Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

BearlySane88 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

movielover said:

---

My understanding is that 20K millionaires left the UK last year; and if the UK were a US state, it's average income would rank it 51st. Take out London, and it's even worse. Meanwhile, they're importing hundreds of thousands of illiterate immigrants yearly to massively expand the welfare rolls.

---

I'm sure with the new posting rules that this will get full fact checking and validation

---

My understanding is that 20K millionaires left the UK last year:
The widely cited Henley & Partners / New World Wealth report projected a net loss of about 16,500 millionaires in 2025, the largest net millionaire outflow of any country that year.

if the UK were a US state, it's average income would rank it 51st:
This claim has circulated widely and is based on comparing GDP or income per capita between the UK and U.S. states at market exchange rates. On that particular metric, the UK does indeed come out below every U.S. state, including Mississippi, in some recent comparisons.

Take out London, and it's even worse:
Most regions outside London have noticeably lower productivity and incomes than London itself, so excluding London reduces the UK's average economic output further

The rest is an opinion on why the UK is allowing high levels of immigration, not really fact checkable.

---

It's all been debunked, took me 3 seconds to search:

Claim 1: "20,000 millionaires left the UK last year"
The Reality: This number was a commercial projection that has been thoroughly debunked.

• The Source: The "millionaire exodus" claims trace back to annual reports published by Henley & Partners (a commercial firm that sells "golden visas" and investment migration services). In their 2025 report, they estimated a net loss of 16,500 millionaires for the UK (which commentators rounded up to 20,000).
• The Debunking: In mid-2026, the report faced massive backlash from economists and tax experts who accused it of using "fake" and highly skewed data.
• The Walkback: Henley & Partners ultimately dropped their database partner, dismissed the sole author of those previous reports, and officially conceded that millionaire migration is actually "modest". They admitted that many of the millionaires they claimed "formally departed" actually continue to spend most of their time in the UK.
• The Bottom Line: The figure was never an official government statistic; it was an alarmist, marketing-driven projection by a private visa company that has since been discredited and retracted.

Claim 2: "If the UK were a US state, its average income would rank 51st"
The Reality: This is a selective comparison of GDP per capita that ignores actual household wealth and public services.

• The Source: This claim comes from a briefing by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) comparing the UK's GDP per capita directly to US states.
• The "Mean vs. Median" Fallacy: GDP per capita is a simple "mean" average (total economic output divided by population). Because the US has extreme wealth concentration and a massive pool of billionaires, its average GDP per capita is skewed incredibly high.
• The Real Wealth Picture: If you look at median adult wealth (the net worth of the actual person in the middle of the population, which is a much better indicator of typical well-being), the typical Brit is actually wealthier than the typical American. According to the global wealth database by UBS, the median wealth per adult in the UK is roughly $176,000, compared to just $124,000 in the US.
• The "Take Out London" Fallacy: Stripping the primary economic driver out of a country to make it look poor is a statistical trick. If you took New York and California out of the US, or Munich out of Germany, those regions' economic metrics would also plummet.
• The Cost of Living Difference: Raw income figures don't account for what you have to pay for out of pocket. UK citizens do not face the massive, life-altering private healthcare costs or university debt that the average American does, as the UK NHS and public services subsidize these expenses.

Claim 3: "Importing hundreds of thousands of illiterate, welfare-dependent immigrants"
The Reality: Legally and statistically impossible. UK visa rules require English proficiency and ban immigrants from accessing welfare.
This is the easiest of the three claims to disprove using the UK's actual legal framework:
1. The English Language Mandate
The UK's post-Brexit points-based system is incredibly strict. To get a Skilled Worker visa, a Health and Care worker visa, or a Student visa, applicants must legally prove they can speak, read, write, and understand English to a certified standard (CEFR Level B1 or B2). They cannot get past border control, let alone a job offer, if they are illiterate.
2. The "No Recourse to Public Funds" (NRPF) Rule
The claim that immigrants are arriving to "expand the welfare rolls" ignores basic immigration law. Virtually all non-UK/non-Irish nationals moving to the UK are subject to the NRPF condition.

• For their first 5 to 10 years in the UK, immigrants have zero legal access to the welfare state.
• They cannot claim Universal Credit, housing benefit, child benefit, or jobseeker's allowance.
• Furthermore, they must pay a massive upfront "Immigration Health Surcharge" (often thousands of pounds) just to use the NHS, meaning they are net-paying into the public system before they even arrive.

3. Lower Benefit Claim Rates
Official data from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has consistently shown that foreign-born residents are actually underrepresented on key out-of-work benefits compared to UK-born citizens. Because the vast majority of migrants are young, working-age individuals who moved specifically for a job or to study, they have high employment rates and are net fiscal contributors to the state.
_______________________

More of the same from lover, who mods have not dealt with before even though the misinformation posted has been a constant.

One thing about Wags, his info posted is solid.

SBGold said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

movielover said:

---

My understanding is that 20K millionaires left the UK last year; and if the UK were a US state, it's average income would rank it 51st. Take out London, and it's even worse. Meanwhile, they're importing hundreds of thousands of illiterate immigrants yearly to massively expand the welfare rolls.

---

I'm sure with the new posting rules that this will get full fact checking and validation

---

My understanding is that 20K millionaires left the UK last year:
The widely cited Henley & Partners / New World Wealth report projected a net loss of about 16,500 millionaires in 2025, the largest net millionaire outflow of any country that year.

if the UK were a US state, it's average income would rank it 51st:
This claim has circulated widely and is based on comparing GDP or income per capita between the UK and U.S. states at market exchange rates. On that particular metric, the UK does indeed come out below every U.S. state, including Mississippi, in some recent comparisons.

Take out London, and it's even worse:
Most regions outside London have noticeably lower productivity and incomes than London itself, so excluding London reduces the UK's average economic output further

The rest is an opinion on why the UK is allowing high levels of immigration, not really fact checkable.

---

It's all been debunked, took me 3 seconds to search:

Claim 1: "20,000 millionaires left the UK last year"
The Reality: This number was a commercial projection that has been thoroughly debunked.

• The Source: The "millionaire exodus" claims trace back to annual reports published by Henley & Partners (a commercial firm that sells "golden visas" and investment migration services). In their 2025 report, they estimated a net loss of 16,500 millionaires for the UK (which commentators rounded up to 20,000).
• The Debunking: In mid-2026, the report faced massive backlash from economists and tax experts who accused it of using "fake" and highly skewed data.
• The Walkback: Henley & Partners ultimately dropped their database partner, dismissed the sole author of those previous reports, and officially conceded that millionaire migration is actually "modest". They admitted that many of the millionaires they claimed "formally departed" actually continue to spend most of their time in the UK.
• The Bottom Line: The figure was never an official government statistic; it was an alarmist, marketing-driven projection by a private visa company that has since been discredited and retracted.

Claim 2: "If the UK were a US state, its average income would rank 51st"
The Reality: This is a selective comparison of GDP per capita that ignores actual household wealth and public services.

