We don’t always follow the exact footsteps of our mother country, but we eerily mimic her moves on occasion.

The last time was in 2016, after the Brexit vote. Though, as a British citizen, I voted “out” myself, I didn’t think we would win. But I had hope once Sunderland’s overwhelming “out” vote flashed across my screen. Then, the rest of the North voted out. Then, Wales. Finally, we had won.

From that moment on, I knew - yes, I knew - Donald Trump would win the election. No red-blooded American would dare allow the skinny, aquiline-faced Brit to out-rebel him. And so it was. Brexit and Trump had won their days.

The problem with revolutionaries is that they’re utterly crap at administration, the actual job of government. We see that from the left every time they somehow get into office. Unfortunately, the right-wing Brexiteers and Trumpians were also appalling on the governing front.

The UK’s Tories, who had fought for decades to break “The Northern Wall” of Labour voters, finally did in 2019. And what was the reward for these humble, blue collar workers? Higher taxes and green policies that would turn you red with fury.

As for Trump, we all know the story. His great foreign and tax policies were undermined by the treasonous losers Trump allowed to stay in the administration. He neither built the wall nor drained the swamp, and it cost him the 2020 election.

The Yanks elected the dementia patient, Joke Biden, as their leader. It’s not been the best of times, has it? And America may yet elect Cacklin’ Kamala Harris, a person so bereft of ideas her people keep her off the interview circuit as much as they can get away with. Her running mate, Tim Walz, declared, “We can’t afford four more years of this.” Somehow, the Biden years didn’t include his Vice President.

But if you think America is in a precarious position, you should see the UK, whose voters have already made their bed. Now, they’re not so much lying in it as dying in it.

Who’s Leading the UK?

A rather loathsome man named Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He has all the charisma of a stray hair on a toilet seat. England, in her desperation, didn’t think her vote through. England was so intent on axing the Tories she sliced right through her foot.

If you ever heard of the Rotherham grooming cases, the Head of the Crown Prosecution Service at that time was one Keir Starmer.

Like any candidate running for the top spot in a democracy, he promised voters the world. Once he got into office, he told them he needed to raise taxes.

From Bloomberg:

Starmer won this summer’s election with promises to redistribute wealth and repair public services, following 14 years of Conservative rule. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has argued that a £22 billion black hole in the budget needs to be filled, while the Labour faithful at this week’s party conference are more likely to talk about taxing the rich as a revenue-raiser than the trigger for an exodus.

While the impact and likelihood of such departures are up for debate, the hazard lights are flashing.

H.L. Mencken comes to mind: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

What Are His Policies?

Starmer’s policies are as idiotic as any economically-illiterate politician.

According to Bloomberg, the UK’s most contentious plans include a 40% inheritance tax on offshore wealth and having carried interest (private equity’s “performance fee”) taxed at a rate as high as 45% rather than the current 28%.

Let’s just tear apart those two.

Why Are They So Dangerous?

I’ve already called the inheritance tax (IHT) “the most immoral of taxes.”

Let me list the ways:

• Property rights: Individuals can dispose of their property as they wish, including passing it on to their chosen heirs. Imposing a tax on inherited wealth is a flagrant violation of property rights, as it limits individuals' freedom to distribute their assets according to their wishes.

• Double taxation: IHT is double taxation because the assets being transferred have already been subject to income tax or other forms of taxation during the deceased person's lifetime. Taxing those assets again when passed on to heirs is ridiculously unjust.

• Generational fairness: IHT unfairly targets the wealth accumulated by one generation and transfers it to the government. That disrupts the intergenerational transfer of wealth and undermines the ability to provide for future generations.

• Wealth preservation: IHT discourages wealth accumulation and capital investment. If individuals know that a significant portion of their wealth will be subject to taxation upon death, they’re less motivated to build and preserve wealth, stunting economic growth and investment.

• Complexity and avoidance: IHT is complex, leading to loopholes and opportunities for wealthy individuals to use tax planning strategies to reduce or avoid the tax altogether. Indeed, this creates an unfair advantage for the rich. They can afford sophisticated legal and financial advice to minimize their tax liabilities.

Each of these is a good reason to tear up IHT. But IHT on offshore wealth is a disgusting extraterritorial overreach reminiscent of the U.S.’s citizenship-based taxation.

Let’s move on to the insane rates on “carried interest.”

Here are three arguments why some might consider high taxes on carried interest to be immoral:

Carried interest is the reward for taking significant financial risks in private equity, venture capital, and other investment fields. High taxes on carried interest punishes those who drive economic innovation, job creation, and business growth. Taxing carried interest at high rates disincentivizes entrepreneurship and investment, which are vital for economic progress.

Investors who earn carried interest put their capital into the business or fund they manage, meaning they are already paying taxes on any profits at the corporate or capital gains level. Taxing carried interest at a high rate is double taxation, making it unfair to those whose financial gains result from both their labor and their capital investment.

Carried interest reflects not just labor but the combination of intellectual capital, managerial skill, and financial risk. High taxes on carried interest undervalue the "sweat equity" in generating returns, where fund managers receive their portion of profits only after other investors are paid. Taxing it at higher rates dismisses the manager's role in value creation.

There’s a case for limiting a central bank’s power to fund such ventures cheaply, but that’s another conversation entirely.

The bottom line is that carried interest isn’t income and shouldn’t be taxed at the same rate. Quite frankly, taxation is theft anyway.

Brain Drain Becomes Wealth Drain

Moreover, the new UK government plans to impose an extra 20% value-added sales tax on wealthy families with children at elite schools, on top of education costs that can already reach more than £55,000 a year.

Insane.

So, they’re leaving.

According to Henley and Partners, the UK is set to lose 9,500 millionaires this year.

Their financial clout means that even a small number of the ultra-rich leaving rather than paying more tax can potentially upset the government’s revenue projections on their new policies. Think of England as New Jersey. Once a prominent hedge fund manager leaves, the budget is in disarray.

Wrap Up

You may read this thinking, “That’ll never happen here.” But it’s worth remembering that Rome’s population went from 1,000,000 to 50,000 after the empire fell.

I’m not saying that will happen this time. History may not repeat, but it rhymes. Rich people have the means to move and will do so to protect their assets.

If America follows England down Kamala’s “soak the rich” rabbit hole, it may not like the result. Far, far more people will move to places like the UAE and Monaco, where capital and privacy are valued.