Henley & Partners publish their Private Wealth Migration Report once a year.

In their latest edition, the UK ranks dead last — for the first time — with a net outflow of 16,500 millionaires.

This figure has been quoted in Parliament, picked up by newspapers, and used to frame debates about Britain’s global competitiveness.

It’s a very worrying number - but It’s also quite hard to verify.

Tim Harford looked into this claim on his BBC podcast More or Less.

He interviewed the head of research at New World Wealth, who did the research underlying the migration report – who explained that their estimates rely on social media profiles, press coverage, and company filings.

Hartford argued in his podcast – quite rightly - that their sample was not representative and that you couldn’t draw conclusions from it…

Dan Neidle – of Tax Policy Associates - went further - in a forensic review published on his website he pointed out that the report was riddled with statistical red flags.

The firm had dropped all property wealth from its analysis between 2023 and 2025, yet its millionaire counts barely moved — a result Neidle described as “impossible” if the published methodology were real.

New World Wealth later told the FT that they hadn’t actually changed their methodology – just their description of it.

Neidle found digit patterns in the data with a suspiciously high frequency of even numbers and numbers where trailing digits cluster on 0s and 5s, with almost no 1s.

Statistically – he points out - the chance of that occurring naturally is about 1 in 240,000.

More evidence – he says - that the numbers were either manually created or manually adjusted.

Neidle’s analysis used well-established techniques to detect rigged numbers.

He concluded – that the figures were likely engineered rather than observed.

Now this doesn’t mean that the rich are not leaving the UK – it just means that it is very difficult to know whether they are or not - simply because good data doesn’t exist.

To highlight the difficulty - the UK Office for Statistics Regulation recently suspended the official statistics status of the governments own Wealth and Assets Survey collected by the Office for National Statistics following concerns raised by the ONS that the data is no longer of sufficient quality to meet users’ needs.”

The Financial Times in a separate analysis - found that a wave of company directors have left Britain since the government abolished its favorable tax treatment for non-domiciled residents and raised other duties on the wealthy.

They analyzed Companies House filings, looking for directors of UK firms who’ve updated their addresses to overseas jurisdictions.

This is not perfect methodology either – which the FT highlighted in their column - as plenty of wealthy people don’t run companies, and plenty of directors don’t update their filings in a timely manner.

But a trend is visible in the data. In the most recent period, 3,790 directors reported leaving the UK, up from 2,712 the year before – and a spike that occurred in April coincides with the new tax changes.

There are other signals being reported too.

Butler agencies report fewer placements.

Wealth managers say some clients are leaving and London’s luxury property market has softened.

None of this is conclusive. But it’s not nothing either.

The UK’s non-dom tax regime is not a recent invention.

It dates back to the very first income tax in 1799, introduced by William Pitt the Younger to fund the Napoleonic Wars.

At the time, all residents were taxed only on UK income.

In 1915, the rules changed: UK residents were taxed on worldwide income — unless they could claim non-domiciled status – and that carve-out remained largely intact for over a century.

"Non-dom" describes a UK resident whose permanent home for tax purposes is outside the UK.

Domicile under British tax law has always been a bit of a funny thing it’s the place they consider to be their permanent home and where they have the closest ties and it refers to their tax status, and doesn’t necessarily relate to their, citizenship or resident status - although it can be affected by these factors.

A non-dom only paid UK tax on the money they earned in the UK.

They didn’t have to pay tax to the UK government on money made elsewhere in the world - unless they transfer that money back into the UK.

For wealthy individuals, this presented the opportunity for significant - and entirely legal – tax savings – especially if you could claim a lower-tax country as your domicile.

One of the best known non-doms was former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's wife – who after a scandal broke a few years ago – announced that she would start paying UK tax on her worldwide income.

Attempts to reform the non-dom rules over the years were frequent.

Labour nearly abolished it in 1974.

Nigel Lawson tried again in 1988.

During the financial crisis - the regime was tightened in 2008 – where annual charges were introduced for long-term non-doms — you had to pay £30,000 a year if you had been resident in the UK for seven of the past nine years, and £60,000 a year if you had been resident for twelve of the past fourteen years.

The remittance basis was preserved, but access became more expensive and conditional.

George Osborne made further changes in 2017, removing benefits for those who had lived in the UK for fifteen of the past twenty years.

