How many UK £10m+ millionaires

[Gerry557]

Well so far my question remains unanswered.

I might have to see if I can get a seat on Question Time and ask a Green

[the0ni0nking]

Well so far my question remains unanswered.

I might have to see if I can get a seat on Question Time and ask a Green

Surely the point here is that no-one knows.

There is no requirement to declare your wealth position in terms of value to HMRC or any other statistical body so any number would be based on high level assumptions etc.

And SA returns aren't a means to get that - as that doesn't given any indication to HMRC as to what I may have splurged my post tax earning on - it could be a yacht or it could be loads of coke, alcohol and women (not necessarily in that order).

[Lootman]

Well so far my question remains unanswered.

I might have to see if I can get a seat on Question Time and ask a Green

Surely the point here is that no-one knows.

There is no requirement to declare your wealth position in terms of value to HMRC or any other statistical body so any number would be based on high level assumptions etc.

And SA returns aren't a means to get that - as that doesn't given any indication to HMRC as to what I may have splurged my post tax earning on - it could be a yacht or it could be loads of coke, alcohol and women (not necessarily in that order).

Indeed and of course the imposition of a wealth tax, or even the suggestion of an imposition of one, might cause more wealth to vanish down one of those rabbit holes.

The people the envy mob are after (£10 million plus net worth types) are not stupid. They could move mobile wealth overseas whilst loading up their UK assets with debt.

It also matters what effective date would be chosen for such a tax. If in the past it may be hard to get records of valuations. If in the future it gives time for evasive action.

[Gerry557]

Well so far my question remains unanswered.

I might have to see if I can get a seat on Question Time and ask a Green

Surely the point here is that no-one knows.

There is no requirement to declare your wealth position in terms of value to HMRC or any other statistical body so any number would be based on high level assumptions etc.

And SA returns aren't a means to get that - as that doesn't given any indication to HMRC as to what I may have splurged my post tax earning on - it could be a yacht or it could be loads of coke, alcohol and women (not necessarily in that order).

It's OK not to know, I don't either but why isn't the MSM asking simple questions like this. When the Greens give a number, where did they get it from.

[the0ni0nking]

I wonder if they are using the stats from Henley Global (recently released Private Wealth Migration Report).

This says the UK has 602,500 millionaires, 830 centi-millionaires and 75 billionaires with millionaire growth -8% over the 2013-2023 period.

(‘Millionaires’ or ‘HNWIs’ refer to individuals with liquid investable wealth of USD 1 million or more.)

https://www.henleyglobal.com/publicatio ... h-rankings

Lots of data on their website which in all honesty I can't be bothered to trawl through but based on Googling, it seems the most likely comprehensive set of info available.

[UncleEbenezer]

(‘Millionaires’ or ‘HNWIs’ refer to individuals with liquid investable wealth of USD 1 million or more.)

Whose measure is that? In the UK you only need £250k to be classified as HNW.

Not sure about the US, but I had an idea it was higher than just $1m?

[Lootman]

(‘Millionaires’ or ‘HNWIs’ refer to individuals with liquid investable wealth of USD 1 million or more.)

Whose measure is that? In the UK you only need £250k to be classified as HNW.

Whose measure is that £250K figure? I think the average house price in the UK is about £300K, so that would imply that the average household is "high worth".

The HNWI definition often includes only wealth beyond your home but even then £250K just doesn't seem like very much these days. To my mind, at least in London, you need £5 million to be considered reasonably wealthy, including the value of your home and pension. As such a wealth tax starting at £10 million fits, even though I hate the idea.

[csearle]

In answer to the question I don't exactly know. I'm not a millionaire, about half-way there-ish but with way over half of my life lived I see wealth tax as fundamentally unfair and counter-productive. We have been taxed in all sorts of ways. If, after all that, it is simply taken from you for having accumulated it then that is IMO closer to theft than tax. C.

[the0ni0nking]

In answer to the question I don't exactly know. I'm not a millionaire, about half-way there-ish but with way over half of my life lived I see wealth tax as fundamentally unfair and counter-productive. We have been taxed in all sorts of ways. If, after all that, it is simply taken from you for having accumulated it then that is IMO closer to theft than tax. C.

One of the points often made here is that having accumulated money/wealth effectively through prudence by spending less than you earn, it then seems totally inappropriate to then tax that again.

Going back 20 years which is when I roughly started my accountancy training, I was at college at weekends numerous times, at college on an evening numerous times while plenty of my friends where chilling out after their 9-5, Mon-Fri job.

I feel now the UK doesn't encourage people now to put themselves out in that way to progress their career. So, as you may know, I'm in the process (subject to work support which there is a degree of a question mark over) of exiting the UK.

If I'm on that path, I do wonder how many other higher rate tax payers are thinking similar and the extent to which any taxation changes targeting those deemed affluent (either by cash or by assets) will be looking to exit too.

[Julian]

Whose measure is that? In the UK you only need £250k to be classified as HNW.

Whose measure is that £250K figure? I think the average house price in the UK is about £300K, so that would imply that the average household is "high worth".
...

UK law I think, used by for instance (and maybe only) the Financial Conduct Authority to regulate the selling of certain investments considered risky. The vetting can be pretty basic though, about as rigorous as keeping under-18s from accessing alcohol-related websites ("Are you over 18? - Yes / No"). I just went through HNWI "vetting" for something last week and it really was literally a "Do you qualify as a HNWI? - Yes / No" question in an app.

Incidentally, it looks as if the FCA agrees with you about that £250K figure being very low - https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/ ... ions-order

- Julian

[Gerry557]

I wonder if they are using the stats from Henley Global (recently released Private Wealth Migration Report).

This says the UK has 602,500 millionaires, 830 centi-millionaires and 75 billionaires with millionaire growth -8% over the 2013-2023 period.

(‘Millionaires’ or ‘HNWIs’ refer to individuals with liquid investable wealth of USD 1 million or more.)

https://www.henleyglobal.com/publicatio ... h-rankings

Lots of data on their website which in all honesty I can't be bothered to trawl through but based on Googling, it seems the most likely comprehensive set of info available.

Well that helps even though it's using dollar values.

Looking at the Uk Billionaires list on Wikipedia thay have approx 176bn so 2% over the period the Green are talking then there is an argument to be made that they could get their £15bn.

It assumes they all a UK tax resident and they will all stay and keep stumping up in addition to all the taxes that they are already paying, some of which are likely to rise too.

Looking at the list of names I think some won't be UK tax payers. Plus I would expect some not to keep taking it on the chin.

In fact we rank second behind China of millionaire migration. That's not good even before any wealth tax kicks in.

[UncleEbenezer]

Incidentally, it looks as if the FCA agrees with you about that £250K figure being very low - https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/ ... ions-order

- Julian

Seems they also agree another point I might make if discussing the matter: the definition of sophisticated investor. If you have two investments in unlisted companies, you quality. So quite apart from the situation where family members run their own companies to do contracting work and share ownership, anyone who engages in crowdfunding - even just a couple of £10 flutters - technically qualifies.

But the whole way they've gone about "protecting" the "vulnerable" seems to me hopelessly flawed at a much deeper level than mere definitions affecting who gets protected. And that's setting aside the argument over whether it's any business of government at all, beyond outlawing and occasionally trying to prosecute outright fraud.