UK Millionaire exodus did not occur, study reveals

Source bias & study quality

• Many commenters question the Tax Justice Network review as much as the original Henley report.
• Both are seen as advocacy products: Henley sells golden visas; Tax Justice campaigns for higher taxes.
• Critics say the TJN piece mostly notes that 9,500 departures is only 0.3% of 3.06M “millionaires”, without really addressing whether those 9,500 are the most mobile/high‑value or whether the trend is rising.
• Others argue that interest‑group reports are inevitable; what matters is whether data, citations and methods can be checked.

Who is a “millionaire”?

• A recurring complaint: using all “dollar millionaires” (often just homeowners + pensions) as the denominator hides what’s happening among the truly wealthy.
• Henley focuses on “liquid millionaires” (≥$1M in investable assets), about 20% of UK millionaires; critics of TJN think that’s exactly the group that can and does move.
• Several note that in the UK and elsewhere, being a paper millionaire is now middle‑class, especially for older homeowners.

Do higher taxes actually drive migration?

• Many argue location is “sticky”: family, schools, business networks and quality of life outweigh tax savings for most high earners. Examples: California, Massachusetts, Norway.
• Others give counter‑anecdotes: wealthy friends leaving the UK, Norway, Washington State, or exploring Dubai/Switzerland; they stress that even small numbers at the top can matter because wealth is highly concentrated.
• Some say short time windows (1–2 years) are too brief; exodus and under‑investment would show up over 5+ years in tax receipts and weak new investment rather than sudden headcounts.

UK non-dom regime and fairness

• Non‑dom status (now abolished) let foreign residents avoid UK tax on overseas income for relatively small flat fees.
• Several see its end as basic fairness: ordinary high earners paid full rates while ultra‑rich residents paid very little; others worry truly mobile ultra‑rich may now leave London.
• There’s disagreement on whether losing such residents matters if their assets and companies largely stay put versus the loss of high‑end professional‑services activity.

Wealth taxes, incentives, and alternatives

• Norway and the Netherlands are used as case studies: defenders say modest wealth taxes barely touch most homeowners and fund strong services; critics claim they depress domestic ownership, risk capital and competitiveness, and push mid‑level “financially independent” people abroad.
• Some liken a 1% wealth tax to an extra 1% inflation—annoying but not catastrophic; others reply that assets and inflation don’t affect everyone equally.
• Multiple commenters advocate land‑value taxation as a better way to tax immobile wealth and curb property speculation, while others warn about gentrification and implementation pain.
• Broader normative split: one side sees progressive taxation as payment for the social infrastructure that makes wealth possible; the other prefers more direct “user fee”–style funding and worries high marginal and wealth taxes sap work and investment incentives.

Media narratives and propaganda

• Several note the “millionaires will flee” line as a longstanding scare tactic used to weaken tax reforms, often amplified by media owned by wealthy interests.
• Others point out that rich opponents also fund PR and social‑media campaigns (e.g., around wealth taxes in Norway), but that such campaigns can backfire when they focus voters on taxes that affect only a small elite.