But each time adjustments were made, Treasury officials warned of tax flight, and ministers backed down.

The fear was that driving the wealthy abroad would harm the economy more than it would benefit from taxing them on their foreign earned income.

In March 2024, then-Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced the abolition of the non dom rule ahead of the general elections.

In October, Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed the policy’s end, extending it to offshore trusts to prevent inheritance tax avoidance.

Now, foreign income and gains are taxed in the UK - as they are earned - once an individual has been resident in the UK for four years.

On top of that, inheritance tax will apply to worldwide assets after ten years, and continue for ten years after departure.

The excluded property trust loophole is closed and the concept of domicile for tax purposes has been retired.

There are transitional rules.

Assets held before April 2025 can be rebased.

Foreign income and gains can be brought into the UK at a flat 12% rate for a limited time.

New arrivals get a four-year grace period under the “Qualifying New Resident” regime.

But the overall direction is clear: the UK is no longer a tax haven for the globally mobile.

The Office for Budget Responsibility say that they expect up to 25% of non-doms to leave the UK.

The Treasury forecasts £12.7 billion pounds in revenue over five years.

Research from Warwick University suggests the fears of mass departure may be overstated – as when Osborne’s 2017 change took effect, only 6% of affected non-doms left the UK.

Those who stayed paid significantly more tax — on average, an extra £100,000 pounds per year and the predicted mass exodus never came.

The debate is still not over – this June - the Financial Times reported that Chancellor Rachel Reeves was exploring a partial reversal of the inheritance tax changes, following lobbying from the City of London and a spate of high-profile departures.

The government is said to be considering adjustments to the ten-year tail or reintroducing trust protections.

No formal announcement has been made, but the Treasury is watching the fallout closely.

There are signs that some of the rich are leaving - London’s luxury property market has softened – in particular in the neighborhoods where wealthy foreigners tend to live.

Butler agencies report fewer placements.

Wealth managers say some clients are leaving.

Recruiters in Mayfair and Belgravia are seeing fewer inquiries from ultra-high-net-worth individuals.

Private club memberships are down.

Some of the big family offices have quietly shifted operations to Switzerland and the UAE.

The VAT change on private school fees has added to the mood.

From January 2025, independent schools are subject to 20% VAT.

The government expects a 10% average fee increase and up to 35,000 pupils to shift to state schools.

For wealthy families already considering relocation, it’s one more nudge.

There have been a number of high-profile exits.

Lakshmi Mittal the Indian born founder of Arcelor Mittal and Britain’s seventh wealthiest man is reported to be leaving as is Nassef Sawiris’ - Egypt’s richest person.

Richard Gnodde – the South African born vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International has left Britain for Milan.

Anne Beaufour, the Sanofi heiress, moved her tax residence to Switzerland.

A study of non-doms in 2018 — and those who had claimed the status since 1997 — found that more than 93% were born abroad, and another 4% had lived abroad for a substantial period.

Most have genuine international ties.

When the UK changes the rules, these people have real ties abroad and can choose lower tax regimes.

A paper from the London School of Economics on Tax Flight points out that people who have already migrated once - tend to be more responsive than natives to tax changes and there is often a statistically significant migration response overall.

None of this proves a mass departure. But it’s not just noise either.

HMRC payroll data this August found no evidence to suggest that more non-doms left Britain than the 25% official prediction, according to the Financial Times.

Countries around the world are constantly adjusting their tax regimes.

Some are tightening rules. Others are designing systems to attract wealthy individuals.

Switzerland offers lump-sum taxation to high net worth individuals where a flat tax rate can be negotiated with local government authorities.

Italy introduced a one hundred thousand euro flat tax on foreign income in 2017, later raising it to two hundred thousand euros.

This has been popular with footballers, fashion executives, and hedge fund managers.

Portugal replaced its Non-Habitual Resident regime in 2024 with a narrower scheme focused on innovation and research.

The UAE has no personal income tax and a 9% corporate tax above a million dollars.

Andorra offers a 10% income tax, no wealth tax, and no inheritance tax.

Golden visas are part of the strategy too.

The UAE offers long-term residency to investors.

Italy and Greece have property-linked visa schemes.

Donald Trump recently proposed a $5 million dollar “Gold Card” visa for the US — a rebranding of the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa with fewer restrictions.