• The Source: This claim comes from a briefing by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) comparing the UK's GDP per capita directly to US states.
• The "Mean vs. Median" Fallacy: GDP per capita is a simple "mean" average (total economic output divided by population). Because the US has extreme wealth concentration and a massive pool of billionaires, its average GDP per capita is skewed incredibly high.
• The Real Wealth Picture: If you look at median adult wealth (the net worth of the actual person in the middle of the population, which is a much better indicator of typical well-being), the typical Brit is actually wealthier than the typical American. According to the global wealth database by UBS, the median wealth per adult in the UK is roughly $176,000, compared to just $124,000 in the US.
• The "Take Out London" Fallacy: Stripping the primary economic driver out of a country to make it look poor is a statistical trick. If you took New York and California out of the US, or Munich out of Germany, those regions' economic metrics would also plummet.
• The Cost of Living Difference: Raw income figures don't account for what you have to pay for out of pocket. UK citizens do not face the massive, life-altering private healthcare costs or university debt that the average American does, as the UK NHS and public services subsidize these expenses.

Claim 3: "Importing hundreds of thousands of illiterate, welfare-dependent immigrants"
The Reality: Legally and statistically impossible. UK visa rules require English proficiency and ban immigrants from accessing welfare.
This is the easiest of the three claims to disprove using the UK's actual legal framework:
1. The English Language Mandate
The UK's post-Brexit points-based system is incredibly strict. To get a Skilled Worker visa, a Health and Care worker visa, or a Student visa, applicants must legally prove they can speak, read, write, and understand English to a certified standard (CEFR Level B1 or B2). They cannot get past border control, let alone a job offer, if they are illiterate.
2. The "No Recourse to Public Funds" (NRPF) Rule
The claim that immigrants are arriving to "expand the welfare rolls" ignores basic immigration law. Virtually all non-UK/non-Irish nationals moving to the UK are subject to the NRPF condition.

• For their first 5 to 10 years in the UK, immigrants have zero legal access to the welfare state.
• They cannot claim Universal Credit, housing benefit, child benefit, or jobseeker's allowance.
• Furthermore, they must pay a massive upfront "Immigration Health Surcharge" (often thousands of pounds) just to use the NHS, meaning they are net-paying into the public system before they even arrive.

3. Lower Benefit Claim Rates
Official data from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has consistently shown that foreign-born residents are actually underrepresented on key out-of-work benefits compared to UK-born citizens. Because the vast majority of migrants are young, working-age individuals who moved specifically for a job or to study, they have high employment rates and are net fiscal contributors to the state.
_______________________

More of the same from lover, who mods have not dealt with before even though the misinformation posted has been a constant.

One thing about Wags, his info posted is solid.

---

I was kind of absorbing your point #1 a bit and then read point #2, which is incredibly misleading misinformation. I award you four Pinocchios for seemingly deliberately comparing apples to oranges. Income and wealth are not the same, and I believe even my nine year old knows that. Please do better in your efforts to silence a decent post.

Fyi, the MEDIAN income in Alabama is $64K. It is under $40K in the UK.

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

movielover said:

---

My understanding is that 20K millionaires left the UK last year; and if the UK were a US state, it's average income would rank it 51st. Take out London, and it's even worse. Meanwhile, they're importing hundreds of thousands of illiterate immigrants yearly to massively expand the welfare rolls.

---

I'm sure with the new posting rules that this will get full fact checking and validation

---

My understanding is that 20K millionaires left the UK last year:
The widely cited Henley & Partners / New World Wealth report projected a net loss of about 16,500 millionaires in 2025, the largest net millionaire outflow of any country that year.

if the UK were a US state, it's average income would rank it 51st:
This claim has circulated widely and is based on comparing GDP or income per capita between the UK and U.S. states at market exchange rates. On that particular metric, the UK does indeed come out below every U.S. state, including Mississippi, in some recent comparisons.

Take out London, and it's even worse:
Most regions outside London have noticeably lower productivity and incomes than London itself, so excluding London reduces the UK's average economic output further

The rest is an opinion on why the UK is allowing high levels of immigration, not really fact checkable.

---

It's all been debunked, took me 3 seconds to search:

Claim 1: "20,000 millionaires left the UK last year"
The Reality: This number was a commercial projection that has been thoroughly debunked.

• The Source: The "millionaire exodus" claims trace back to annual reports published by Henley & Partners (a commercial firm that sells "golden visas" and investment migration services). In their 2025 report, they estimated a net loss of 16,500 millionaires for the UK (which commentators rounded up to 20,000).
• The Debunking: In mid-2026, the report faced massive backlash from economists and tax experts who accused it of using "fake" and highly skewed data.
• The Walkback: Henley & Partners ultimately dropped their database partner, dismissed the sole author of those previous reports, and officially conceded that millionaire migration is actually "modest". They admitted that many of the millionaires they claimed "formally departed" actually continue to spend most of their time in the UK.
• The Bottom Line: The figure was never an official government statistic; it was an alarmist, marketing-driven projection by a private visa company that has since been discredited and retracted.

Claim 2: "If the UK were a US state, its average income would rank 51st"
The Reality: This is a selective comparison of GDP per capita that ignores actual household wealth and public services.

• The Source: This claim comes from a briefing by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) comparing the UK's GDP per capita directly to US states.
• The "Mean vs. Median" Fallacy: GDP per capita is a simple "mean" average (total economic output divided by population). Because the US has extreme wealth concentration and a massive pool of billionaires, its average GDP per capita is skewed incredibly high.
• The Real Wealth Picture: If you look at median adult wealth (the net worth of the actual person in the middle of the population, which is a much better indicator of typical well-being), the typical Brit is actually wealthier than the typical American. According to the global wealth database by UBS, the median wealth per adult in the UK is roughly $176,000, compared to just $124,000 in the US.
• The "Take Out London" Fallacy: Stripping the primary economic driver out of a country to make it look poor is a statistical trick. If you took New York and California out of the US, or Munich out of Germany, those regions' economic metrics would also plummet.
• The Cost of Living Difference: Raw income figures don't account for what you have to pay for out of pocket. UK citizens do not face the massive, life-altering private healthcare costs or university debt that the average American does, as the UK NHS and public services subsidize these expenses.

Claim 3: "Importing hundreds of thousands of illiterate, welfare-dependent immigrants"
The Reality: Legally and statistically impossible. UK visa rules require English proficiency and ban immigrants from accessing welfare.
This is the easiest of the three claims to disprove using the UK's actual legal framework:
1. The English Language Mandate
The UK's post-Brexit points-based system is incredibly strict. To get a Skilled Worker visa, a Health and Care worker visa, or a Student visa, applicants must legally prove they can speak, read, write, and understand English to a certified standard (CEFR Level B1 or B2). They cannot get past border control, let alone a job offer, if they are illiterate.
2. The "No Recourse to Public Funds" (NRPF) Rule
The claim that immigrants are arriving to "expand the welfare rolls" ignores basic immigration law. Virtually all non-UK/non-Irish nationals moving to the UK are subject to the NRPF condition.

