‘I'm a millionaire fleeing Britain – a Reeves U-turn would stop me leaving'
I have a spreadsheet open in front of me on my computer, detailing the exact number of days I have left to stay in the UK this tax year. The reason? Labour's changes to non-doms inheritance tax rules.
The changes are so costly that they have forced me to reconsider where I live. When my days in the UK run out, I will not spend time in some tax haven; I'll just go back home to South Africa and work out the next steps.
If Rachel Reeves reverses the inheritance tax change for non-doms, I would unequivocally stay and grow my venture capital business in the UK.
I know so many other millionaires in my situation. Many have left but still have properties here and have not yet completely settled in their new homes.
Half of these people would rush back if the rules around paying inheritance tax on worldwide assets changed, because we are all upset to leave and feel forced.
But the Chancellor must act quickly before it is too late.
I want to keep investing in growth companies like I did with quantum computing start-up Oxford Ionics, which last week sold for $1.1bn (£820m) to a US firm.
But after raising £500m to invest in Britain's most exciting start-ups since I arrived here in 2019, my future investment will now be elsewhere.
This money will likely help grow companies in mainland Europe instead. It is a shame, as Oxford and Cambridge are where the most exciting cutting-edge projects are happening.
But I am sadly certainly not going to bring any more money to the UK if I cannot stay.
Refugee to millionaire
I know people will say: 'It's just inheritance tax. What does it matter if you are dead?'
My businesses are my life's work. I want them to secure my sons' futures.
I grew up with very little, fleeing communist Poland as a child refugee with my parents and two siblings when the country started running out of food in the early 1980s.
The only way to get out was to flee with fake papers.
We spent the whole of 1981 in a migrant camp in Austria, where my parents applied to countries accepting refugees.
We ended up in South Africa without knowing anything about the country or the apartheid regime. We didn't speak English and had $500 to our name.
In the next years, we were just about surviving. I studied actuarial science at university because that was the only way to get a bursary, and we had no money for schooling.
After working for a couple of insurance companies, I realised I'm not diplomatic enough to be a corporate employee.
So I ended up in the world of start-ups and decided to start my own company. I gambled everything on it, putting my house up as collateral.
It is today one of South Africa's large financial services groups.
I came to the UK for security reasons in 2019, after speaking out against corruption in Jacob Zuma's government and being left fearing for my life.
Pushed out
London has become my home. I had hoped to live here for the rest of my life. Being forced to leave for reasons outside my control feels much like grief.
The impact goes beyond just my own personal circumstances. I have had to let 12 casual household staff go – gardeners, cleaners, builders.
While I still have a venture capital firm, Braavos, in Britain, I will not hire anyone new here. Over time, I may have to think about relocating it.
I put my flat in Kensington on the market five months ago, but because so many like me are leaving there are hardly any buyers.
I'm considering putting my house that I love up for sale too, but for now I am holding out for a miracle.
If there is none, I will be forced to go once my 90 days in Britain this tax year are up. I'm leaving on the strong advice of my tax advisers, as the new rules around inheritance are unworkable for me.
For one, South Africa has foreign exchange controls. That means if I were to die under current rules, South Africa may refuse to release the funds to settle a huge inheritance tax bill in Britain.
Even ignoring the difficulty of getting the money out, my wealth is mainly held in the form of shares in the financial services company Sygnia, which I founded and built in South Africa.
My sons would be forced to sell those shares quickly. If you want to sell anything fast, you'll have to do so with a big discount, which would devalue the company.
How can this be good for the economy?
