Hungarian Millionaires Urge Wealth Tax Reform: Close Loopholes First

The letter sits on my desk, a printout amid the usual chaos of financial reports. More than a hundred British-based millionaires, led by the footballer-turned-broadcaster Gary Lineker, have written to the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham. Their request is starkly counterintuitive in my world: tax us more. “We can afford it,” they insist. The public, according to a poll by The Independent, largely agrees, with nearly 80% backing a wealth tax on the super-rich. But the sentiment in the comments section that followed tells the real story, the one I’ve spent two decades covering. Support comes with a clear, hard-nosed condition: close the loopholes first.

This isn’t about ideology. It’s about mechanics. The readers’ responses are a masterclass in practical skepticism, born from watching decades of well-intentioned policy erode against the granite of financial engineering. They don’t trust the promise of a new tax. They demand a secured tax base. One commenter laid out a legislative blueprint that would make any tax enforcement officer nod in grim appreciation: mandatory global tax reporting for all UK citizens and residents, an exit tax on departing wealth, and a licensing regime for tax advisers requiring prior HMRC approval for any scheme. “It is unacceptable,” they wrote, “that a whole industry of agents and advisers exists for the purpose of helping the wealthy avoid paying their taxes.” That single sentence captures the central tension in modern public finance. The policy is one thing. The parasitical industry that evolves to circumvent it is another, often more powerful, force.

The data backs up this public cynicism. A study from the London School of Economics has shown that wealth taxes, particularly in Europe, have often failed to meet revenue expectations not because the wealth isn’t there, but because of capital flight and valuation challenges. The readers instinctively grasp this. They point to the United States, which taxes its citizens globally, as a model for claiming jurisdiction. They note Italy’s approach, cited in analysis by the European Commission, which uses a modest levy on specific luxury assets—yachts, high-value portfolios—that are easier to identify and harder to discreetly relocate. The lesson is not to bludgeon, but to target. As one reader put it, the trick is a levy “low enough that people will wear it.”

Then there’s the sharpest retort to the millionaires’ letter: the existing “Make a tax donation” page on HMRC’s website. “Nothing stops millionaires visiting HMRC’s… page and taxing themselves until they are blue in the face,” a reader noted. “But no. What they really want is for others to get taxed.” This cuts to a question of performative versus substantive action. It’s a point underscored by another who highlighted Lineker’s own successful £4.9 million IR35 tax appeal against HMRC just a few years ago. The gap between endorsing a broad principle and contesting a specific personal liability is a canyon well-traveled by high-net-worth individuals. Trust, in this arena, is earned through consistent action, not singular letters.

But the readers’ suggestions move beyond mere skepticism into innovative, and often more administratively feasible, territory. Several argued for shifting the focus from static wealth to transactions. A progressive expenditure or financial transaction tax, with a high exemption threshold, could capture the liquidity of wealth without the nightmare of annually appraising fine art or private equity holdings. Others framed the issue not as a new tax, but as tax equality. Data from the Institute for Fiscal Studies consistently shows that the UK’s effective tax rate is often regressive at the very top, with capital gains and inherited wealth taxed more lightly than employment income. “We have a situation where on the whole the wealthier you are, the lower your effective tax rate is, and that doesn’t seem right,” one comment read. This isn’t about punishment; it’s about alignment.

The final layer of reader demand expands the scope beyond individuals to the corporate structures that concentrate wealth. “Burnham also needs to introduce fair taxes upon companies like Amazon,” one wrote, pointing to the persistent issue of profit shifting and low effective corporate tax rates among multinationals. Another demanded a just tax on “fossil fuel companies for their utterly obscene profits,” linking wealth concentration to externalized social and environmental costs. This reflects a holistic understanding of the modern wealth ecosystem. It’s not just about the person with the mansion; it’s about the interconnected web of capital, corporate entities, and industries that generate and protect that fortune.

What emerges from this public forum is not a rejection of the millionaires’ premise, but a far more sophisticated and conditional engagement. The public is willing to walk this road, but only if the government first builds guardrails that previous administrations have left rusting in a ditch. They want an exit tax to prevent a rush for the door. They want HMRC resourced with the staff and legal teeth to chase global assets. They want the loopholes welded shut before a single new percent is levied. In the financial district, we see this every day. Capital is fluid. Policy is often rigid. The space between them is where a multi-billion-pound avoidance industry thrives. The readers are saying, convincingly, that until that space is collapsed, any wealth tax is just a suggestion box for accountants. They aren’t against the Linekers of the world. They are, justifiably, against the system that would render their gesture meaningless. The ball is now in Burnham’s court. Does he have the political capital and technical will to build the fortress before trying to fill the coffers? History, and the comments section, suggest he should start with the bricks and mortar.

• Mandatory global tax reporting for all UK citizens and residents
• Exit tax on departing wealth
• Licensing regime for tax advisers requiring prior HMRC approval
• Introduce fair taxes upon companies like Amazon
• Just tax on fossil fuel companies
• Progressive expenditure or financial transaction tax