To highlight how complicated some of this can be – last month, several senior bankers from Pictet — one of Switzerland’s most prestigious private banks — relocated to Italy where they could get lower taxes.

The move triggered a tax debate in Geneva.

A point of contention is that some foreigners in Switzerland pay less tax than citizens.

Critics argued that Switzerland’s rigid enforcement was pushing talent away, while Italy’s flat-tax regime was pulling it in.

Tax is only part of the equation.

Wealthy individuals also consider lifestyle, legal stability, and access to global markets.

Jurisdictions that offer the right mix attract the rich while others lose them.

Gabriel Zucman, the French economist known for his work on tax havens and inequality, has proposed a 2% annual wealth tax on billionaires.

The idea gained traction in France’s political circles earlier this year, with support from parts of the left and criticism from business leaders and economists across the spectrum.

Zucman argues that the ultra-wealthy are undertaxed relative to their income and assets.

His proposal is designed to be enforceable through international cooperation and automatic exchange of financial information.

He’s also advising the G20 on global wealth taxation, pushing for a coordinated approach that would prevent capital flight.

France has a history with wealth taxes.

It repealed its own version in 2017 after years of debate over its effectiveness.

The tax raised modest revenue and was blamed for driving wealthy residents to Belgium, Switzerland, and the UK.

The debate over how taxes should work has spilled across borders.

The former French Prime minister, recently accused Italy of engaging in “fiscal dumping” by luring wealthy French citizens with its flat-tax regime.

The Pictet bankers’ move from Geneva to Milan has sparked fierce debate in Switzerland.

Wealth taxes are politically popular but economically fragile.

According to Economics Observatory the number of OECD countries with annual wealth taxes dropped from 12 in 1990 to just 3 today.

The reasons for dropping them are consistent: low yield, high avoidance, and administrative complexity.

Mobility is no longer limited to billionaires.

Increasingly, professionals in the upper-middle class are making decisions about where to live based on tax, lifestyle, and legal stability.

The barriers to relocation have dropped.

Remote work, international schools, and digital infrastructure have made it easier to live abroad without severing ties to home.

In the United States, internal migration reflects similar patterns.

States like Florida, Texas, and Tennessee — which have no state income tax — continue to attract high earners from California, New York, and Illinois.

The shift isn’t just about tax. It’s also about housing costs, crime rates, and the quality of public services.

Digital nomad visas have added another layer.

Estonia, Portugal, and Barbados offer residency to remote workers earning above a certain threshold.

These programmes target professionals who aren’t wealthy in the traditional sense but have portable incomes and flexible careers.

Citizenship planning has become a cottage industry.

Wealthy families now hold multiple passports, not for travel convenience but for legal and financial flexibility.

Some jurisdictions offer “Plan B” citizenships — second passports designed to hedge against political or fiscal instability.

The wealthy have always been mobile.

What’s changed is the scale.

Mobility now extends to a broader segment of the population, and governments are adjusting their policies accordingly.

Governments are starting to run out of room.

Across Europe, deficits are widening, and the cost of borrowing is no longer trivial.

The post-pandemic debt pile hasn’t shrunk; it’s instead been layered with new obligations — energy subsidies, inflation-linked benefits, and now, military spending.

Ageing populations combined with high retirement benefits aren’t helping either.

Governments need to either raise taxes or cut spending – and there appears to be no desire to cut spending.

Tax revenue has to come from somewhere.

But the traditional targets — consumption, corporate profits, and middle-income earners — are already strained.

This is the tension: fiscal sustainability demands revenue while global competitiveness demands restraint.

The balance is hard to strike — and easy to lose.

In the 1970s, Britain raised its top marginal tax rate to 83%, and 98% on unearned income — which means investment income and royalties.

The response was quick.

The Beatles — whose music publishing income would have been classified as unearned income — shifted their financial operations offshore.

The Rolling Stones left for France.

Film stars, bankers, and industrialists followed.

Sotheby’s held auctions on heirlooms from shuttered estates.

Stately homes emptied out.

The tax code became a deterrent.

High earners who could move did.

Today, the top rate of income tax in the UK on most income is 45%, so you would expect that there must have been a lot more income tax paid in the 1970s than today.

But this chart from Tax Policy Associates shows that income tax raised about the same in the 1970s (as a percentage of GDP) as it does today.