• For their first 5 to 10 years in the UK, immigrants have zero legal access to the welfare state.
• They cannot claim Universal Credit, housing benefit, child benefit, or jobseeker's allowance.
• Furthermore, they must pay a massive upfront "Immigration Health Surcharge" (often thousands of pounds) just to use the NHS, meaning they are net-paying into the public system before they even arrive.

3. Lower Benefit Claim Rates
Official data from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has consistently shown that foreign-born residents are actually underrepresented on key out-of-work benefits compared to UK-born citizens. Because the vast majority of migrants are young, working-age individuals who moved specifically for a job or to study, they have high employment rates and are net fiscal contributors to the state.
_______________________

More of the same from lover, who mods have not dealt with before even though the misinformation posted has been a constant.

One thing about Wags, his info posted is solid.

---

I was kind of absorbing your point #1 a bit and then read point #2, which is incredibly misleading misinformation. I award you four Pinocchios for seemingly deliberately comparing apples to oranges. Income and wealth are not the same, and I believe even my nine year old knows that. Please do better in your efforts to silence a decent post.

Fyi, the MEDIAN income in Alabama is $64K. It is under $40K in the UK.

---

Whoa, not deliberate at all:

" (the net worth of the actual person in the middle of the population, which is a much better indicator of typical well-being), the typical Brit is actually wealthier than the typical American. According to the global wealth database by UBS, the median wealth per adult in the UK is roughly $176,000, compared to just $124,000 in the US." It was acknowledged and felt to be not the best indicator of how an individual is doing financially.

Snark as you will and violate new rules 1,4-5, but my response did debunk lover's post.

SBGold said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

movielover said:

---

My understanding is that 20K millionaires left the UK last year; and if the UK were a US state, it's average income would rank it 51st. Take out London, and it's even worse. Meanwhile, they're importing hundreds of thousands of illiterate immigrants yearly to massively expand the welfare rolls.

---

I'm sure with the new posting rules that this will get full fact checking and validation

---

My understanding is that 20K millionaires left the UK last year:
The widely cited Henley & Partners / New World Wealth report projected a net loss of about 16,500 millionaires in 2025, the largest net millionaire outflow of any country that year.

if the UK were a US state, it's average income would rank it 51st:
This claim has circulated widely and is based on comparing GDP or income per capita between the UK and U.S. states at market exchange rates. On that particular metric, the UK does indeed come out below every U.S. state, including Mississippi, in some recent comparisons.

Take out London, and it's even worse:
Most regions outside London have noticeably lower productivity and incomes than London itself, so excluding London reduces the UK's average economic output further

The rest is an opinion on why the UK is allowing high levels of immigration, not really fact checkable.

---

It's all been debunked, took me 3 seconds to search:

Claim 1: "20,000 millionaires left the UK last year"
The Reality: This number was a commercial projection that has been thoroughly debunked.

• The Source: The "millionaire exodus" claims trace back to annual reports published by Henley & Partners (a commercial firm that sells "golden visas" and investment migration services). In their 2025 report, they estimated a net loss of 16,500 millionaires for the UK (which commentators rounded up to 20,000).
• The Debunking: In mid-2026, the report faced massive backlash from economists and tax experts who accused it of using "fake" and highly skewed data.
• The Walkback: Henley & Partners ultimately dropped their database partner, dismissed the sole author of those previous reports, and officially conceded that millionaire migration is actually "modest". They admitted that many of the millionaires they claimed "formally departed" actually continue to spend most of their time in the UK.
• The Bottom Line: The figure was never an official government statistic; it was an alarmist, marketing-driven projection by a private visa company that has since been discredited and retracted.

Claim 2: "If the UK were a US state, its average income would rank 51st"
The Reality: This is a selective comparison of GDP per capita that ignores actual household wealth and public services.

• The Source: This claim comes from a briefing by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) comparing the UK's GDP per capita directly to US states.
• The "Mean vs. Median" Fallacy: GDP per capita is a simple "mean" average (total economic output divided by population). Because the US has extreme wealth concentration and a massive pool of billionaires, its average GDP per capita is skewed incredibly high.
• The Real Wealth Picture: If you look at median adult wealth (the net worth of the actual person in the middle of the population, which is a much better indicator of typical well-being), the typical Brit is actually wealthier than the typical American. According to the global wealth database by UBS, the median wealth per adult in the UK is roughly $176,000, compared to just $124,000 in the US.
• The "Take Out London" Fallacy: Stripping the primary economic driver out of a country to make it look poor is a statistical trick. If you took New York and California out of the US, or Munich out of Germany, those regions' economic metrics would also plummet.
• The Cost of Living Difference: Raw income figures don't account for what you have to pay for out of pocket. UK citizens do not face the massive, life-altering private healthcare costs or university debt that the average American does, as the UK NHS and public services subsidize these expenses.

Claim 3: "Importing hundreds of thousands of illiterate, welfare-dependent immigrants"
The Reality: Legally and statistically impossible. UK visa rules require English proficiency and ban immigrants from accessing welfare.
This is the easiest of the three claims to disprove using the UK's actual legal framework:
1. The English Language Mandate
The UK's post-Brexit points-based system is incredibly strict. To get a Skilled Worker visa, a Health and Care worker visa, or a Student visa, applicants must legally prove they can speak, read, write, and understand English to a certified standard (CEFR Level B1 or B2). They cannot get past border control, let alone a job offer, if they are illiterate.
2. The "No Recourse to Public Funds" (NRPF) Rule
The claim that immigrants are arriving to "expand the welfare rolls" ignores basic immigration law. Virtually all non-UK/non-Irish nationals moving to the UK are subject to the NRPF condition.

• For their first 5 to 10 years in the UK, immigrants have zero legal access to the welfare state.
• They cannot claim Universal Credit, housing benefit, child benefit, or jobseeker's allowance.
• Furthermore, they must pay a massive upfront "Immigration Health Surcharge" (often thousands of pounds) just to use the NHS, meaning they are net-paying into the public system before they even arrive.

3. Lower Benefit Claim Rates
Official data from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has consistently shown that foreign-born residents are actually underrepresented on key out-of-work benefits compared to UK-born citizens. Because the vast majority of migrants are young, working-age individuals who moved specifically for a job or to study, they have high employment rates and are net fiscal contributors to the state.
_______________________

More of the same from lover, who mods have not dealt with before even though the misinformation posted has been a constant.

One thing about Wags, his info posted is solid.

---

Please keep your personal comments about Movie to yourself.

I almost didn't even engage after your bait and switch technique midway through your argument but here is the assessment of your rebuttal.

1. "The millionaire exodus was thoroughly debunked"

This is stronger than the evidence supports.

* The widely cited figure of 16,50020,000 millionaire departures came from Henley & Partners' Private Wealth Migration Report, and economists did criticize its methodology.
* However, criticism of a methodology is not proof that the underlying phenomenon didn't occur.
* Henley stopped publishing those specific estimates after ending its partnership with New World Wealth, but that is not the same as proving millionaire migration was "modest."
* Britain's abolition of the non-dom tax regime has led many wealth advisers, law firms, and tax specialists to report increased relocation inquiries and actual departures among wealthy clients.

