UK is seeing anecdotal evidence that yes, it does cause millionaires to flee. Also gives well-earning non-millionaires the final push.
I'd argue it is less about the tax level and more about value for money. UK services are in a downward spiral while the taxes are going up, which I think is the core issue.
Even if you don't rely on, say, public healthcare as a rich person, it does affect you, as it pushes the equilibrium level for your premium service.
hermitcrab · 5h ago
>UK is seeing anecdotal evidence
Do you have any actual numbers, or just anecdata? The linked article quotes numbers.
Apparently UK is losing twice as many millionaires as China and while, granted, there may be restrictions on leaving, but still, the population is about 20x bigger.
The article seems to be paywalled for me, so sadly I didn't get to their hard evidence bit.
hermitcrab · 16m ago
"An estimated 16,500 millionaires are set to leave"
That is not the same as people actually leaving.
Also I am happy for them to&^%$ off and not pay tax somewhere else. Good riddance.
JohnFen · 6h ago
Let's find out!
jqpabc123 · 7h ago
I'm guessing only if they have some better place to flee to.
cadamsdotcom · 2h ago
Exactly. You look at the chart with Central Park and all the districts around it and think, where tf they gonna go instead of that??
hermitcrab · 7h ago
I'm reliably informed that Mars is a hellhole.
treetalker · 6h ago
And just imagine it populated by millionaires!
hermitcrab · 6h ago
Imagine having a billionaire with a fragile ego and the emotional development of a 10 year old, deciding whether you get your weekly supply of oxygen.
atmavatar · 6h ago
Wasn't that a big part of the plot of Total Recall?
hermitcrab · 5h ago
Yes. In the film the authorities cut off oxygen to people rebelling against their authoritarian rule. Which is very bad. But imagine it happening because you posted something slightly mean on social media.
hermitcrab · 6h ago
I suspect a good percentage of the people reading HN fully expect to be millionaires or billionaires one day, so they probably aren't too keen to increase taxes for the super rich.
A million dollars of accumulated wealth was a lot of money, when the term was first coined in the 18th century. Nowadays, not so much.
bryanlarsen · 4h ago
Anybody with a good pension plan is effectively a millionaire too. Upon retirement you're likely better off with a pension plan that pays a guaranteed $40K/year than with a million dollars in the bank.
josefritzishere · 3h ago
Pensions are almost unobtanium in the US.
bryanlarsen · 2h ago
15 percent of American workers in the private sector have a job with a defined benefit pension. (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/15-percent-of-private-indu...). Most workers in the public sector have a defined benefit pension, which almost doubles the number.
25% of workers is a significant percentage.
spwa4 · 3h ago
The problem is what governments mean by "super rich" and what people expect it to mean. They expect it to mean 10 million in assets and up, at minimum.
What governments mean: $30k in "assets" and up. I get it. If you don't do that the tax base is too small, and they just preemptively give up on taxing the actual super-rich.
I'm quite allright with taxing billionnaires, no question. Even when in the millions, by all means, tax away. But please only start increasing tax when we're like 50% above a downpayment for a decent house. And this is not what's happening.
tharmas · 4h ago
The problem is what the rich do with their money: namely asset purchases. Todays rich don't invest in production only asset accumulation. All those years of ZIRP has just resulted in the rich buying up property, hence the high house prices.
Tax the rent-seeking-asset-accumulation rich. Don't tax the rich that invest in production. And tax the banks heavily for loans for asset buying. Encourage the banks to loan for investment in production.
josefritzishere · 5h ago
Gary Stevenson of gary's economics argues that the rich are much less mobile than working people. In owning land, assetts, and businesses it's very difficult for them to leave or for their departure to insulate them from taxation. In short, the Rich are very easy to tax and it's hard to them to evade just by changing primary residence. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Mcf6dbxUVx0
incomingpain · 7h ago
Very well studied; pretty much the decline of california right now; and city of detroit as examples where this happens.
A great example was Sweden who implemented a "financial transaction tax" of ~2% which was insane. Stockholm exchange dropped well over 60%, about 50% of which moved to London UK. Liquidity in stockholm essentially went to 0, which means no more retirees.
A shocking amount of businesses fled sweden and they had to repeal their own tax because it was essentially crippling their entire country. It was so bad that the government was forced to greatly deregulate the financial markets to attract businesses back. In the end they killed their own stock market and it had to be sold to a private entity. 10 years after their idiotic tax did they even start to see recovery.
