Andy Burnham and John Healey have been dealt a fresh headache after billionaires with fortunes worth around £120billion left Britain following Labour’s return to power. A string of super-rich individuals have made the move since Labour returned to power, according to analysis of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Some have headed for countries including Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, Greece and Monaco amid big changes to Britain’s tax system.

The departures come at an awkward time for Prime Minister Mr Burnham and Chancellor Mr Healey as they prepare for a difficult Budget on October 28. Among the biggest names to leave is steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal, whose £31billion fortune made him the wealthiest person in the group, according to the analysis.

He left Britain last year for Switzerland and Dubai. Another recent departure is hedge fund billionaire Chris Rokos, who is preparing to relocate to Greece. Mr Rokos has an estimated £3billion fortune and paid around £330million in tax last year, making him Britain’s third-biggest taxpayer.

The departures have led to warnings from business experts about the potential impact on investment and Britain’s tax revenues. Luke Johnson, the entrepreneur and co-owner of Gail’s Bakery, said: “It is a disaster for the country that big taxpayers and important investors are leaving.

“They help fund public services and create jobs, and their exits will create a growing hole in the national finances. We should be attracting talent and wealth, not alienating it.”

Former Pizza Express entrepreneur Hugh Osmond was equally critical. He said: “It’s what we all said would happen and Labour didn’t believe it. Too high tax – big taxpayers leave. Obvious.”

Labour’s overhaul of the non-dom system came into effect on April 6, 2025. Under the previous rules, qualifying non-doms could avoid UK tax on certain overseas income and gains kept outside Britain.

The changes have been blamed by some wealthy individuals and their advisers for encouraging people to leave, although the extent of the wider financial impact remains disputed.

Phones 4u founder John Caudwell said: “What’s happening at the moment is disastrous. Instead of being on a virtuous circle where we’re attracting millionaires, billionaires and inward investment, we are doing the reverse.”

The row is particularly sensitive ahead of Mr Healey’s first Budget, with speculation growing over whether he could make further changes to capital gains tax as he looks for money while facing pressure over public spending. No further CGT increase has yet been announced.

Jack Hollyman, managing director at Alvarez & Marsal, warned that wealthy investors can respond quickly to changes in taxation.

He said: “Tax rises don’t happen in a vacuum. Investors and entrepreneurs can change when they realise gains, where they put their money and, ultimately, where they live.

“We saw that in 2024 and 2025, when non-doms left the UK amid concerns about overseas businesses being brought within the scope of UK inheritance tax.”

Mr Hollyman said there was also speculation that the Treasury could consider an “exit charge” aimed at people leaving Britain.

But he warned: “Even the prospect of such a measure risks adding to the uncertainty facing business owners and investors.”

Nightmare for Andy Burnham and John Healey as Billionaires Worth £120bn Abandon Britain

Britain is facing renewed questions over its ability to retain some of the world’s wealthiest residents, after reports suggested that billionaires with fortunes totalling approximately £120 billion have left the country or loosened their ties with the UK since Labour came to power.

The figures have intensified debate over taxation, economic competitiveness and the Government’s plans ahead of the autumn Budget. With Prime Minister Andy Burnham under pressure to demonstrate stronger economic growth and Chancellor John Healey facing difficult decisions over public spending, the departure of wealthy investors has become another contentious issue for ministers.

Supporters of lower taxes argue that Britain risks discouraging entrepreneurs, investors and major employers if the financial rewards of remaining in the country become less attractive. Others insist that the wealthiest should contribute fairly towards public services and that the Government must not abandon tax reforms simply because some affluent individuals choose to relocate.

The central question is whether Britain can raise the revenue it needs while remaining an attractive place to build businesses, invest capital and create jobs.

The £120 Billion Question

Reports published in October 2026 have put the combined wealth associated with ultra-rich individuals who have left Britain or reduced their ties to the country at around £120 billion.

The headline figure is striking, but its meaning requires careful interpretation.

It does not mean that £120 billion in cash has necessarily been transferred out of the UK economy, nor does it establish that the Government has lost that amount in tax revenue. The figure refers to the estimated fortunes of wealthy individuals associated with departures or changes in their relationship with Britain.

