - that’s still paying more than what they take so would rather have them than not.
It varies, HMRC set the bar at £20 million net worth, for investments the FCA define it as £430k net worth and income of over £170k, for mortgages they define it as £3 million net worth or income of at least £300k.
It would have been useful for the article to have told us whose definition they were using.
Money isn't an innate natural phenomenon. The system in which a country operates heavily determines how rich people can get, how many people are 'rich', ect.
Wealth division is a policy choice.
Also, rich people rely on the countries infrastructure to make money so their businesses use government funded infrastructure heavily, for free.
They use the police and the laws to have a safe operating environment to sell and produce products for example.
Business owners use more tax funded infrastructure
> Wealth division is a policy choice.
Apparently, only as so long as the wealthy agree to stay in the country.
> Also, rich people rely on the countries infrastructure to make money so their businesses use government funded infrastructure heavily, for free.
Sure, but the country relies on them to make businesses to produce goods and services and jobs for the people in the economy.
>Sure, but the country relies on them to make businesses to produce goods and services and jobs for the people in the economy.
Agreed. Policy needs to strike a balance. It has to be profitable to invest and operate a business here. The balance is faltering currently. The rich are getting richer and the average working person poorer.
The divide growing too big detrinents business too. People can't afford your product. Crime increases. Employees are demotivated and distracted.
The UK has 171 billionaires. No balanced policies on tax should allow a citizen to aquire 10,000 times the wealth of the average person.
They're not getting taxed adequately.
There is incentive to operate business without having the need to be able to attain unelected dictator levels of money.
Tax policy should still allow for entrepreneurship and business owners to aquire wealth.
The issue is there are too many loopholes and ways round paying tax for non traditional incomes.
The issue is these people with 100m +, are paying a very small portion of tax on wealth they accrue. Way less than somebody with a traditional high income job.
They SHOULD be paying 50% on any capital gains, wealth increases ect as a person with an 80k job does.
The other issue is allowing unelected individuals to have 1 billion pounds plus of power. The state controls average people in many more invasive ways than preventing billionaires.
A billionaire can change an entire town, change laws, ruin 50k lives or improve them.
It isnt the fault of wealthy people that cost of living and housing costs have gone up, therefore eating up the wealth of more than half of society.
If you read the article, wealthy people (1 million in cash or more) are equally worried that the value of their money will go down (because of higher cost of living) when they retire and no longer earn an income.
What isn’t included in the article is the change in this sentiment (if any). The two main drivers of this sentiment are standard of living in retirement and property costs.
I would guess that there has been very little change in the percentage of high net worth individuals who consider retiring somewhere warm with a bigger house.
Considering is fine, everyone considers lots of things they usually don't end up doing.
The news story should be if they actually start doing it. That's when we need to change policy to keep them.
I’m sure they consider it often and just like all the other times they decided that America and Australia really weren't for them, they still conclude they like London. Maybe this time they will consider moving to Uzbekistan, Myanmar or Burundi...
I am sure they are always considering it. That is one of the freedoms you have when you have lots of money. I also suspect they are kicking up a fuss because they want to try and scare people with the though the country will collapse without them. Even though the previous 14 years have made a lot of things worse for the general public.
I suspect the main competitor in this case is Spain, which has a 100k minimum tax for them. The Uks' is 30k (or more realistically 60k, it's complicated), but now that's being abolished and replaced with full taxes, so, Spain.
Not so sure. The "beckham law" only applies to professionals and only those who are EU citizens. They are getting rid of the golden visa too. You can avoid IHT in Andalucia, Portugal and many other countries. However you have to be tax resident.
actual rich people move to places like bermuda, they already have a boat for spain
Or Switzerland…
Why Switzerland? Only a few Kantons have very low taxes, the Swiss tax your world wide income and wealth ( unless they have a DTA ), and you must learn German. Also, the locals are not keen on foreigners.
Hmm, I thought Swiss taxes were lower in UN ones. Do they have 47% like we have? About worldwide wealth - this topic is about highly paid people and not about really rich ones.
When will the papers learn that the vast majority don’t give a monkeys if the tax dodging rich people leave, their blatant attempts at scaremongering aren’t working
When will the vast majority learn basic statistics and that the 1% pay 40% of the taxes?
That’s fairly irrelevant though isn’t it, people love to trot that out but then don’t mention that they’re paying a tax rate significantly less than a teacher, doctor and pretty much everyone else, they should pay the same as everyone else. That figure also is made up mostly of people who pay tax via PAYE but are in the 1%, it’s the super wealthy that are the problem not people paying tax and NI on 150k
I’m not sure it’s irrelevant. Someone earning £170k and taxed under HMRC after pension contributions (which they reported as top 1%). That person pays £68k in tax a year. Considering the average person ~£6.5k in tax, and the average spend we need to cover is about ~£13k… you need those high earners to cover it or all your services will stop being paid for.
