Published 5 October 2026 | By FJP Investment Editorial Team

People and families with combined wealth of approximately $160 billion have left the UK or reduced their ties with it over the past two years, according to new Bloomberg reporting.

The finding puts a striking figure on the debate about Britain’s ability to attract and retain internationally mobile wealth. It also raises questions about taxation, London property and the country’s appeal as an investment destination.

But the headline needs careful interpretation. The $160 billion is an estimate of the wealth associated with those individuals and families—not a measurement of lost UK tax revenue or money withdrawn from the British economy.

For investors, the distinction between moving abroad and moving investments abroad is central to understanding the story.

What does Bloomberg’s $160 billion figure mean?

In reporting published on 4 October, Bloomberg calculated the figure using its Billionaires Index. It represents the combined wealth of people on the index who have weakened or ended their UK ties during the past two years, together with some family fortunes.

It is not an official government estimate of capital flight. Nor does it establish that every asset belonging to those people was previously invested in Britain.

A billionaire’s wealth might include shares in overseas companies, international property and other assets held across several jurisdictions. Changing residence does not automatically change where those assets are located.

The report therefore highlights the scale of wealth associated with changing UK connections, rather than identifying a directly equivalent hole in the public finances.

Why are wealthy people reconsidering UK residence?

Tax treatment is an important part of the current debate. The UK has substantially changed the rules governing foreign income, overseas gains and inheritance tax.

However, there is no single explanation that should be applied to every departure.

For an internationally mobile household, decisions about residence can involve family circumstances, business interests, education, lifestyle and the predictability of future policy, alongside taxation.

The relevant question is often not whether Britain has any advantages. It is whether those advantages outweigh the costs and alternatives available to that particular household.

Without detailed evidence about an individual’s circumstances, a change of residence should not automatically be attributed to one tax measure.

What happened to the UK non-dom regime?

The previous remittance basis allowed eligible non-domiciled residents to keep certain foreign income and gains outside UK taxation unless they brought them into the country, subject to the applicable rules.

That system ended on 6 April 2025.

Under HMRC’s foreign income and gains guidance, qualifying new residents can claim relief on eligible foreign income and gains during their first four consecutive tax years of UK residence, following at least ten consecutive tax years of non-UK residence.

Relieved income and gains can be brought into the UK without a further UK tax charge. But the relief is time-limited, requires a claim and does not provide a general exemption from tax on UK income.

The distinction matters for long-established residents: the new rules do not simply give everyone who previously used the remittance basis a fresh four-year exemption.

Why does inheritance tax matter?

Inheritance tax concerns assets passed on or transferred, rather than simply a household’s annual income.

From 6 April 2025, long-term UK residence replaced domicile as the principal test governing whether overseas assets fall within the UK inheritance-tax system.

HMRC explains that the test generally involves UK residence in at least ten of the previous twenty tax years. Depending on residence history and transitional provisions, exposure can continue after departure, potentially for up to ten tax years.

Leaving Britain therefore does not necessarily end inheritance-tax exposure immediately. Exemptions, reliefs, treaties and trust arrangements can also affect the outcome.

For a family with substantial overseas assets, the potential consequences may influence long-term residence decisions. This is a complex area requiring individual professional advice, not a simple rule that can be resolved by relocating.

What do the official figures show?

HMRC’s July 2026 statistical release estimates that non-domiciled and deemed domiciled taxpayers together had £13.6 billion of UK Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and National Insurance liabilities in 2024/25, up 9% on the previous year.

The combined taxpayer population was estimated at at least 81,900, approximately 1% lower than a year earlier.

These are provisional figures covering the period before the April 2025 changes took effect. They cannot establish the reforms’ subsequent impact.

They also describe a much broader taxpayer population than Bloomberg’s billionaire-focused analysis. The two sources measure different things and should not be treated as competing estimates of the same phenomenon.

In particular, a change in tax status is not automatically evidence that someone emigrated, and a billionaire wealth estimate is not a tax-revenue estimate.

Could the departures affect London property?

One possible channel is demand for high-value homes. If fewer wealthy households choose London as their main residence, that could weaken demand in locations and price brackets closely connected to those buyers.

However, the effect is not automatic—and it should not be extrapolated to every UK housing market.

In its September 2026 prime central London sales commentary, Savills describes a mixed market, with uncertainty affecting activity but demand persisting for well-located, ready-to-occupy family homes.