Bottom line: The precise number is uncertain, but the rebuttal incorrectly equates uncertainty with disproving wealthy emigration.



2. "51st is false because GDP per capita isn't median wealth"

This attacks a different claim than the one being made.

* The original comparison is about GDP per capita, not median wealth.
* If the UK's GDP per capita would rank below every U.S. state, then that statistic remains true regardless of median wealth.
* Bringing up UBS median wealth data doesn't invalidate a GDP comparisonit simply changes the metric.

This is a classic bait-and-switch:

* Claim: GDP per capita.
* Rebuttal: Median wealth.

Those are different economic measures.



3. "US billionaires skew GDP"

This misunderstands GDP.

GDP measures annual production of goods and services, not accumulated wealth.

Jeff Bezos becoming richer does not automatically increase U.S. GDP.

Extreme wealth concentration affects wealth statistics far more than GDP.



4. "Take London out is a statistical trick"

Not necessarily.

It's common for economists to examine economies excluding dominant financial centers to understand regional performance.

People routinely analyze:

* France excluding Paris
* Canada excluding Ontario
* China excluding Shanghai
* Italy excluding Lombardy

Removing London can legitimately illustrate how dependent Britain's economy is on one metropolitan area.



5. "Typical Brit is wealthier"

This is misleading.

Median wealth:

* includes housing equity,
* pensions,
* financial assets,

and says little about:

* disposable income,
* wages,
* purchasing power,
* economic growth,
* productivity.

Someone can own a valuable home while earning relatively modest income.

Wealth and income are not interchangeable.



6. "Immigrants cannot access welfare"

This is overstated.

Many visa holders have No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), but there are important exceptions.

Refugees, people granted humanitarian protection, some family migrants, and people whose NRPF condition is lifted may receive benefits.

Asylum seekers also receive government-funded accommodation and subsistence, even though it is not part of the mainstream welfare system.

So saying immigrants have "zero legal access" is incorrect.



7. "Immigrants must prove they can read, write and understand English"

Not everyone.

Many principal Skilled Worker applicants must meet an English requirement, but numerous categories are exempt, including:

* dependent spouses,
* young children,
* refugees,
* some family-route migrants,
* applicants qualifying through exemptions.

The rebuttal incorrectly treats rules applying to one visa category as universal.



8. "Foreign-born residents are underrepresented on benefits"

This oversimplifies the evidence.

Recent migrants often claim fewer out-of-work benefits because they:

* are younger,
* are employed,
* face NRPF restrictions.

But that does not mean all immigration is fiscally positive.

The fiscal impact varies significantly depending on:

* visa category,
* income,
* age,
* family size,
* duration of residence.

Even researchers who generally support immigration caution against blanket statements that migrants are universally net contributors.



Overall assessment

The rebuttal relies on several recurring rhetorical techniques:

* It treats disputed issues as if they are fully settled.
* It substitutes different metrics (median wealth) for the ones actually being discussed (GDP per capita).
* It uses absolute language ("thoroughly debunked," "statistically impossible," "zero access") where the evidence is more nuanced.
* It generalizes rules that apply to many migrants as though they apply to all migrants.

It did not as you didn't even compare the same things in parts of your rebuttal.

Oh boy. Long winded unedited AI answer vs long winded unedited AI answer.

Do these AI slop reposts need commentary by the posters or are they granted special dispensation from the new rules like movielover has?

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

movielover said:

---

My understanding is that 20K millionaires left the UK last year; and if the UK were a US state, it's average income would rank it 51st. Take out London, and it's even worse. Meanwhile, they're importing hundreds of thousands of illiterate immigrants yearly to massively expand the welfare rolls.

---

I'm sure with the new posting rules that this will get full fact checking and validation

---

My understanding is that 20K millionaires left the UK last year:
The widely cited Henley & Partners / New World Wealth report projected a net loss of about 16,500 millionaires in 2025, the largest net millionaire outflow of any country that year.

if the UK were a US state, it's average income would rank it 51st:
This claim has circulated widely and is based on comparing GDP or income per capita between the UK and U.S. states at market exchange rates. On that particular metric, the UK does indeed come out below every U.S. state, including Mississippi, in some recent comparisons.

Take out London, and it's even worse:
Most regions outside London have noticeably lower productivity and incomes than London itself, so excluding London reduces the UK's average economic output further

The rest is an opinion on why the UK is allowing high levels of immigration, not really fact checkable.

---

It's all been debunked, took me 3 seconds to search:

Claim 1: "20,000 millionaires left the UK last year"
The Reality: This number was a commercial projection that has been thoroughly debunked.

• The Source: The "millionaire exodus" claims trace back to annual reports published by Henley & Partners (a commercial firm that sells "golden visas" and investment migration services). In their 2025 report, they estimated a net loss of 16,500 millionaires for the UK (which commentators rounded up to 20,000).
• The Debunking: In mid-2026, the report faced massive backlash from economists and tax experts who accused it of using "fake" and highly skewed data.
• The Walkback: Henley & Partners ultimately dropped their database partner, dismissed the sole author of those previous reports, and officially conceded that millionaire migration is actually "modest". They admitted that many of the millionaires they claimed "formally departed" actually continue to spend most of their time in the UK.
• The Bottom Line: The figure was never an official government statistic; it was an alarmist, marketing-driven projection by a private visa company that has since been discredited and retracted.

Claim 2: "If the UK were a US state, its average income would rank 51st"
The Reality: This is a selective comparison of GDP per capita that ignores actual household wealth and public services.

• The Source: This claim comes from a briefing by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) comparing the UK's GDP per capita directly to US states.
• The "Mean vs. Median" Fallacy: GDP per capita is a simple "mean" average (total economic output divided by population). Because the US has extreme wealth concentration and a massive pool of billionaires, its average GDP per capita is skewed incredibly high.
• The Real Wealth Picture: If you look at median adult wealth (the net worth of the actual person in the middle of the population, which is a much better indicator of typical well-being), the typical Brit is actually wealthier than the typical American. According to the global wealth database by UBS, the median wealth per adult in the UK is roughly $176,000, compared to just $124,000 in the US.
• The "Take Out London" Fallacy: Stripping the primary economic driver out of a country to make it look poor is a statistical trick. If you took New York and California out of the US, or Munich out of Germany, those regions' economic metrics would also plummet.
• The Cost of Living Difference: Raw income figures don't account for what you have to pay for out of pocket. UK citizens do not face the massive, life-altering private healthcare costs or university debt that the average American does, as the UK NHS and public services subsidize these expenses.

Claim 3: "Importing hundreds of thousands of illiterate, welfare-dependent immigrants"
The Reality: Legally and statistically impossible. UK visa rules require English proficiency and ban immigrants from accessing welfare.
This is the easiest of the three claims to disprove using the UK's actual legal framework:
1. The English Language Mandate
The UK's post-Brexit points-based system is incredibly strict. To get a Skilled Worker visa, a Health and Care worker visa, or a Student visa, applicants must legally prove they can speak, read, write, and understand English to a certified standard (CEFR Level B1 or B2). They cannot get past border control, let alone a job offer, if they are illiterate.
2. The "No Recourse to Public Funds" (NRPF) Rule
The claim that immigrants are arriving to "expand the welfare rolls" ignores basic immigration law. Virtually all non-UK/non-Irish nationals moving to the UK are subject to the NRPF condition.