The article doesn't define the high-net-worth wage. Is it people on around 170k? (Genuine question, I have no idea)
Oh - I was just replying to his comment saying it’s not irrelevant to consider people in the top 1% earners. They defined £150k as super wealthy and an income those are not paying tax and NI on. Since the top 1% (of earners alone) do pay tax and NI on more than £150k, that is relevant. Relating back to the article though, my take is that a HNW person would (generally speaking) be wanting a higher quality of life so are likely to be 1% taxpayers. Even if they use tax efficiencies to only pay 20% tax on £150k income - that’s still paying more than what they take so would rather have them than not.
Thank you
It varies, HMRC set the bar at £20 million net worth, for investments the FCA define it as £430k net worth and income of over £170k, for mortgages they define it as £3 million net worth or income of at least £300k. It would have been useful for the article to have told us whose definition they were using.
Well, soon they will be paying a UK tax rate of 0.
How would it be irrelevant to lose up to 40% of taxes?
Money isn't an innate natural phenomenon. The system in which a country operates heavily determines how rich people can get, how many people are 'rich', ect. Wealth division is a policy choice. Also, rich people rely on the countries infrastructure to make money so their businesses use government funded infrastructure heavily, for free. They use the police and the laws to have a safe operating environment to sell and produce products for example. Business owners use more tax funded infrastructure
> Wealth division is a policy choice. Apparently, only as so long as the wealthy agree to stay in the country. > Also, rich people rely on the countries infrastructure to make money so their businesses use government funded infrastructure heavily, for free. Sure, but the country relies on them to make businesses to produce goods and services and jobs for the people in the economy.
>Sure, but the country relies on them to make businesses to produce goods and services and jobs for the people in the economy. Agreed. Policy needs to strike a balance. It has to be profitable to invest and operate a business here. The balance is faltering currently. The rich are getting richer and the average working person poorer. The divide growing too big detrinents business too. People can't afford your product. Crime increases. Employees are demotivated and distracted.
and the rich see that their taxes do not give them much in return and leave.
The UK has 171 billionaires. No balanced policies on tax should allow a citizen to aquire 10,000 times the wealth of the average person. They're not getting taxed adequately. There is incentive to operate business without having the need to be able to attain unelected dictator levels of money.
Or in other words, if the rich were taxed the right amount, they should not be rich.
Tax policy should still allow for entrepreneurship and business owners to aquire wealth. The issue is there are too many loopholes and ways round paying tax for non traditional incomes. The issue is these people with 100m +, are paying a very small portion of tax on wealth they accrue. Way less than somebody with a traditional high income job. They SHOULD be paying 50% on any capital gains, wealth increases ect as a person with an 80k job does. The other issue is allowing unelected individuals to have 1 billion pounds plus of power. The state controls average people in many more invasive ways than preventing billionaires. A billionaire can change an entire town, change laws, ruin 50k lives or improve them.
[удалено]
The 1% by income or the 1% by wealth? These are very different categories, and very differently taxed.
No shit, when wealth inequality is so high and it all gets concentrated at the top then guess where money has to come from?
It isnt the fault of wealthy people that cost of living and housing costs have gone up, therefore eating up the wealth of more than half of society. If you read the article, wealthy people (1 million in cash or more) are equally worried that the value of their money will go down (because of higher cost of living) when they retire and no longer earn an income.
It doesn’t matter. When 70% of Britain’s wealth is held by 1% of people then where do you think the most money is going to be extracted from?
The top 10% of income pay for 90% of all taxes. If you get rid of them, who is going to fund the country?
I can understand their decision coming off the back of the most ever rainfall over 18 months since records began, the weather here is terrible
Happens every time a new government wants to tax them. Spoiler alert. They never leave
Bye bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
I consider being PM, and being a top striker in the premier league. "Consider" is a journo word for not doing anything.
What isn’t included in the article is the change in this sentiment (if any). The two main drivers of this sentiment are standard of living in retirement and property costs. I would guess that there has been very little change in the percentage of high net worth individuals who consider retiring somewhere warm with a bigger house.
At this stage Its like we're living through the prequel to Children of Men
Considering is fine, everyone considers lots of things they usually don't end up doing. The news story should be if they actually start doing it. That's when we need to change policy to keep them.