The rich didn’t end up paying a higher percentage of taxes back then either.

When taxes were at their highest in 1978 and 1979, the top 1% paid 11% of all income tax collected.

Today in the UK, the top 1% will pay about 29% of all income tax collected.

There are a few reasons for that.

Firstly, the top 1% today earn a lot more than the top 1% did in the late ’70s.

The nature of how money is made today — where technology can be leveraged to build scalable income — means that income is less tied to “hours worked” than it was in the past.

Secondly, in the wake of the financial crisis, tax rates went up a lot for high earners.

Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, high earners are often in a position where they can control the size of their incomes and the timing of payments.

While the Beatles and the Rolling Stones couldn’t slow down their royalty payments, a business owner or senior executive could defer payments — waiting for a better tax rate.

Why would you pay yourself a high dividend if the government would take 98% of it?

You would just leave it in the company.

In the 1970s, benefits in kind were undertaxed or completely untaxed.

An executive could eat out, have a company car, take holidays, and enjoy club memberships — all without being taxed.

As Dan Neidle explains in his blog, the UK tax policies of the 1970s were a failure.

They failed to tax the rich effectively, they failed to fix the government’s fiscal problems, and they drove many wealthy Brits abroad — who never came back.

The 1970s are remembered for strikes and stagflation.

But they also marked a turning point in how Britain treated globally mobile wealth.

When the cost of staying rises, those with options start looking elsewhere.

Those calling for a return to those types of policy are often doing so out of a desire to punish high earners.

According to Dan Neidle, the lessons that can be drawn from that era are that the best way to tax the wealthy is to expand the base and close loopholes.

While that makes a less snappy soundbite than sending rates sky-high, the evidence and the history show that it’s fairer and much more effective.

The debate around wealth inequality often starts with a statistic and ends with a slogan.

Oxfam’s claim that “the richest 1% own more than the rest of the world combined” gets repeated frequently — but the methodology behind it is rarely examined.

The figure includes negative net worth, which means a recent medical school graduate with student debt is counted as poorer than a homeless person — with no debt, but no employment prospects.

That’s not a meaningful comparison.

Another example: Jerome Kerviel, the rogue trader who lost billions for Société Générale, is technically one of the poorest people in the world by net worth.

His debts are so large they skew the data.

But he’s not representative of global poverty.

In the UK, the top 1% pay around 29% of all income tax.

That share has risen over time, not fallen.

The idea that the wealthy aren’t contributing is popular — but it’s not supported by the numbers.

Inequality exists, but the shape of it is more complex than the headlines suggest.

Many of those counted as “wealthy” are business owners with volatile income, or professionals with high earnings but limited assets.

Where you live matters too - you can probably live more comfortably on fifty thousand dollars a year in Texas than on a hundred thousand dollars a year in California — where everything costs a lot more.

Many of those counted in broad based statistics as being “poor” are young, educated, and on upward trajectories.

According to research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, high earners in the UK are not a stable group — a quarter of those in the top 1% in one year will not be there the next.

After five years, only half will still be in the top 1%.

Research from Cornell University shows that about 11 percent of American workers will move into the top 1 percent of income earners for at least a year between the ages of 25 and 60.

Hopefully you can see that the data is a bit more complicated than it first appears — and you need to look past the headlines and slogans to see what’s going on.

Whether the rich are leaving the UK or not in meaningful numbers is hard to pin down based on the available data it will take some time to work that out.

But the bigger issue is whether people — especially those with options — feel they’re getting value for money.

Tax isn’t just about rates. It’s about trust.

In Sweden, high taxes are tolerated because the system is transparent, the institutions are trusted, and the public services work.

Civil servants disclose their financial interests and one phone call will get you your lawmaker's tax statements.

That kind of openness builds legitimacy — and with it, compliance.

In the UK and the US, trust in government is lower.

Tax systems are more complex.

And when people feel their money is wasted or mismanaged, they start looking for the exit.

There’s no perfect formula.

But history offers clues, and the international landscape offers comparisons.

The challenge is to tax fairly, fund public services, and remain globally competitive — all at the same time.

If you found this video interesting – you should watch this one next.

Don’t forget to check out our sponsor DeleteMe using the link in the description and talk to you in the next video – bye.