• For their first 5 to 10 years in the UK, immigrants have zero legal access to the welfare state.
• They cannot claim Universal Credit, housing benefit, child benefit, or jobseeker's allowance.
• Furthermore, they must pay a massive upfront "Immigration Health Surcharge" (often thousands of pounds) just to use the NHS, meaning they are net-paying into the public system before they even arrive.

3. Lower Benefit Claim Rates
Official data from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has consistently shown that foreign-born residents are actually underrepresented on key out-of-work benefits compared to UK-born citizens. Because the vast majority of migrants are young, working-age individuals who moved specifically for a job or to study, they have high employment rates and are net fiscal contributors to the state.
_______________________

More of the same from lover, who mods have not dealt with before even though the misinformation posted has been a constant.

One thing about Wags, his info posted is solid.

---

I was kind of absorbing your point #1 a bit and then read point #2, which is incredibly misleading misinformation. I award you four Pinocchios for seemingly deliberately comparing apples to oranges. Income and wealth are not the same, and I believe even my nine year old knows that. Please do better in your efforts to silence a decent post.

Fyi, the MEDIAN income in Alabama is $64K. It is under $40K in the UK.

---

Whoa, not deliberate at all:

" (the net worth of the actual person in the middle of the population, which is a much better indicator of typical well-being), the typical Brit is actually wealthier than the typical American. According to the global wealth database by UBS, the median wealth per adult in the UK is roughly $176,000, compared to just $124,000 in the US." It was acknowledged and felt to be not the best indicator of how an individual is doing financially.

Snark as you will, but response did debunk lover's post.

---

Yep, there is nothing misleading about expanding the scope of the discussion when it is clearly stated. Furthermore, movielover first brought wealth into the discussion when he posted about millionaires.

dajo9 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

movielover said:

---

My understanding is that 20K millionaires left the UK last year; and if the UK were a US state, it's average income would rank it 51st. Take out London, and it's even worse. Meanwhile, they're importing hundreds of thousands of illiterate immigrants yearly to massively expand the welfare rolls.

---

I'm sure with the new posting rules that this will get full fact checking and validation

---

My understanding is that 20K millionaires left the UK last year:
The widely cited Henley & Partners / New World Wealth report projected a net loss of about 16,500 millionaires in 2025, the largest net millionaire outflow of any country that year.

if the UK were a US state, it's average income would rank it 51st:
This claim has circulated widely and is based on comparing GDP or income per capita between the UK and U.S. states at market exchange rates. On that particular metric, the UK does indeed come out below every U.S. state, including Mississippi, in some recent comparisons.

Take out London, and it's even worse:
Most regions outside London have noticeably lower productivity and incomes than London itself, so excluding London reduces the UK's average economic output further

The rest is an opinion on why the UK is allowing high levels of immigration, not really fact checkable.

---

It's all been debunked, took me 3 seconds to search:

Claim 1: "20,000 millionaires left the UK last year"
The Reality: This number was a commercial projection that has been thoroughly debunked.

• The Source: The "millionaire exodus" claims trace back to annual reports published by Henley & Partners (a commercial firm that sells "golden visas" and investment migration services). In their 2025 report, they estimated a net loss of 16,500 millionaires for the UK (which commentators rounded up to 20,000).
• The Debunking: In mid-2026, the report faced massive backlash from economists and tax experts who accused it of using "fake" and highly skewed data.
• The Walkback: Henley & Partners ultimately dropped their database partner, dismissed the sole author of those previous reports, and officially conceded that millionaire migration is actually "modest". They admitted that many of the millionaires they claimed "formally departed" actually continue to spend most of their time in the UK.
• The Bottom Line: The figure was never an official government statistic; it was an alarmist, marketing-driven projection by a private visa company that has since been discredited and retracted.

Claim 2: "If the UK were a US state, its average income would rank 51st"
The Reality: This is a selective comparison of GDP per capita that ignores actual household wealth and public services.

• The Source: This claim comes from a briefing by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) comparing the UK's GDP per capita directly to US states.
• The "Mean vs. Median" Fallacy: GDP per capita is a simple "mean" average (total economic output divided by population). Because the US has extreme wealth concentration and a massive pool of billionaires, its average GDP per capita is skewed incredibly high.
• The Real Wealth Picture: If you look at median adult wealth (the net worth of the actual person in the middle of the population, which is a much better indicator of typical well-being), the typical Brit is actually wealthier than the typical American. According to the global wealth database by UBS, the median wealth per adult in the UK is roughly $176,000, compared to just $124,000 in the US.
• The "Take Out London" Fallacy: Stripping the primary economic driver out of a country to make it look poor is a statistical trick. If you took New York and California out of the US, or Munich out of Germany, those regions' economic metrics would also plummet.
• The Cost of Living Difference: Raw income figures don't account for what you have to pay for out of pocket. UK citizens do not face the massive, life-altering private healthcare costs or university debt that the average American does, as the UK NHS and public services subsidize these expenses.

Claim 3: "Importing hundreds of thousands of illiterate, welfare-dependent immigrants"
The Reality: Legally and statistically impossible. UK visa rules require English proficiency and ban immigrants from accessing welfare.
This is the easiest of the three claims to disprove using the UK's actual legal framework:
1. The English Language Mandate
The UK's post-Brexit points-based system is incredibly strict. To get a Skilled Worker visa, a Health and Care worker visa, or a Student visa, applicants must legally prove they can speak, read, write, and understand English to a certified standard (CEFR Level B1 or B2). They cannot get past border control, let alone a job offer, if they are illiterate.
2. The "No Recourse to Public Funds" (NRPF) Rule
The claim that immigrants are arriving to "expand the welfare rolls" ignores basic immigration law. Virtually all non-UK/non-Irish nationals moving to the UK are subject to the NRPF condition.

• For their first 5 to 10 years in the UK, immigrants have zero legal access to the welfare state.
• They cannot claim Universal Credit, housing benefit, child benefit, or jobseeker's allowance.
• Furthermore, they must pay a massive upfront "Immigration Health Surcharge" (often thousands of pounds) just to use the NHS, meaning they are net-paying into the public system before they even arrive.

3. Lower Benefit Claim Rates
Official data from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has consistently shown that foreign-born residents are actually underrepresented on key out-of-work benefits compared to UK-born citizens. Because the vast majority of migrants are young, working-age individuals who moved specifically for a job or to study, they have high employment rates and are net fiscal contributors to the state.
_______________________

More of the same from lover, who mods have not dealt with before even though the misinformation posted has been a constant.

One thing about Wags, his info posted is solid.

---

I was kind of absorbing your point #1 a bit and then read point #2, which is incredibly misleading misinformation. I award you four Pinocchios for seemingly deliberately comparing apples to oranges. Income and wealth are not the same, and I believe even my nine year old knows that. Please do better in your efforts to silence a decent post.