If Reeves changes her mind, I would immediately cancel my plans to leave. I could rehire all of my household staff, take my property off the market and focus on raising funds for another investment fund to boost British growth companies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
24 minutes ago
- BBC News
Gloucester have spent 'wisely'
Gloucester have spent their money "wisely" this season, believes director of rugby George Cherry and Whites released 13 senior players this summer, with 13 new faces signed heading into the 2025-26 narrowly missed out on a place in the Premiership play-offs last season, finishing fifth in the table, just two points behind Bristol despite winning the same number of matches."The way we've recruited for next season is we've got a bigger squad, we've got an unbelievable amount of talent," Skivington told BBC Radio Gloucestershire."We're a more talented squad next year, there's a few [new players] we're hedging our bets on - some are going to come through, some aren't. "They haven't all got the experience of 200 caps in the Premiership but we've spent our money really wisely and for Gloucester that is really important. The model is different." Making Gloucester a sustainable club has been the aim of the owners for a number of years since the Covid-19 the 10 Premiership clubs, Gloucester were the closest to breaking even when the most recent set of accounts was released for 2022-23, although their debt still totalled £541,000 that players including full-back Santiago Carreras, centre Chris Harris and back-row Ruan Ackermann, who amassed more than 400 club appearances between them, are among those exiting Gloucester have increased their squad size from 35 to 40 for next signings blend youth and experience and include Ireland fly-half Ross Byrne, South African back row James Venter and New Zealand prop Nepo Laulala plus full-back Ben Redshaw, scrum-half Mike Austin and centre Will said it would have cost a "huge amount of money" to keep some of the players who have left and that the club is working towards more strength in depth. "We lost a couple of lads in key positions this season and we had to really anchor down, push people in and there were some really costly games for us," he said."I think we've spent our money smartly over the next couple of years." Gloucester have not finished in the Premiership play-offs since Skivington was appointed in 2020, but he believes they took a "massive step forward" last term after finishing ninth in the table the previous signing of scrum-half Tomos Williams proved to be a masterstroke, with the Welshman helping spearhead a new-look attacking style, and going on to win Premiership player of the Seb Atkinson, fly-half Charlie Atkinson and second row Arthur Clark have also all been called up to Steve Borthwick's England training squad this week, before their match against France."Tommy was outstanding and got all of the headlines but if you look at Arthur Clark, Freddie Thomas, the spine of our team was young Gloucester boys," Skivington said."Everything is done with purpose and I think we've got a really young, hungry squad with some really good senior players sitting in there which will drive the squad forward. Everyone, bar one or two, is on two or three-year deals."
Sky News
27 minutes ago
- Sky News
Assisted dying bill does 'not meet needs of patients', says Royal College of Psychiatrists
The Royal College of Psychiatrists' lead on assisted dying has told Sky News she is approaching Friday's vote by MPs "with professional trepidation". The medical organisation said the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in its current form did "not meet the needs of patients". It has also expressed concern over the shortage of qualified psychiatrists to take part in assisted dying panels, concerns around capacity assessment, and whether or not assisted dying will be interpreted as a treatment – because that would have a profound impact on the psychiatrist's decision-making process. Friday will be the first time the bill has been voted on in its entirety since last year's yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55. MPs are allowed to have a free vote on the bill, meaning they can decide based on their conscience instead of following party lines. The bill's supporters have said it is coming back to the Commons with better safeguards after more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent on it to date. But opponents claim the process has been rushed and that changes to the bill mean it is weaker than when it was first introduced. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Dr Annabel Price, the lead for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at the Royal College of Psychiatrists ( RCPsych), said: "We know that there is a strong association between a wish to hasten death and depression, and that there isn't adequate opportunity within the bill to assess somebody's needs and also to make sure that those needs are met, which might have an impact on their continued wish to want to end their life." The RCPsych was one of the first royal colleges to voice concerns about the bill in its current form. These fears have since been echoed by two more royal colleges, physicians and pathologists. It has provided written evidence to the bill's scrutiny committee, while Dr Price has provided oral evidence. She said the organisation had "actively engaged with parliamentarians throughout the process" and expressed concerns in two public statements. But despite all of this, the concerns raised have not been addressed, it is claimed. This has prompted worries because, under the bill, psychiatrists would have a leading role in assessing a patient's mental capacity when an assisted death has been requested. They would be on a panel alongside doctors, social workers, and a legal expert. The panel would not be expected to meet the patient during the process. Panel role 'doesn't map on to job of psychiatrist' Dr Price said the idea of making a clinical assessment of a patient's mental health ran contrary to everything a psychiatrist had been trained to do. She said: "The panel role doesn't really map on to the professional job and training of a psychiatrist. What psychiatrists are trained to do is the assessment and treatment of mental illness. "The panel role is really to check what the two other doctors have done and whether that patient meets the eligibility criteria. "And if they do, then they must be granted assisted dying. That doesn't really give room to identify meeting an unmet need, like depression for example, but there are lots of things that may be unmet, social difficulties, untreated pain and other physical symptoms, where that person might no longer want to die. "And it doesn't really give room for a psychiatrist to do what they're trained to do and where their expertise lies, which would be essentially a checking role." Clarification call Dr Price said other areas of the bill also needed urgent clarification. She said: "When somebody has a mental illness, our job is to see if we can treat that mental illness. The other area in the bill that hasn't really been addressed is the psychiatrist's responsibility around suicide prevention. "When we meet somebody who wants to end their life, we have a duty to that patient and that duty may involve assessing that patient under the Mental Health Act to try to manage the mental health aspects that may be making them want to die. And there really isn't enough detail as to how we do that, how we square those two roles and duties. That needs more attention." Dr Price added: "The Mental Capacity Act was designed to support people who can't make decisions for themselves to be able to have decisions made in their best interest for them. "There is nothing in the provision of the Mental Capacity Act that talks about a decision to end one's own life, so this is a new decision. "We don't currently have anything that maps on to that clinically and so the Mental Capacity Act, we have stated very clearly, is not sufficient to be a sufficient safeguard in assisted dying and that we need to rethink how capacity is assessed."
