Ian H
Squire
I know what it is, but that's the impression I get, especially at avatar-size. Seems appropriate though.
16,500 millionaires will leave Britain? Total rubbish. Yet leading figures of the right have fallen for it, including the Shadow Home Secretary! It takes just 30 seconds to expose the truth:
Look at who’s repeating this line with absolutely no fact checking. None of them thought to ask the most important question: Who’s behind the story, and why?
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The company pushing this figure is Henley & Partners. It helps rich people flee abroad to avoid paying tax. So it’s like asking a car salesman if you need a new car. That’d be fine if their approach were sound. Sadly, that’s not the case.
The research doesn’t actually track where millionaires live. It just looks at *where they say they work* on LinkedIn. So if you change your office location, you’ve ‘moved countries’. Things get even more misleading when you see who they’re tracking – and who they’re not.
Henley only tracks millionaires with >$1m in liquid assets (like cash and stocks). That’s only 20% of UK millionaires, so it’s heavily skewed towards the most mobile ones. But the biggest problem is that the 16,500 figure is a *forecast*. How are they seeing the future?
There’s a lengthy section on Henley’s website explaining their methodology. What do they say about how they get to the 16,500 figure: nothing. Let’s be generous and assume it’s accurate. Even then, it’s a very underwhelming stat.
16,500 is only 0.63% of millionaires. That’s less than 1 in 100. If 100 people are at a party, and one person leaves, would you call that an exodus? And there’s one final killer detail.
The number of UK millionaires has grown 10x faster than those leaving! Since 2017, we’ve gained 435,000 millionaires while allegedly losing 41,400. So is Britain losing all its millionaires? No. Literally the opposite is true.
Henley only tracks millionaires with >$1m in liquid assets (like cash and stocks).
Ok it's a bit more than spare change, but 'millionaire' doesn't seem to refer to the sort of incomprehensible riches it did when I was a lad.
Not really, because it makes the assumption that the wealth is on-shore, and generally if you are that wealthy it *isn't*.
I'm not at your beck & call, sonny.
BTW why the teenage boy with the quivering lip as your avatar? Something we should know?
A strange concatenation. Your point being?
A strange concatenation. Your point being?