Importantly, the agency also notes that some non-doms who have left for tax reasons have no intention of selling their London property.

Savills is a property agency with a commercial interest in the market, and its observations should be understood in that context. Nevertheless, they demonstrate why departure and disposal should not be assumed to happen together.

Luxury London homes, regional rental properties and new residential developments serve different buyers and tenants. Their prospects depend on local demand, affordability, financing and ownership costs—not simply the residence choices of billionaires.

Does moving abroad mean stopping UK investment?

No. Residence and investment location are separate decisions.

A person living overseas may retain a British home, own shares in UK businesses or continue holding UK investments. Conversely, someone resident in Britain may hold much of their wealth internationally.

Consider a hypothetical business owner who moves abroad while retaining shares in a UK company. Their residence has changed, but the company has not necessarily relocated, reduced employment or lost that shareholder’s capital.

The position would be different if the owner also moved the company’s operations, investment team and future funding overseas.

These examples illustrate different economic outcomes. They are not claims about what any particular person in Bloomberg’s report has done.

To assess investment implications, the useful questions are therefore what assets are being sold, what activities are relocating and where future capital will be deployed.

What could Britain lose when wealthy residents leave?

Potential effects extend beyond the tax paid by an individual.

A relocation could affect spending on local services, charitable giving, professional-services work and the location of future business activity. Where a family office moves staff or operations, the consequences may be more direct than a change of personal address alone.

These are possible economic channels, not quantified losses established by the $160 billion estimate.

The eventual outcome also depends on new arrivals, investment by people who remain and whether departing residents maintain commercial connections with Britain.

It would therefore be premature to calculate a national economic loss by applying an assumed percentage to the reported wealth total.

Does this mean the UK is no longer attractive to investors?

The report alone cannot support that conclusion.

Choosing where to live is not the same assessment as choosing whether to invest in a particular business, property or project.

An investment needs to be assessed on its own terms, including its underlying economics, costs, structure, liquidity and risks. A residence-related tax change may matter greatly to one household while having a different effect on an overseas investor.

Equally, international investors should not dismiss policy uncertainty. Changes to taxation and regulation can affect ownership costs, market demand and business decisions.

The balanced conclusion is that the departures raise legitimate competitiveness questions, but do not establish that all UK investments have become unattractive—or that lower prices necessarily represent good value.

What should readers watch next?

The next stage is evidence about outcomes rather than headline wealth totals.

• Tax and residence data covering the period after the April 2025 reforms;
• Evidence of business and family-office operations moving, rather than personal residence alone;
• Completed transactions and achieved prices in the luxury-property market;
• Whether former residents retain UK assets and commercial relationships; and
• Any further changes to the tax framework.

No single indicator provides the complete picture. The strongest assessment will distinguish residents, businesses, assets and tax receipts rather than treating them as interchangeable.

Frequently asked questions

Has the UK lost $160 billion in tax revenue?

No. Bloomberg’s figure concerns combined estimated wealth associated with people and families who have left or reduced their UK ties. It is not a calculation of tax revenue lost.

Did the non-dom tax rules change in 2025?

Yes. The remittance basis ended on 6 April 2025. A four-year foreign income and gains relief is available to qualifying new residents, subject to eligibility and claims.

Do wealthy people have to sell their UK property when they leave?

Moving abroad does not itself require a property sale. Keeping a UK home may have tax and residence implications that need individual assessment.

Will billionaire departures cause UK house prices to fall?

The report does not establish that. Any effect may differ substantially between luxury London property and other markets, and depends on actual transactions and wider conditions.

Final thoughts

The new reporting gives the debate about internationally mobile wealth a substantial headline figure. The tax changes behind that debate are real, and the potential effects on spending, business activity and specialist property markets deserve attention.

But the central distinction remains: moving residence, selling assets and withdrawing investment are different actions.

Understanding which of those actions is occurring—and on what scale—is more useful than assuming a wealth estimate represents an equivalent loss to Britain’s economy.

This article provides general information and market commentary only. It does not constitute financial, investment, legal or tax advice, or a recommendation to invest or relocate. FJP Investment acts solely as an introducer and does not provide advice, assess suitability, manage investments or hold client money. Investment values can fall as well as rise. Tax treatment depends on individual circumstances and may change; appropriate independent professional advice should be obtained.