Nevertheless, the movement of major investors can have consequences beyond personal tax residence. Wealthy individuals may own businesses, employ staff, finance companies, invest in property, support charitable organisations and contribute to the country’s financial services industry.

If a person relocates, some of those activities may remain in Britain, while others may move abroad. The economic consequences therefore depend on what changes in practice, rather than the headline value of the individual’s fortune alone.

For the Government, the challenge is to understand whether recent departures represent a temporary adjustment by a small number of globally mobile individuals or a wider change in the attractiveness of Britain as a place to live and invest.

Why Are Wealthy Individuals Leaving?

Taxation has become a central part of the discussion.

Changes to the UK’s tax treatment of non-domiciled residents, reforms affecting inheritance tax and uncertainty over possible future tax measures have all featured in the debate about wealthy individuals relocating overseas.

Some wealthy residents have reportedly chosen destinations such as Switzerland, Monaco, the United Arab Emirates and Greece. These locations offer different combinations of tax rules, business opportunities, lifestyle advantages and international connections.

For individuals with substantial assets spread across several countries, residency can be an important financial decision. A change of residence may affect the taxation of income, capital gains and inherited wealth, although the rules differ considerably between jurisdictions.

However, tax should not automatically be assumed to be the sole reason for every departure. Business opportunities, family circumstances, investment plans and personal preferences can also influence where someone chooses to live.

The timing of a relocation does not, by itself, prove that a particular government policy caused it. Establishing the impact of taxation requires evidence about individual decisions, the relevant rules and what would have happened under a different policy.

Even with those qualifications, the possibility that tax changes are influencing decisions by wealthy residents has created a difficult political problem for Labour.

Chris Rokos and Other High-Profile Departures

One prominent example is hedge fund founder Chris Rokos, who was reported in September to be moving his tax residence to Greece and planning to establish an office in Athens.

Rokos has been among Britain’s highest-profile taxpayers. His reported relocation has attracted attention because it raises questions about the relationship between personal tax residence, financial-sector activity and the UK’s ability to retain major contributors to public revenue.

Other wealthy figures, including steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal and Aston Villa co-owner Nassef Sawiris, have also been associated with moves away from Britain.

Their circumstances are not identical, and the economic consequences of each relocation will depend on their continuing business and investment activities in the country.

The wider concern is that Britain could lose some of the people who provide substantial tax revenues and finance significant commercial activity. If more wealthy residents follow similar paths, ministers may face questions about whether the country’s tax framework is producing the intended results.

At the same time, individual departures should not be treated as proof that the entire British economy is losing investment. Assessing the overall picture requires information about people arriving as well as leaving, new businesses being established, investment flows and changes in tax receipts.

The Pressure on Andy Burnham and John Healey

The issue comes at a sensitive time for the Government.

Burnham has previously argued that Britain places too much of the tax burden on working people while failing to make sufficient use of wealth as a source of revenue. His political challenge is to translate that argument into policies that raise funds without discouraging investment or undermining economic growth.

Healey, meanwhile, faces the difficult task of preparing a Budget that must balance competing demands for public services, infrastructure, defence and economic support.

The Government has limited room to manoeuvre. Increasing taxes could provide additional revenue, but some measures may alter incentives to invest, sell businesses or remain resident in Britain. Avoiding tax increases altogether could leave ministers with fewer options for financing their commitments.

The dilemma is particularly difficult when the people potentially affected have the resources and international connections to change their residency or reorganise their assets.

For ordinary workers, moving to another country is often expensive, disruptive or impractical. For internationally mobile billionaires, relocation may be a more realistic option, although it can still involve complex legal, financial and family considerations.

That difference has fuelled arguments over whether the tax system should focus more heavily on wealth or continue to rely primarily on income and other established taxes.

Could Britain Lose More Tax Revenue?

The possible effect on government finances is one of the most important aspects of the debate.

High-income individuals can contribute substantial amounts through income tax, capital gains tax and other taxes. They may also generate indirect economic activity through their businesses, employees, investments and spending.

If a person becomes non-resident, the amount of UK tax they pay can change, depending on the type of income or gains involved and the applicable rules. Some income and assets remain subject to UK taxation even when their owner lives abroad.

Consequently, it would be misleading to calculate the public cost of departures simply by applying a standard tax rate to the combined £120 billion fortune.

