
‘High tax could mean higher rates of happiness, which is why I'm happy to pay more'
No one can deny the pressure Rachel Reeves is under. In the past few days, the government has committed to a major boost in defence funding, pledged to reinstate the winter fuel allowance to millions of pensioners this winter and is being asked to abolish the two-child benefit cap. Then there is social housing to fund, education to support and money needed for the NHS and the UK's growing need for social care too.
But how will this all be funded if, as Reeves has indicated, there are no plans to raise taxes to fund Labour 's spending plans?
One idea that will not go away is a wealth tax – this would be a tiny tax of 2 per cent on wealth over £10m, affecting a mere 20,000 people or 0.04 per cent of the UK population. It would generate a significant sum to the tune of £24bn a year.
Will millionaires leave the UK if there is a change in tax policy that might have an impact on the richest? As a member of Patriotic Millionaires UK, a group actively asking for higher taxes on extreme wealth and the super-rich, I've found this pretty hard to believe. My high net-worth friends and I certainly aren't going anywhere, and the performative panic over it is frankly hard to take seriously.
Why has there been so much fuss made about less than 0.3 per cent of millionaires projected to leave the country when we're facing the reality of 30 per cent of doctors considering leaving in the next year? It's a question we had to have an answer to. So much so that we decided to ask the millionaires of Britain themselves what they thought about wealth and taxes.
Working with Survation, we polled over 500 of those living in the UK with £1m-plus in investable assets, excluding their homes. What we found was completely contrary to what we're so often told to be true. Instead of millionaires protesting the notion of higher taxes, there seems to be overwhelming support for them.
The vast majority of millionaires (81 per cent) think it's patriotic to pay their fair share in taxes; 80 per cent of millionaires polled support a 2 per cent tax above £10m (and for the smaller sample of those with over £10m themselves, this rose to 85 per cent). But it wasn't just this policy that was popular – across the board, taxes on wealth were overwhelmingly welcomed by the richest people in Britain; three-quarters support increasing the overall effective tax rate on the super-rich.
You may think this is turkeys voting for Christmas, but it's not. I was fortunate to have a high-paying role for many years as an international lawyer, but like the majority of millionaires who answered our survey, I understand just how harmful concentrated extreme wealth has become.
In the last few months, we have all been forced to face up to the worrying impact of wealth buying power and politics. Eighty-one per cent of my fellow millionaires recognise that extreme wealth buys disproportionate political influence. In an increasingly unstable world, this undermining of democracy is a glaring wound rather than a niggling itch.
In fact, thanks to the first dynamic study of wealth taxes, we now know that the wealth share of those on the Sunday Times Rich List alone would have continued to grow. Even with a 2 per cent wealth tax, the share of wealth owned by tax residents on the list – the top 0.001 per cent – would still have increased from 1.7 per cent to 2.7 per cent.
Millionaires, just like the rest of the population, want a more stable, equal, and sustainable economy; we know a fairer, well-oiled and properly resourced country leads to a better life for them and for everyone else too. This isn't conjecture. We are shown time and again how countries with higher tax rates and better wealth distribution are often some of the happiest in the world.
For the 8th year in a row, Finland has ranked as the world's happiest country. In Finland, capital gains are taxed at up to 34 per cent, making them far less tax-advantaged than in the UK, where the top rate is just 20-24 per cent.
Unlike the UK, Finland treats capital income more like regular income, reducing the incentive for those holding lots of wealth to shift earnings into capital gains to minimise their tax bill. Other Nordic countries also rank highly in the happiness index. Many of these nations place higher taxes on the richest – something I don't find surprising. By making sure there is a fairer distribution of wealth, these countries deliver better outcomes for everyone that, as a nation, they can be proud of.
It sometimes feels like we have forgotten how to do this in the UK. We need to feel deservedly proud of our country. For me, what it will take to feel that pride is knowing we are all truly invested in something better and bigger than ourselves as individuals. It might sound 'rich' coming from a millionaire, but there are more important things than endlessly increasing personal wealth.