Fyi, the MEDIAN income in Alabama is $64K. It is under $40K in the UK.

---

Whoa, not deliberate at all:

" (the net worth of the actual person in the middle of the population, which is a much better indicator of typical well-being), the typical Brit is actually wealthier than the typical American. According to the global wealth database by UBS, the median wealth per adult in the UK is roughly $176,000, compared to just $124,000 in the US." It was acknowledged and felt to be not the best indicator of how an individual is doing financially.

Snark as you will, but response did debunk lover's post.

---

Yep, there is nothing misleading about expanding the scope of the discussion when it is clearly stated. Furthermore, movielover first brought wealth into the discussion when he posted about millionaires.

---

It would be generally fine in an honest discussion. However, SBGold is supporting this statement:

"I'm sure with the new posting rules that this will get full fact checking and validation"

by saying "It's all been debunked, took me 3 seconds to search" and then posting apples and oranges.

So, yes in the honest of an honest discussion, it is totally fine. However, using this weak argument to accuse someone of violating the new rules is totally bunk.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

Cal88 said:

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I appreciate the civil discussion. Thank you.

Per the progressive policy institute it's about 175k vs 125k, not almost double.

The average credit card debt in America is 2-4 times bigger than the UK; the average mortgage is @415k vs 290k pounds. We pay $500 more a month on car payments ($750 vs $250). That's a lot of consumer debt and it must contribute to the discrepancy.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I appreciate the civil discussion. Thank you.

Per the progressive policy institute it's about 175k vs 125k, not almost double.

The average credit card debt in America is 2-4 times bigger than the UK; the average mortgage is @415k vs 290k pounds. We pay $500 more a month on car payments ($750 vs $250). That's a lot of consumer debt and it must contribute to the discrepancy.

---

UBS Global Wealth Survey has UK median wealth at $125k and US at $69k.



The UK has universal healthcare, and although it has the highest college costs in Europe they are still much lower than in the US. And of course Brit parents don't pay $5k/year for little Gemma to play soccer at the local club.

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I'm grateful to have been able to provide information that debunks a continued pattern of misinformation. One of the biggest scourges of this generation is that they have learned to say anything they want knowing that it is not likely true in hopes of throwing off the scent to the truth.

By any measure, a Brit is doing better financially and has a better future than the equivalent American. It's a shameful thing to have to type, but at least it is honest.

We all got a clean slate yesterday. Why not Wags?

Free Wags!

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I'm grateful to have been able to provide information that debunks a continued pattern of misinformation. One of the biggest scourges of this generation is that they have learned to say anything they want knowing that it is not likely true in hopes of throwing off the scent to the truth.

By any measure, a Brit is doing better financially and has a better future than the equivalent American. It's a shameful thing to have to type, but at least it is honest.

We all got a clean slate yesterday. Why not Wags?

Free Wags!

---

I am not sure about the future, western Europe is experiencing an industrial and social decline. The US has its economic and social problems as well but the future is uncertain.

This being said, in both countries most young people feel that they won't be as well off as their parents' generation. This is a fairly recent phenomenon, and a pretty damning fact.

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

By any measure, a Brit is doing better financially and has a better future than the equivalent American.

---

Just making sure the misinformation campaign doesn't roll along saying things that are false and thinking nobody will call them on their dishonesty.

So the statement that "by any measure" Britons are better off is demonstrably false. Different metrics point in different directions:

* Income: U.S. advantage.
* Wealth: U.S. advantage.
* High-end career earnings: U.S. advantage.
* Healthcare affordability and social safety net: UK advantage.
* Vacation and worker protections: UK advantage.

A more defensible statement would be: "The UK provides a stronger social safety net, while the U.S. generally offers higher incomes and greater opportunities for wealth accumulation." Neither country is unequivocally "better by any measure."

I think more clarity, posted in a civil way, notes that while the U.S. boasts higher gross salaries, it forces its citizens to privately fund basic human rights like healthcare, education, and retirement security. The UK guarantees these essentials, protects workers' time, and ensures a significantly higher life expectancy, so because of this the average Brit enjoys a higher, safer, and more secure quality of life than the average American.

And those are the things that really matters, aren't they?

Free Wags!

SBGold said:

---

I think more clarity, posted in a civil way, notes that while the U.S. boasts higher gross salaries, it forces its citizens to privately fund basic human rights like healthcare, education, and retirement security. The UK guarantees these essentials, protects workers' time, and ensures a significantly higher life expectancy, so because of this the average Brit enjoys a higher, safer, and more secure quality of life than the average American.

And those are the things that really matters, aren't they?

Free Wags!

---

That's a subjective question and answer. You gave a definitive statement when there is no definite answer.

The U.S. has one of the highest median disposable incomes in the OECD. According to the OECD's PPP-adjusted data, the United States ranks among the highest-income countries, ahead of the UK. In fact, the OECD lists the U.S. alongside Luxembourg and Norway at the top for median disposable household income.

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/society-at-a-glance-2024_918d8db3-en/full-report/household-income_3ee61044.html

BearlySane88 said:

---

The U.S. has one of the highest median disposable incomes in the OECD. According to the OECD's PPP-adjusted data, the United States ranks among the highest-income countries, ahead of the UK. In fact, the OECD lists the U.S. alongside Luxembourg and Norway at the top for median disposable household income.

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/society-at-a-glance-2024_918d8db3-en/full-report/household-income_3ee61044.html

---

"Disposable income" before healthcare costs and deductibles, before Johnny's college tuition and before Kayla's soccer club fees and God forbid you live in a school district with subpar public schools...

And guess what, Kayla wants to do futsal in the winter when she can't play soccer outside. Oh and that team does travel tournaments.

I'm moving to the UK, f this

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I'm grateful to have been able to provide information that debunks a continued pattern of misinformation. One of the biggest scourges of this generation is that they have learned to say anything they want knowing that it is not likely true in hopes of throwing off the scent to the truth.

By any measure, a Brit is doing better financially and has a better future than the equivalent American. It's a shameful thing to have to type, but at least it is honest.

We all got a clean slate yesterday. Why not Wags?

Free Wags!

---

You didn't. Movielover's post was not debunked by you. US median income is substantially larger than the UKs. The median US individuals enjoy a better standard of living than their counterparts in the UK. Unfortunately, the median wealth is lower because, along with some other factors, the median folks in the USA spend, spend, and continue to spend, racking up credit card bills with little financial responsibility. The consumer culture runs rampant, and folks need to do a better job planning their futures instead of buying new sneakers and cars.

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I'm grateful to have been able to provide information that debunks a continued pattern of misinformation. One of the biggest scourges of this generation is that they have learned to say anything they want knowing that it is not likely true in hopes of throwing off the scent to the truth.

By any measure, a Brit is doing better financially and has a better future than the equivalent American. It's a shameful thing to have to type, but at least it is honest.

We all got a clean slate yesterday. Why not Wags?

Free Wags!