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Welfare reform marks moment of compassion, says Kendall amid backbench anger
The introduction of proposed legislation to reform the welfare system 'marks the moment we take the road of compassion, opportunity and dignity', the Work and Pensions Secretary has said. Liz Kendall's words come amid a backlash from some Labour MPs who have criticised the 'awful' cuts to welfare – which the Government hopes can save up to £5 billion a year. The reforms – aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work – are set to include the tightening of criteria for personal independence payment (Pip), which is the main disability benefit, as well as a cut to the sickness-related element of universal credit (UC) and delayed access to only those aged 22 and over. Ministers are likely to face a Commons stand-off with backbench Labour MPs over their plans, with dozens of them last month saying the proposals were 'impossible to support'. In what could be seen as an attempt to head off some opposition, the legislation – known as the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill – will give existing claimants a 13-week period of financial support. The Department for Work and Pensions said this will apply to those affected by changes to the Pip daily living component, including those who lose their eligibility to Carers Allowance and the carer's element of UC. But campaigners, including disability equality charity Scope, said the longer transition period, up from an originally expected four weeks, 'will only temporarily delay a cut and disabled people will continue to be living with extra costs when it comes to an end'. Food bank network Trussell said: 'The last-minute details on protections offer something for a small proportion of people, but even they will still see a real-terms cut. 'The reality of this Bill is still record cuts in support for disabled people, and the biggest cuts to social security since 2015.' Contrary to Ms Kendall's words, learning disability charity Mencap accused the Government of having 'confirmed the choice to turn its back on thousands of disabled people and by pushing ahead with these welfare reforms, they are causing a huge amount of anxiety'. Ms Kendall said: 'Our social security system is at a crossroads. Unless we reform it, more people will be denied opportunities, and it may not be there for those who need it. 'This legislation represents a new social contract and marks the moment we take the road of compassion, opportunity and dignity. 'This will give people peace of mind, while also fixing our broken social security system so it supports those who can work to do so while protecting those who cannot – putting welfare spending on a more sustainable path to unlock growth as part of our Plan for Change.' As the Bill was formally introduced to the Commons on Wednesday, and the question asked as to what the next date for debate will be, Labour backbencher and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell could be heard to say 'Never'. A date has not yet been confirmed. Louise Murphy, senior economist at the Resolution Foundation think tank said the longer period of protection for those affected by Pip cuts is 'a sensible tweak that should ease the blow for those who are no longer eligible for support'. But she criticised extra funding for employment support not coming fully into effect until 2029 at the earliest, saying: 'While ministers have softened the stick of welfare cuts, they have not strengthened the carrot of greater employment support.' Sir Keir Starmer said he was 'determined' to ensure the reforms go through because he feels the welfare system 'doesn't work for anyone'. 'It doesn't work for those that want to get back to work, and it certainly doesn't work for the taxpayer,' the Prime Minister told Good Morning Britain, saying 'those that need to be protected should be protected'. 'If you need help in support to get into work, the Government should be providing that support and help to get into work,' he said. 'If you do have conditions, disabilities that mean it is impossible for you to work, then you need to be properly protected and supported.' The latest data, published on Tuesday, showed that more than 3.7 million people in England and Wales are claiming Pip, with teenagers and young adults making up a growing proportion. The figures, published by the Department for Work and Pensions, showed there were a record 3.74 million people in England and Wales claiming Pip as of April this year. The figure is up from 3.69 million in January and a jump of 200,000 from 3.54 million a year earlier. Data for Pip claimants begins in January 2019, when the number stood at 2.05 million. Pip is a benefit aimed at helping with extra living costs if someone has a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability and difficulty doing certain everyday tasks or getting around because of their condition. An impact assessment published alongside Wednesday's Bill introduction, confirmed previously published estimates that changes to Pip entitlement rules could see about 800,000 people lose out, with an average loss of £4,500 per year. Ms Kendall previously said there are 1,000 new Pip awards every day – 'the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year'. The impact assessment also confirmed a previous estimate that some250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, are likely to fall into relative poverty after housing costs in 2029/2030, although the Government repeated that this does not take into account the potentially positive impact of £1 billion annual funding by then for measures to support people into work. Changes to UC are expected to see an estimated 2.25 million current recipients of the health element impacted, with an average loss of £500 per year. But the Government said around 3.9 million households not on the UC health element are expected to have an average annual gain of £265 from the increase in the standard UC allowance. While all of the Bill applies to England and Wales, only the UC changes apply to Scotland. The Government said there are equivalent provisions to legislate for Northern Ireland included in the Bill.
