There may have been a gain to attracting super-rich people to live in the UK historically (this is an OLD rule) however people no longer necessarily invest where they live so the benefit is far more limited, and is offset by effects such as making property in London a lot more expensive for everyone else.

In any case the super-rich are only taxed on income they take out of their businesses. That also limits the benefits of both attracting them, and of exempting them.

I do not see any evidence that there was a net benefit from this exemption.

> however people no longer necessarily invest where they live

This is a problem. The UK is experiencing what the US is experiencing so I hope you don't mind.

I'm all invested in the US. My citizenship, my family ties, my finances, and my language. Immigrating to a five-eyes nation would be far easier for me (racism aside).

There's no going back for me and my family, unless I want to immigrate out and start from the very bottom with absolutely nothing.

Because I'm a naturalized US citizen and I'm not white, I also harbor no illusions: There's every reason to believe that if this administration and its extremists continue down its trajectory, I and my family will eventually be subject to the worst.

I'm also not wealthy: So it's in my best interest to be a moderating voice, fight for the values that define my home, be seen giving back/paying it forward, and push for the best outcome for my home.

I'm not sure how to quantify the value add of this, and the wealthy transnationals who distinctly take without being a net positive--because they can so easily relocate--are a large part of the problem.