A more meaningful assessment would examine the tax paid by individuals before and after relocation, the extent to which their business activity remains in Britain and whether other taxpayers or investors replace the revenue and investment associated with them.

The Government must also consider the possibility that some people may remain in the country despite higher taxes, while others may leave even if tax rules become more favourable. Individual decisions are shaped by several factors, making the overall effect difficult to predict with precision.

The financial consequences could still be significant if a sustained pattern of departures reduces the UK’s tax base or weakens domestic investment. That possibility warrants careful analysis rather than assumptions based solely on headline wealth estimates.

The Warning for Britain’s Business Climate

The debate extends beyond billionaires and personal taxation.

Business leaders have also warned that Britain risks becoming a country where successful companies are created but eventually acquired by foreign buyers or moved towards other financial centres.

Concerns about the London Stock Exchange, the limited number of new listings and the scale of corporate takeovers have added to questions about the UK’s ability to retain growing businesses.

When companies move their headquarters, change their listing location or are acquired by foreign investors, the implications can vary. Such transactions may provide capital for expansion and reward shareholders, but they can also shift decision-making and some economic activity overseas.

The challenge for policymakers is to make Britain a competitive place to invest without offering concessions that undermine public finances or create unfair advantages.

Measures that encourage long-term domestic investment, improve access to capital and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens may help. Yet investors also look at broader conditions, including economic stability, workforce skills, infrastructure, regulation and access to international markets.

Tax policy is therefore an important part of the picture, but it is not the only factor determining whether Britain attracts investment.

Would Cutting Taxes Solve the Problem?

Critics of Labour’s approach argue that reducing certain taxes could encourage wealthy individuals to remain in Britain and help attract new investment.

They point to the potential benefits of retaining major taxpayers, entrepreneurs and financial businesses. They also argue that a tax system must consider how people respond to changes in incentives, rather than assuming that higher rates will always produce higher revenues.

Others warn that tax reductions can be expensive and may disproportionately benefit people who already have substantial resources. If the Government cuts taxes without generating enough additional economic activity, it could face a shortfall in the revenue needed for public services.

The question is not simply whether taxes should rise or fall. It is which measures produce the best balance between revenue, fairness, investment and economic growth.

For example, a policy designed to encourage long-term investment may have different consequences from one that reduces tax on wealth without requiring any additional economic activity. Similarly, clearer rules and greater certainty may influence business decisions even when the headline tax rate remains unchanged.

Ministers would need to examine evidence about the likely effects of each proposal before deciding whether a change would improve Britain’s competitive position.

The Importance of Getting the Evidence Right

The £120 billion figure has become a powerful symbol in the argument over Britain’s tax policies, but it should not be mistaken for a direct measurement of economic damage.

Some wealthy individuals have left or changed their tax residence, while other reports have questioned whether particular departures were caused by recent tax changes. The circumstances surrounding each case matter.

The Government should therefore publish clear assessments of how changes to residency and taxation affect receipts, investment and economic activity. Such evidence would help distinguish genuine structural problems from temporary movements in a highly international population.

It would also allow policymakers to assess whether reforms are meeting their stated objectives and whether adjustments are needed to reduce unintended consequences.

Without that information, both supporters and opponents of tax changes risk relying on selective examples rather than a comprehensive assessment.

A Difficult Decision Ahead

The reported departure of billionaires with combined fortunes of approximately £120 billion has intensified pressure on Burnham and Healey as the Government approaches a crucial Budget.

For ministers, the challenge is to demonstrate that Britain can fund public services, maintain a credible tax system and encourage the investment needed to support growth. For critics, the departures raise concerns about whether recent and proposed tax changes risk making the country less attractive to people with substantial international assets.

Neither higher taxation nor lower taxation guarantees success on its own. The consequences depend on how policies are designed, how people respond and whether Britain remains a competitive place to live, work and invest.

Ultimately, the Government will be judged not simply by the number of wealthy residents who remain or leave, but by its ability to sustain public revenue, encourage productive investment and improve living standards across the country.

The £120 billion headline has sharpened that debate. The decisive question for ministers is whether they can turn it into a clearer understanding of the risks facing the British economy—and a practical strategy for addressing them.