The state of our country is one of them. And I'm not the only millionaire to think this. More than two-thirds of millionaires we polled felt that their success was dependent on Britain's public services; more than three-quarters supported paying higher taxes themselves to secure a stable, more equal and prosperous country for future generations.
A 2 per cent tax on over £10m would raise £24bn for the Treasury. That's enough to service priorities highlighted by the government such as defence spending (£5bn) and improving transport (£15bn), as well as reverse the cuts to welfare they proposed back in March (£4.8bn). Personally, I'd much rather pay higher taxes so my own children live in a country that is thriving and just, instead of preserving my wealth and worrying more about an increasingly unfair and divided society in which everyone suffers.
The time is now. With the comprehensive spending review next week, the government must consider not what it should cut, but where it should invest more – young people and future generations deserve the opportunity to buy a house, to thrive whether as employees or entrepreneurs, supported by strong public services and strong digital and national infrastructure.
Vulnerable groups, our veterans, and older generations deserve to be cared for well by our country without fear of exclusion and deprivation. Here in the UK, we have the wealth to do this. The evidence shows that most millionaires are proud to pay and here to stay. The chancellor needs to raise taxes on the super-rich – not just because they overwhelmingly support it, but because our country needs it.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
10 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump's energy dominance agenda could be ravaged by Section 899
LONDON, June 12 - A proposed U.S. tax targeting foreign investors could hurt European energy giants that operate in America's booming oil and gas sector, undermining what President Donald Trump describes as his energy dominance agenda. Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill under review by the Senate includes an additional tax of up to 20% on foreign investors' income, such as dividends and royalties. The tax, known as Section 899, was devised as a pushback against countries that impose what the bill describes as "unfair foreign taxes" on U.S. companies, such as digital services taxes. Section 899 is believed to be targeting companies headquartered in the European Union and Britain, which both have tax systems considered discriminatory by the Trump administration. The provision is a significant threat to London-listed Shell (SHEL.L), opens new tab and BP (BP.L), opens new tab as well as France's TotalEnergies ( opens new tab and Spain's Repsol ( opens new tab, which all have sprawling operations in the United States. Trump, who often used the slogan "drill, baby, drill" in his election campaign, has portrayed himself as pro-fossil fuel, vowing on his first day in office to maximise oil and gas production. But if approved, Section 899 could have the opposite effect. BP last year invested more than $6 billion, about 40% of its capital expenditure, in the United States, where its interests include onshore and offshore oil and gas operations, two refineries, thousands of retail fuel stations and a power trading business. The country is also home to more than a third of BP's global workforce of about 90,000 and accounted for roughly 30% of its 2024 revenue of $189 billion and more than a quarter of its $21 billion net profit. Shell, the biggest European oil major, is also a huge investor in the United States, which accounted for 23% of its 2024 revenue of $284 billion. It invests about 30% of its capital expenditure in the country, where it has oil and gas production facilities, a petrochemicals plant, a vast retail network, liquefied natural gas (LNG) purchasing agreements and major trading operations. The United States became increasingly important to Big Oil companies in recent decades thanks to its stable fiscal and regulatory environment while other regions presented a variety of challenges. Take Russia, for example. Its vast oil and gas resources started attracting investments from many companies in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the country is now uninvestible owing to western sanctions that followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Similarly, western companies have limited opportunities to invest in the Middle East, where national oil companies dominate. Europe, meanwhile, has limited natural resources and strict environmental regulation. The multinational nature of oil and gas companies means they have plenty of experience dealing with tax uncertainty, but shifting tax policies tend to delay investments. Company boards require long-term confidence