UK billionaires’ reported departures raise questions about the scale of wealthy emigration

UK billionaires’ reported departures came under fresh scrutiny on 7 October 2026 after the Guardian said wealthy residents with a combined £121bn had left or loosened ties with the country since Labour took office in 2024. The distinction matters for the tax debate: the figure combines different kinds of changes in UK ties and does not establish how many people ceased to be UK tax residents.

The Guardian based its figure on an analysis of Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index and said it represented more than half of all billionaire wealth. Its published account does not set out a list or method that would allow readers to check the tax status of every person counted. The figure describes wealth associated with the people identified, rather than tax revenue lost to the UK.

Which wealthy residents are reported to have left the UK?

The Guardian named property tycoon and Newcastle United shareholder David Reuben among those who had moved to Monaco. It put the combined estimated wealth of Reuben and his brother Simon at nearly £28bn. David Reuben’s spokesperson did not explain the move, so its cause cannot be stated as fact. The report also named Lakshmi Mittal, Aston Villa co-owner Nassef Sawiris and shipping magnate John Fredriksen among departures, without giving individual departure dates for those three.

Other prominent moves do not belong to the period since Labour took office. Ineos owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe moved to Monaco in 2018, according to the Guardian. Sir James Dyson moved to Singapore in 2019 and returned in 2021. Those examples show why the timing of each move matters when assessing claims about a recent change.

What do UK tax figures show about departures?

HMRC recorded about 9,000 people flowing out of the non-dom population in that tax year, compared with 11,200 the year before. It recorded about 8,600 newly arrived taxpayers, down from 10,000. Movement out of that taxpayer category cannot by itself be read as emigration. The figures also cover the period before the new regime took effect on 6 April 2025, so they cannot measure departures following that change.

The previous rules allowed eligible UK residents who were not domiciled in the country to use the remittance basis: foreign income and gains were taxed when brought into the UK. The end of that system has become central to discussion of wealthy residents’ plans, but the available figures do not establish that it caused the moves named in the Guardian report.

What can an earlier tax reform tell us?

An HMRC evaluation of the 2017 deemed-domicile reform found an increase in departures among people affected by that earlier change. It estimated that 10% to 12% of the affected group left after the reform, against normal churn of 4% to 5%. HMRC also found that additional tax paid by people who remained more than offset the tax lost from those who left.

That evaluation concerns a smaller, earlier reform, and HMRC says its mobility analysis predates the pandemic. It provides evidence that tax changes can affect some people’s decisions while revenue and departures can move in different directions. It cannot establish the effect of the rules introduced in 2025.

Why the reported moves remain contested

The Guardian quoted CenTax director Arun Advani saying billionaire mobility is high and a few widely reported departures do not, on their own, show that the underlying trend has changed. Businessman Dale Vince told the paper he would stay in the UK and argued that wealthy people already benefit from tax allowances and exemptions. Their responses underline that individual decisions vary; neither resolves the national count.

A clearer assessment depends on post-reform data and on keeping separate three questions: who moved, whether their UK tax residence changed, and why they acted. The Guardian’s report establishes named examples and an estimate of wealth tied to people who left or loosened links. The cited official statistics end before the April 2025 change. For now, those sources support a story about reported departures and uncertainty over their scale, rather than a measured exodus caused by the reform.