Britain Loses Half of Its Millionaires (from WSJ)

D

deleted15807

Guest
Yes there was a thread yesterday suggesting the loss of millionaires on higher taxes in Maryland. The story was an opinion piece as is usual for the WSJ's protect-the-rich mission. The fact that it was an opinion piece was not noted yesterday (of course). However today the WSJ runs another opinion piece blaming not taxes but the real estate meltdown in Britain though clearly Maryland residents even yesterdays WSJ piece mentions 'No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession'.


Britain Loses Half of Its Millionaires

.......the rich have been hammered by this crisis, largely because of the plunge in the value of their investments and real estate. As a result, the millionaire population (especially the lower end) is taking a dive.

Early estimates say the millionaire population in the U.S. fell 30% last year. Now, it seems Britain’s millionaire population has fallen an astounding 50%
 

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
187
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Ya, taxes are not the cause of this, anyone who thinks so is an idiot. The biggest reasons (and there are others) Marlyand and Britain have lost so many millionaires are as follows:

1) The housing market (which lead to the downturn in everything else) and
2) The stock market

It has nothing to do with taxes. Sure, there are some people who probably moved, but not 50%, or 30%, not even close. A lot of these people probably weren't truly millionaires, they had assets bought by debt which were only partially paid for. It's how much you make, not how much you spend, that matters.
 

MalakingTiti

Cherished Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Posts
1,660
Media
0
Likes
288
Points
303
Location
Duluth (Georgia, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Ya, taxes are not the cause of this, anyone who thinks so is an idiot. The biggest reasons (and there are others) Marlyand and Britain have lost so many millionaires are as follows:

1) The housing market (which lead to the downturn in everything else) and
2) The stock market

It has nothing to do with taxes. Sure, there are some people who probably moved, but not 50%, or 30%, not even close. A lot of these people probably weren't truly millionaires, they had assets bought by debt which were only partially paid for. It's how much you make, not how much you spend, that matters.

BINGO. I'm not at all happy about the economy, but I am still wealthy in spite of it. I know a few people who played the roll, pre recession, and now have been exposed for the true non-wealthy people that they always were.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
BINGO. I'm not at all happy about the economy, but I am still wealthy in spite of it. I know a few people who played the roll, pre recession, and now have been exposed for the true non-wealthy people that they always were.

Well, some would argue that there's more to wealth than money. :smile:
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Easy come easy go.

I'm not sure what the significance is meant to be though. The article says that people had drifted into millionaire status because of property increases and have now drifted out because of decreases.

For me, it's just a reality check. The values were way overpriced and these new millionaires were like the emperor in his new clothes.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Among other things, I'm also a spiritual millionaire. But anyone who has made their first million in ANY currency (especially US Dollars) will admit that a million bucks isn't very much. It still carries a certain caché, but only in literature and the memories of those who were alive in the 1920's. Sadly, McCain was sort of correct when he stupidly acknowledged that to be the typical upper-middle class white man in good standing at the country club, you need a renewable 6 or 7 million in US Dollars. Inflation is such a bitch. For example, a politician such as McCain, like the Reagans, really needs his job as a Senator to carry his obligatory weight in his marriage. Good old Nancy and Ronnie were running on fiscal empty before they snagged the White House. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that Nancy R's "magic eight ball" advisor is financially more solid these days. Divining the future ain't cheap.