to proceed with large, multi-decade capital projects such as oil and gas fields or LNG plants. The industry's confidence in the United States was already shaken under Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, who in 2020 revoked a construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The Biden administration also paused approvals for new LNG projects in 2024 because of climate concerns. Trump lifted the pause when he entered the White House. According to Section 899, multinational companies could face a new tax on dividends sent overseas and inter-company loans, potentially reducing profit. The Gulf of Mexico accounted for about 10% of Shell's 2024 free cash flow of $40 billion, it said in a presentation. That means that Section 899 could shave $800 million from its free cash flow per year from Gulf of Mexico operations alone. BP made about $1.5 billion in free cash flow in the United States last year, Reuters calculations show. A 20% dividend tax could translate into a $300 million loss in free cash flow. Faced with the worsening fiscal terms, companies could opt to direct funds away from the United States. Though options for deploying capital elsewhere on a similar scale are limited, companies could choose to spread their investments more widely. Such a scenario could be a boon for countries such as Canada, Brazil, Mozambique and Namibia, which have large untapped natural resources. Another option would be for companies to transfer their headquarters and listings to the United States - a costly and politically complicated option. Shell previously contemplated such a move to boost its share value, though it appears to have abandoned the idea. Ultimately, it is very likely that the Senate would push to modify Section 899 or limit its scope, given the potential far-reaching impact on many sectors. But barring a radical change, Section 899 poses a huge risk for European oil and gas giants that are heavily dependent on the United States. Achieving the Trump administration's energy dominance agenda will almost certainly require more foreign investment, not less, so if the CEOs of European energy companies complain loudly enough, the president may well listen to them. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab


The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
Britain morphing into ‘National Health State', says think tank
Britain is turning into a 'National Health State', a think tank has said after the Chancellor gave the NHS a major funding boost in her spending review. The health service was the big winner of Wednesday's spending review, receiving an extra £29 billion per year for day-to-day spending and more cash for capital investment. Overnight, the Resolution Foundation said Rachel Reeves's announcements had followed a recent trend that saw increases for the NHS come at the expense of other public services. Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said: 'Health accounted for 90% of the extra public service spending, continuing a trend that is seeing the British state morph into a National Health State, with half of public service spending set to be on health by the end of the decade.' Defence was another of Wednesday's winners, Ms Curtice said, receiving a significant increase in capital spending while other departments saw an overall £3.6 billion real-terms cut in investment. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) made similar arguments about 'substantial' investment in the NHS and defence coming at the expense of other departments, although the think tank's director Paul Johnson warned the money may not be enough. He said: 'Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18-week target for hospital waiting times within this Parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up. 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' Ms Curtice added that low and middle-income families had also done well out of the spending review 'after two rounds of painful tax rises and welfare cuts', with the poorest fifth of families benefiting from an average of £1,700 in extra spending on schools, hospitals and the police. She warned that, without economic growth, another round of tax rises was likely to come in the autumn as the Chancellor seeks to balance the books. She said: 'The extra money in this spending review has already been accounted for in the last forecast. 'But a weaker economic outlook and the unfunded changes to winter fuel payments mean the Chancellor will likely need to look again at tax rises in the autumn.' Speaking after delivering her spending review, Ms Reeves insisted she would not have to raise taxes to cover her spending review. She told GB News: 'Every penny of this is funded through the tax increases and the changes to the fiscal rules that we set out last autumn.'


Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
We should all hope Rachel Reeves delivers growth - or our taxes are going up: SIMON LAMBERT
Rachel Reeves faced a big challenge in her spending review. This is the event where she sets down a marker for what Labour plans to do under Sir Keir Starmer and herself as Chancellor. Funds are pledged to projects and government departments that fit with Labour's priorities – future Budgets should align with a plan to make this happen. Reeves faced a double challenge though, as she also needed to convince the country Labour can deliver growth and improve Britain, while balancing the books in a way that convinces markets the UK's finances are under control. The first element involves a commitment to spend, the second requires spending less or raising taxes. Clearly, this is a difficult balancing act to pull off at the best of times. But if you've promised not to raise taxes and many in your party are vehemently opposed to spending cuts to already threadbare public services, it's even harder. Add in the backdrop of a screeching U-turn on winter fuel payments, a rise in job losses blamed on the Autumn Budget 's employer national insurance rise, and a Spring Statement that regained a wafer-thin £9.9billion fiscal rule buffer only for this to be wiped out soon after by Donald Trump's tariff ructions, and you don't envy Reeves at all. As the old asking for directions joke punchline goes: 'Well, I wouldn't start from here'. There was more money for defence, schools and the NHS and less money for other public services deemed less important, or able to be brushed under the carpet for now. Ultimately though, the economic story remains the same as it was with Reeves' Tory predecessors: meet your targets by outlining plans that involve growth picking up, productivity improving and cutting spending in the future. Since Rishi Sunak there's also been some fiscal drag from frozen tax thresholds chucked in for good measure. Based on the OBR's five-year outlooks, this allows Chancellors to meet their fiscal rules. The fact that these forecasts inevitably turn out to be wrong, productivity doesn't improve, and things don't end up balancing is conveniently ignored. Yet, still we continue with the farce of policy by spreadsheet. As I've written before this fairytale economics is a terrible way to make decisions. Fortunately, the Chancellor had one card up her sleeve, the change to borrowing rules that allowed extra infrastructure investment. It freed her up to announce £113billion of plans to knock Britain into shape. These ranged from £39billion for affordable homes over a decade, to £30billion on nuclear power, £15billion on transport schemes. Among the beneficiaries will be rail and bus links in the North, the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, and the Sizewell C nuclear plant. Will these things deliver growth? Over time, they should do, but we will have to wait for that to arrive. In the meantime, we face a summer of speculation over tax rises in an Autumn Budget – and with the three big earners of income tax, national insurance and VAT off the table due to Labour's pre-election promise, that would mean more tinkering around the edges. The target of tax rises is likely to be wealth, and hitting the wealthy means potentially going after pensions, savings and investments – the OECD even called for a council tax hike on big homes last week. What if things can only get better? But there is an alternative scenario. Through a combination of bad luck and her own mistakes, such as the mystifying '£22billion black hole' gloomfest, Reeves has been caught out in her time as Chancellor. Government borrowing costs have risen, borrowing itself has come in higher than forecast, and growth has disappointed. Meanwhile, the second iteration of President Trump has proved even more erratic than the first. If things move in the opposite direction though, the UK's finances could improve, and Reeves would catch a lucky break and not have to raise taxes in autumn. This is not an entirely far-fetched scenario, GDP growth in early 2025 was better than expected, a calmer period could see government borrowing costs fall, and a pick-up in the economy would deliver extra tax revenue. Its doubtful that much benefit will be seen from the infrastructure splurge for a while, but the government's pledge to build homes and its threats against reluctant councils are already seeing more approved. I'm reading increasing reports of councils waving through schemes they would previously have said no to. Most likely as they are worried about appeals if they turn developers down and get over-ruled. This may come at a cost to the environment and local communities, while developers cash in, but if enough spades go in the ground, it will boost growth. Meanwhile, companies seem to have front-loaded job cuts, the UK stock market is on the up, and I feel that we may be past the moment of peak consumer gloom. All this could bring that much hoped for improvement in growth. I know this would mess with many of our readers' desire for schadenfreude over Labour, but to my mind, greater prosperity is definitely a better outcome. Otherwise, taxes will surely be going up again soon. How far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? Tax is an increasingly taxing subject for many people who feel hard done by as Britain's complicated system catches them out. And, it's getting worse. So how far would you go to avoid your personal tax raid? And is it changing people's behaviour? On this podcast, Georgie Frost, Lee Boyce and Simon Lambert dive into how the British tax tail is wagging the dog - and what you can do to avoid infuriating tax traps.