---

You didn't. Movielover's post was not debunked by you. US median income is substantially larger than the UKs. The median US individuals enjoy a better standard of living than their counterparts in the UK. Unfortunately, the median wealth is lower because the median folks in the USA spend, spend, and continue to spend, racking up credit card bills with little financial responsibility. The consumer culture runs rampant, and folks need to do a better job planning their futures instead of buying new sneakers and cars.

---

It's more about $2,000 ambulance rides and $60k tuition than avocado toasts and lattes.

Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I'm grateful to have been able to provide information that debunks a continued pattern of misinformation. One of the biggest scourges of this generation is that they have learned to say anything they want knowing that it is not likely true in hopes of throwing off the scent to the truth.

By any measure, a Brit is doing better financially and has a better future than the equivalent American. It's a shameful thing to have to type, but at least it is honest.

We all got a clean slate yesterday. Why not Wags?

Free Wags!

---

You didn't. Movielover's post was not debunked by you. US median income is substantially larger than the UKs. The median US individuals enjoy a better standard of living than their counterparts in the UK. Unfortunately, the median wealth is lower because the median folks in the USA spend, spend, and continue to spend, racking up credit card bills with little financial responsibility. The consumer culture runs rampant, and folks need to do a better job planning their futures instead of buying new sneakers and cars.

---

It's more about $2,000 ambulance rides and $60k tuition than avocado toasts and lattes.

---

Yes, and Kayla's soccer club fees.

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I'm grateful to have been able to provide information that debunks a continued pattern of misinformation. One of the biggest scourges of this generation is that they have learned to say anything they want knowing that it is not likely true in hopes of throwing off the scent to the truth.

By any measure, a Brit is doing better financially and has a better future than the equivalent American. It's a shameful thing to have to type, but at least it is honest.

We all got a clean slate yesterday. Why not Wags?

Free Wags!

---

You didn't. Movielover's post was not debunked by you. US median income is substantially larger than the UKs. The median US individuals enjoy a better standard of living than their counterparts in the UK. Unfortunately, the median wealth is lower because the median folks in the USA spend, spend, and continue to spend, racking up credit card bills with little financial responsibility. The consumer culture runs rampant, and folks need to do a better job planning their futures instead of buying new sneakers and cars.

---

It's more about $2,000 ambulance rides and $60k tuition than avocado toasts and lattes.

---

Yes, and Kayla's soccer club fees.

---

Kayla doesn't need to play club soccer. She can play AYSO or the equivalent. Heck, she can play AYSO Extra or something like that if she is good enough, and that is much cheaper than typical clubs. Also, clubs will fully or partial sponsor a good player with need. Paying for Kayla to play club is a clear example of unnecessary spending.

By the way, both my kids play Club Soccer.

Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I'm grateful to have been able to provide information that debunks a continued pattern of misinformation. One of the biggest scourges of this generation is that they have learned to say anything they want knowing that it is not likely true in hopes of throwing off the scent to the truth.

By any measure, a Brit is doing better financially and has a better future than the equivalent American. It's a shameful thing to have to type, but at least it is honest.

We all got a clean slate yesterday. Why not Wags?

Free Wags!

---

You didn't. Movielover's post was not debunked by you. US median income is substantially larger than the UKs. The median US individuals enjoy a better standard of living than their counterparts in the UK. Unfortunately, the median wealth is lower because the median folks in the USA spend, spend, and continue to spend, racking up credit card bills with little financial responsibility. The consumer culture runs rampant, and folks need to do a better job planning their futures instead of buying new sneakers and cars.

---

It's more about $2,000 ambulance rides and $60k tuition than avocado toasts and lattes.

---

Nobody has to pay 60K tuition. Also, health insurance nearly always will cover necessary ambulance rides for their insured.

oski003 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I'm grateful to have been able to provide information that debunks a continued pattern of misinformation. One of the biggest scourges of this generation is that they have learned to say anything they want knowing that it is not likely true in hopes of throwing off the scent to the truth.

By any measure, a Brit is doing better financially and has a better future than the equivalent American. It's a shameful thing to have to type, but at least it is honest.

We all got a clean slate yesterday. Why not Wags?

Free Wags!

---

You didn't. Movielover's post was not debunked by you. US median income is substantially larger than the UKs. The median US individuals enjoy a better standard of living than their counterparts in the UK. Unfortunately, the median wealth is lower because the median folks in the USA spend, spend, and continue to spend, racking up credit card bills with little financial responsibility. The consumer culture runs rampant, and folks need to do a better job planning their futures instead of buying new sneakers and cars.

---

It's more about $2,000 ambulance rides and $60k tuition than avocado toasts and lattes.

---

Nobody has to pay 60K tuition. Also, health insurance nearly always will cover necessary ambulance rides for their insured.

---

How much does that cost, and what is the deductible.

And $1.8 trillion total student debt.

Quote:

---

By the way, both my kids play Club Soccer.

---

You've got Stockholm Syndrome! ; )

Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I'm grateful to have been able to provide information that debunks a continued pattern of misinformation. One of the biggest scourges of this generation is that they have learned to say anything they want knowing that it is not likely true in hopes of throwing off the scent to the truth.

By any measure, a Brit is doing better financially and has a better future than the equivalent American. It's a shameful thing to have to type, but at least it is honest.

We all got a clean slate yesterday. Why not Wags?

Free Wags!

---

You didn't. Movielover's post was not debunked by you. US median income is substantially larger than the UKs. The median US individuals enjoy a better standard of living than their counterparts in the UK. Unfortunately, the median wealth is lower because the median folks in the USA spend, spend, and continue to spend, racking up credit card bills with little financial responsibility. The consumer culture runs rampant, and folks need to do a better job planning their futures instead of buying new sneakers and cars.

---

It's more about $2,000 ambulance rides and $60k tuition than avocado toasts and lattes.

---

Nobody has to pay 60K tuition. Also, health insurance nearly always will cover necessary ambulance rides for their insured.

---

How much does that cost, and what is the deductible.

And $1.8 trillion total student debt.

Quote:

---

By the way, both my kids play Club Soccer.

---

You've got Stockholm Syndrome! ; )

---

The student debt is cultural and not necessary. I went to the #1 public school in the world and paid $25K total. Yes, insurance costs money. Then again, US median income in Alabama of all places is much higher than that of the UK. People spend and spend and spend here.

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I'm grateful to have been able to provide information that debunks a continued pattern of misinformation. One of the biggest scourges of this generation is that they have learned to say anything they want knowing that it is not likely true in hopes of throwing off the scent to the truth.

By any measure, a Brit is doing better financially and has a better future than the equivalent American. It's a shameful thing to have to type, but at least it is honest.

We all got a clean slate yesterday. Why not Wags?

Free Wags!

---

You didn't. Movielover's post was not debunked by you. US median income is substantially larger than the UKs. The median US individuals enjoy a better standard of living than their counterparts in the UK. Unfortunately, the median wealth is lower because the median folks in the USA spend, spend, and continue to spend, racking up credit card bills with little financial responsibility. The consumer culture runs rampant, and folks need to do a better job planning their futures instead of buying new sneakers and cars.

---

It's more about $2,000 ambulance rides and $60k tuition than avocado toasts and lattes.

