Andy Burnham issued furious pensions warning as billionaires abandon UK
Andy Burnham outlined his vision for Britain at Labour’s party conference (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham is facing a growing political challenge over pensions and taxation as fresh figures raise questions about whether Britain risks driving away the wealth it needs to support public services.
An analysis cited in the Express suggests that billionaires with a combined £121 billion in wealth have either left the UK or loosened their ties with the country since Labour came to power in 2024. The figures have intensified a debate over the consequences of tax policy, with wealth advisers warning that the Government must consider how changes could influence decisions about where wealthy individuals live, invest and build businesses.
The warning comes as households already face difficult financial choices and growing uncertainty about their retirement plans. Pension contributions, inheritance tax and the future of the state pension have all become contentious issues, leaving ministers under pressure to explain how they intend to fund ambitious public services without undermining confidence in long-term saving.
For Burnham, the challenge is particularly sensitive. His Government has promised to establish a National Care Service while reforming the state pension’s annual increases to make the system more sustainable. Critics argue that changing pension rules while wealthy residents are considering leaving could send the wrong message about Britain’s economic direction.
Yet the issue is more complicated than simply blaming taxes for every departure. Wealth can move for many reasons, and the reported £121 billion figure does not mean that the Treasury has automatically lost the same amount in tax revenue. The central question is whether the Government can raise the money it needs while keeping Britain attractive to people who invest, employ workers and generate taxable income.
Wealth experts warn against taxing people out of Britain
Mike Stimpson, a partner at wealth management firm Saltus, has warned that the Government must consider the behavioural consequences of its decisions.
“If Britain makes itself too expensive for the wealthy, it risks taxing them out of the country and taking their tax contributions with them,” he said, according to the source article.
His argument is that a tax policy designed to raise more revenue can become counterproductive if it encourages people to relocate, restructure their assets or move investment elsewhere.
The concern is reflected in Saltus’s September 2026 Wealth Index Report. The survey found that 70% of high-net-worth respondents were concerned about further pension changes, while 67% were worried about potential changes to inheritance tax. Sixty-six per cent expressed concern about possible changes to the tax-free pension lump sum.
Kemi Badenoch has said Brits must ‘keep more of what they earn’ (Image: Getty)
The report also found that confidence in the UK economy had fallen to 56%, compared with 66% a year earlier. Meanwhile, the proportion of respondents who said they were considering leaving Britain had increased to nearly one in three, although most reported having no plans to move abroad.
These findings do not prove that a particular tax measure will trigger an exodus. They do, however, indicate that tax policy has become a significant consideration for wealthy households deciding how to manage their finances.
The Government must therefore weigh two competing priorities: ensuring that those with substantial resources contribute fairly, and avoiding a system that discourages investment or makes it less attractive to remain in Britain.
Pension rules are adding to household anxiety
One of the biggest concerns involves changes to the way pension savings are treated for tax purposes.
In November 2025, the Government announced that the National Insurance exemption for pension contributions made through salary sacrifice would be capped at £2,000 a year from April 2029.
Salary sacrifice allows an employee to agree to a lower contractual salary in exchange for an employer pension contribution. Depending on the arrangement, the employee and employer can benefit from National Insurance savings.
Under the announced change, contributions above the £2,000 annual threshold would no longer receive the same National Insurance exemption. The reform does not abolish salary sacrifice, but it could reduce the tax advantages available to employees making larger contributions through the arrangement.
For people approaching retirement, even relatively small changes to pension incentives can affect long-term planning. Workers may need to reconsider how much they contribute, whether to use alternative savings arrangements and how to balance retirement provision against everyday expenses.
Another change is scheduled for April 6, 2027, when most unused defined-contribution pension funds and certain pension death benefits are due to come within the scope of inheritance tax.
Previously, pension arrangements could in some circumstances allow unused funds to pass to beneficiaries outside an individual’s estate for inheritance-tax purposes. Bringing those assets within the tax framework could change the calculations involved in estate planning.
The reforms are intended to make the treatment of inherited pension wealth more consistent with other assets. Critics, however, argue that they add another layer of uncertainty for families trying to plan how their savings will be passed to the next generation.
The existing limit on the tax-free pension lump sum remains £268,275 for most people, subject to individual circumstances and any applicable protections. Concerns about its future are widespread among the wealthy, but concern should not be confused with an announced decision to abolish it.
That distinction matters. Households need clear information about what has been legislated, what has been announced for future implementation and what remains speculation.
The triple lock becomes the political flashpoint
The state pension is an even more politically sensitive issue because it affects millions of people who rely on it to cover basic living costs.
Under the existing triple lock, the state pension rises annually by whichever is highest: inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5%. The policy is intended to protect pensioners against rising prices while ensuring they share in the benefits of economic growth.
Burnham’s Government has announced an adjustment to the system from April 2030. The Government says the state pension will continue to rise every year by at least inflation or 2.5%, with an additional mechanism intended to maintain its value relative to average earnings over time.
According to the Department for Work and Pensions’ reform factsheet, the change is designed to prevent the pension from consistently growing faster than wages over the long term while preserving protection against price rises.