Better yet, this recovery was mostly dotcom bubble stocks that eventually popped only years later further setting back stockholm. Recovery was probably about 2005? Luckily they were significantly impacted by the financial crisis.
tldr: a 2% tax on millionaires caused so many to flee that even after repealing, 20 years of damage continued.
hermitcrab · 7h ago
>tldr: a 2% tax on millionaires caused so many to flee that even after repealing, 20 years of damage continued.
A 2% financial transaction tax is very different a 2% income tax though, isn't it?
incomingpain · 6h ago
>A 2% financial transaction tax is very different a 2% income tax though, isn't it?
The severity of the tax is what makes the story worth telling.
It's important to note as well. When you're talking about "millionaires" it's extremely rare for anyone to be under 40.
The 68 year old retiree is who a millionaire tax hits; but they are specifically the people who are dreaming to move to florida or a tropical island. All of these destinations are actively doing marketing to attract such people to spend their savings in their country.
Florida for example calls it's EB5 visa where you move your money out of sweden and into the usa and you permanently stay in the usa.
hermitcrab · 6h ago
>The severity of the tax is what makes the story worth telling.
I wouldn't call an extra 2% tax on income above $1m per year severe.
You will notice that Americas economic decline largely begins when Regan lowered the top rate in 1980, starting the tread that ends up where we are today.
_DeadFred_ · 2h ago
We never get analysis on what returns trickle down economics have given us, but tons and tons of thought and analysis on why we have to keep doing it. You'd think after 40 years there would be some numbers to work with. Instead they sell it with fear 'the rich will leave'. If there is a real economic benefit you would think they would try and sell it with the REAL benefits it has brought us these last 40 years.
I'd argue it is less about the tax level and more about value for money. UK services are in a downward spiral while the taxes are going up, which I think is the core issue.
Even if you don't rely on, say, public healthcare as a rich person, it does affect you, as it pushes the equilibrium level for your premium service.
Do you have any actual numbers, or just anecdata? The linked article quotes numbers.
Apparently UK is losing twice as many millionaires as China and while, granted, there may be restrictions on leaving, but still, the population is about 20x bigger.
The article seems to be paywalled for me, so sadly I didn't get to their hard evidence bit.
That is not the same as people actually leaving.
Also I am happy for them to&^%$ off and not pay tax somewhere else. Good riddance.
25% of workers is a significant percentage.
What governments mean: $30k in "assets" and up. I get it. If you don't do that the tax base is too small, and they just preemptively give up on taxing the actual super-rich.
I'm quite allright with taxing billionnaires, no question. Even when in the millions, by all means, tax away. But please only start increasing tax when we're like 50% above a downpayment for a decent house. And this is not what's happening.
Tax the rent-seeking-asset-accumulation rich. Don't tax the rich that invest in production. And tax the banks heavily for loans for asset buying. Encourage the banks to loan for investment in production.
A great example was Sweden who implemented a "financial transaction tax" of ~2% which was insane. Stockholm exchange dropped well over 60%, about 50% of which moved to London UK. Liquidity in stockholm essentially went to 0, which means no more retirees.
A shocking amount of businesses fled sweden and they had to repeal their own tax because it was essentially crippling their entire country. It was so bad that the government was forced to greatly deregulate the financial markets to attract businesses back. In the end they killed their own stock market and it had to be sold to a private entity. 10 years after their idiotic tax did they even start to see recovery.
Better yet, this recovery was mostly dotcom bubble stocks that eventually popped only years later further setting back stockholm. Recovery was probably about 2005? Luckily they were significantly impacted by the financial crisis.
tldr: a 2% tax on millionaires caused so many to flee that even after repealing, 20 years of damage continued.
A 2% financial transaction tax is very different a 2% income tax though, isn't it?
The severity of the tax is what makes the story worth telling.
It's important to note as well. When you're talking about "millionaires" it's extremely rare for anyone to be under 40.
The 68 year old retiree is who a millionaire tax hits; but they are specifically the people who are dreaming to move to florida or a tropical island. All of these destinations are actively doing marketing to attract such people to spend their savings in their country.
Florida for example calls it's EB5 visa where you move your money out of sweden and into the usa and you permanently stay in the usa.
I wouldn't call an extra 2% tax on income above $1m per year severe.
US taxes have been much higher than they are now:
https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/whole-ball-...