---

Yes, and Kayla's soccer club fees.

---

Kayla doesn't need to play club soccer. She can play AYSO or the equivalent. Heck, she can play AYSO Extra or something like that if she is good enough, and that is much cheaper than typical clubs. Also, clubs will fully or partial sponsor a good player with need. Paying for Kayla to play club is a clear example of unnecessary spending.

By the way, both my kids play Club Soccer.

---

nah, Kayla playing club soccer or she will ruin your parenting life by vaping every day during free period and drinking with the rich kids with access to their parents' liquor cabinet after school.

It costs a lot to keep your Kayla in line.--Mo

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Per AI/ChatGP The UK levies Income Tax at 20% (basic rate on income up to 50,270), 40% (higher rate up to 125,140), and 45% (additional rate over 125,140).

Pensions and healthcare are funded by National Insurance (NI) on earnings tax which is 8% up to @$4200 per month or 2% over $4200 per month.

The UK also has the 20% VAT.

Using rough numbers, earnings up to @50k are taxed at 28% + VAT; 50-125k pay 42% + VAT and over 125k pay 47% + VAT.

The US tax system is substantially more progressive. The US has about 10 times as many millionaires and 17 times as many billionaires as the UK.

---

The median wealth in the UK is nearly double that of the US.

---

I'm grateful to have been able to provide information that debunks a continued pattern of misinformation. One of the biggest scourges of this generation is that they have learned to say anything they want knowing that it is not likely true in hopes of throwing off the scent to the truth.

By any measure, a Brit is doing better financially and has a better future than the equivalent American. It's a shameful thing to have to type, but at least it is honest.

We all got a clean slate yesterday. Why not Wags?

Free Wags!

---

You didn't. Movielover's post was not debunked by you. US median income is substantially larger than the UKs. The median US individuals enjoy a better standard of living than their counterparts in the UK. Unfortunately, the median wealth is lower because the median folks in the USA spend, spend, and continue to spend, racking up credit card bills with little financial responsibility. The consumer culture runs rampant, and folks need to do a better job planning their futures instead of buying new sneakers and cars.

---

It's more about $2,000 ambulance rides and $60k tuition than avocado toasts and lattes.

---

Yes, and Kayla's soccer club fees.

---

Kayla doesn't need to play club soccer. She can play AYSO or the equivalent. Heck, she can play AYSO Extra or something like that if she is good enough, and that is much cheaper than typical clubs. Also, clubs will fully or partial sponsor a good player with need. Paying for Kayla to play club is a clear example of unnecessary spending.

By the way, both my kids play Club Soccer.

---

nah, Kayla playing club soccer or she will ruin your parenting life by vaping every day during free period and drinking with the rich kids with access to their parents' liquor cabinet after school.

It costs a lot to keep your Kayla in line.--Mo

---

That sounds bad. Hopefully, she figures it out before it escalates into the super hard stuff and subsequent atrocities.

Closer to Home where the Weather is far better than the UK.
Where the Food is Better, the Beer is Better, the Roads are Better , and the Scenery is Better

The Great Wealth Transfer is coming and the Bay Area will be its epicenter


A lot of hay and headlines have been made of the so-called Great Wealth Transfer, a term popularized by a 2024 report from market research firm Cerulli Associates. The broad idea is that, over the next two decades, as baby boomers journey to the great postwar subdivision in the sky, they will bequeath $124 trillion in assets leaving $105 trillion to their children and $18 trillion to charities.

The mass movement of these assets is likely to create broad ripple effects, potentially reorienting the U.S. economy around a new generation of wealth holders.

California and especially the Bay Area will be the epicenter of that transfer. According to a Chronicle analysis of census data, $10 trillion to $20 trillion of the Great Wealth Transfer will come from Californians, with the Bay Area representing an outsize share of assets held statewide.

The phrase "Great Wealth Transfer" may conjure images of the billionaire class, and Cerulli Associates' estimate indicates that the top 2% of households will account for more than half the total shift in wealth.

However, many Bay Area households passing on assets in future decades will look more like Compere's working families who bought homes before prices exploded and are poised to hand down at least a portion of those gains, if not necessarily dynastic wealth.

The Bay Area's version of the Great Wealth Transfer won't be a simple cash transaction. Here, a significant portion of many people's net worth comes from a nonliquid asset: their home.

The Bay Area's wealth transfer, by the numbers

According to a U.S. Census Bureau survey, California households headed by someone 60 or older had an estimated median net worth of $632,000 in 2023 meaning half had more and half had less. That was nearly double the national median of $352,000. The Bay Area is wealthier still, with more billionaires than any other region in the world and extraordinarily high home values that continue to rise.

At most percentiles, California's wealth gap is also an outlier. At the 10th percentile, California households and the U.S. have relatively similar net worths at around only $1,700. But at the 90th percentile, the gap widens sharply: $4.4 million in California vs. $2.6 million nationally. From there, household wealth rises dramatically in the state particularly in the Bay Area, where names such as Ellison, Zuckerberg, Powell, Jobs and Huang perch at the very top.

In the Bay Area, homeownership has become a major engine of wealth as home prices have skyrocketed. In 2000, the median home price in the San Francisco metro was just under $300,000, according to Zillow estimates; last month, it was $1.15 million a nearly 300% increase.

For homeowners 60 and older in the Bay Area's nine counties, the total combined value of their homes was around $850 billion in 2023, with a median home value of $900,000 and a mean of $1.2 million, according to numbers reported by survey respondents to the U.S. census.

The median gives a clearer picture than the mean, or mathematical average, which is skewed by the concentration of ultra-wealthy residents in the Bay Area, many of whom made their fortunes in the tech industry. Both the median and mean home values are higher in the Bay Area than statewide the numbers for California are $650,000 and $888,000, respectively and three times higher than those values across the U.S.

The Bay Area's home values represent 28% of the total combined home value of all owners age 60plus in California, despite the region making up only 20% of the state's population.

What inheritance means for the housing market

The transfer of housing wealth is unlikely to translate into greater affordability for the region. Instead, it may deepen the divide between those who inherit family wealth and those who don't, push some heirs to sell inherited homes and send others looking for cheaper housing elsewhere.

One major factor is Proposition 19, approved by California voters in 2020, which placed new limits on inherited-property tax breaks established in the late 1970s under the state's landmark Proposition 13. Many people who inherit real estate no longer inherit the previous owner's low property tax bill along with it further incentivizing them to sell.

Prop 19 was expected to add up to hundreds of millions more dollars per year in property tax revenue for local governments, according to an analysis from the California Legislative Analyst's Office.

However, the mass transfer of property from one generation to the next expected in coming decades is unlikely to trigger a supply surge that would push prices down broadly or meaningfully ease the state's severe housing shortage.

Plan Bay Area, a regional planning initiative, in its most recent analysis reported an anticipated 900,000 new households and more than 1.3 million new jobs in the region by 2050. As housing prices continue to rise, people left out of the family wealth transfer will likely be further priced out of homeownership.


The Great Wealth Transfer is coming and the Bay Area will be its epicenter