Ministers argue that the reform will make the system more sustainable and free up resources for the proposed National Care Service. The Government has said the savings will help fund a system providing free personal care for older people according to need rather than their ability to pay.
However, the proposal has prompted concern because future pension increases could differ from what people have come to expect under the traditional triple lock.
Pensioners must plan around their expected income, while younger workers need confidence that the system will remain viable when they retire. A change that appears financially sensible over several decades can still create anxiety among those who fear losing ground to rising living costs.
The Government’s task is to explain the revised formula clearly and demonstrate that it will protect pensioners without placing an unsustainable burden on future taxpayers.
Can the National Care Service be funded without higher taxes?
Burnham has argued that the adjustment to the triple lock can help finance his National Care Service without requiring additional tax increases to pay for the programme.
The political attraction is clear. Adult social care has long faced pressure from rising demand, workforce shortages and the financial strain placed on families who need support for elderly or vulnerable relatives.
A publicly funded care system could reduce the risk of people having to sell assets or exhaust savings to pay for essential personal care. It could also offer greater certainty to families who struggle to understand the costs of arranging support.
But the proposal raises a difficult question: will the projected pension savings be sufficient to cover the costs of the new service as demand grows?
The Government’s own announcement on the National Care Service sets out its broad ambition, but implementation will depend on detailed decisions about funding, eligibility, staffing and the pace at which the service is introduced.
Savings projected over many years are not the same as cash immediately available to pay for a new programme. Economic growth, wage increases, inflation and the number of people needing care can all change the final calculation.
Opposition politicians are likely to argue that Burnham cannot promise improved care, financial stability for pensioners and no additional tax burden without demonstrating precisely how the figures add up.
The Government, meanwhile, must convince the public that pension reform is part of a coherent long-term plan rather than an attempt to shift costs from one part of the public finances to another.
Kemi Badenoch offers a contrasting message
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has sought to turn the debate into an argument about the direction of the British economy.
Her promise to abolish inheritance tax on family homes and raise the threshold for death duties to £500,000 is intended to appeal to people who believe they should be able to pass more of their wealth to their children.
Badenoch’s broader message is that families and businesses need greater certainty and should be allowed to retain more of what they earn.
That approach contrasts with Labour’s attempt to balance public-service expansion against long-term fiscal constraints. It also gives the Conservatives an opportunity to court voters who are worried about changes to pension rules and the taxation of inherited wealth.
However, tax cuts carry their own financial questions. Abolishing or reducing inheritance tax would lower receipts unless offset by other measures or changes in economic behaviour. The Conservatives would therefore need to explain how their proposals could be funded while protecting public services.
Neither party can avoid the underlying arithmetic. Britain needs sufficient revenue to fund pensions, healthcare, social care and other public commitments. The political disagreement is over how that burden should be distributed and how much the tax system should prioritise investment, saving and wealth transfer.
The £121 billion question: what does Britain risk losing?
The reported £121 billion figure is striking, but it needs careful interpretation.
A combined wealth estimate for people who have left or reduced their ties to Britain is not equivalent to £121 billion being withdrawn from the Treasury. Personal wealth includes assets such as company shares, property and investments, and the amount of tax generated by those assets varies considerably.
Nor does the figure, by itself, establish that tax policy was the sole reason for each person’s decision. Relocation can reflect family circumstances, business opportunities, lifestyle choices, international mobility and changes in personal or professional priorities.
Nevertheless, the wider issue cannot be ignored. If Britain becomes less attractive to entrepreneurs, investors and internationally mobile professionals, the consequences could extend beyond income-tax receipts. Investment decisions, business expansion, job creation and charitable giving may also be affected.
Equally, a tax system that is perceived as unfair can undermine public confidence and make it harder to secure support for necessary reforms. The challenge is to strike a balance between raising adequate revenue and maintaining an environment in which people have a reason to invest and remain.
That balance requires stable rules, transparent forecasts and a credible explanation of how revenue will be spent.
A warning Burnham cannot afford to ignore
The coming Budget, expected on October 28, will offer an important test of the Government’s economic approach. Chancellor John Healey faces pressure to support households and public services while maintaining confidence in the public finances.
For Burnham, pensions are likely to remain one of the most difficult parts of that challenge. Older voters want reassurance that their incomes will keep pace with living costs, working-age households need incentives to save, and families with substantial assets are seeking clarity about future tax liabilities.
The Government is entitled to reform tax rules and pension arrangements in pursuit of sustainable public finances. But it must also recognise that uncertainty can influence behaviour long before a policy takes effect.
The warning from wealth advisers is not proof that Britain’s wealthiest residents will leave en masse. It is a reminder that policy decisions have consequences beyond the immediate revenue they generate.
If Burnham wants to fund a National Care Service and protect the long-term future of the state pension, he will need to show that the numbers work—and that the reforms will not undermine confidence among the people and businesses whose taxes help pay for them.
The central question is no longer simply whether Britain should tax wealth more or less. It is whether the Government can create a system that raises revenue fairly, supports retirement security and keeps the UK an attractive place to live, work and invest.
For pensioners and taxpayers alike, that answer will matter far more than any conference promise.