HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted: Dec 8, 2006, 11:43 PM
SSLL's Avatar
SSLL SSLL is offline
samsonyuen
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Canary Wharf->CityPlace
Posts: 4,241
London...attracts world's super-rich

From: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-2703,00.html
____________
Quote:
London attracts world's super-rich
Helen Nugent, London
November 25, 2006
LONDON has become the world's most appealing refuge for the super-rich, according to research that shows that no other capital city can rival it for attracting billionaires from elsewhere.
Other large cities, such as New York, Moscow and San Francisco, may compete with London for resident billionaires, but their elite are homegrown.

Of the 23 billionaires in London, only 12 are British. The rest come from countries as varied as India, Iceland and South Africa.

New York is home to 34 of the mega-rich, who are mostly American. Trailing behind are Moscow and San Francisco, with 20 billionaires each.

Forbes, the magazine for the rich and powerful, believes that London's appeal lies in its accessibility, stability and low taxation and the global standing of City institutions.

Forbes.com's Paul Maidment said: "Many cities vie for the title of the world's capital, but London still attracts the elite of the world's rich and successful. And it can lay claim unchallenged to one title: it is the magnet for the world's billionaires."

At the top of the London list is Lakshmi Mittal, the world's fifth-richest person, according to Forbes's league table of the global elite. The Indian steel mogul has an estimated $US23.5billion ($30.3billion) at his disposal. He is ahead of Roman Abramovich, the Russian owner of Chelsea Football Club, who is the world's 11th-richest person, with a fortune estimated at $US18.2billion.

In third place are Leonard Blavatnik, the Russian-American oil magnate, and Charlene de Carvalho-Heineken, a Dutch heiress to the Heineken beer fortune.

Only then does the first British billionaire make an appearance; David Reuben, who - with his brother Simon, who lives elsewhere - has a net worth of $US3.6 billion. They rank 185th on the list. Both were raised in Britain, but born in Bombay.

Mr Maidment said: "Billionaires are, by nature, a peripatetic lot. They can afford to own property on many continents, and do. Their business interests and their investments are global.

"Their money travels the world as much as they do. On any day of the year, they are as likely to be in London or New York or Shanghai or Monaco. In a sense, they are citizens of no country but the self-contained universe of the super wealthy. Yet they do have to have the occasional points of contact with the rest of the world. London offers them a welcoming ecosystem."

Other billionaire expats in the capital are Philippe Foriel-Destezet, the Frenchman who founded the Adecco temp agency, and South African property developer Donald Gordon.

Also in London is Iceland's first billionaire, Bjorgolfur Thor Bjorgolfsson.

"Low taxation is a big attraction. It is not stretching a point too far to say that for the super-rich, London is a tax haven," Mr Maidment said. "The UK's tax laws contain provisions that enable non-British-born individuals who live in London for some but not all the time to be taxed only on their UK earnings."

London was not just a good place to do business, Mr Maidment said. It also boasted a luxury industry designed to cater for every whim of the wealthy.

"There are elegant shops, luxurious private clubs and good schools for the children, all expensive enough to keep the riff-raff at bay," he said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 3:48 AM
Xing's Avatar
Xing Xing is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 13,299
Quote:
LONDON has become the world's most appealing refuge for the super-rich,
From what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 3:56 AM
scribeman scribeman is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xing View Post
From what?
I suppose, like... New York City or something.
I can definitely understand why the ultra-rich would choose London. All, what, twelve of them?
I suppose the lifestyle is there, although frankly I'm shocked at the idea of England being "tax friendly". I'll need to see some hardcore evidence before I buy into that. In general, the quality of private education, access to cultural goods, "small-town" feel of its generally suburban character, and centuries upon centuries of institutions designed to cater to the every whim of the privileged does make London an appealing sell.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 4:30 AM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
Born Loser
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Backwoods
Posts: 28,120
OH MY GOD! A big city has rich people? Get the hell outta here!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 5:13 AM
scribeman scribeman is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001 View Post
OH MY GOD! A big city has rich people? Get the hell outta here!
There was a figure sometime back that reported that London was even more expensive than NYC per square foot of luxury real estate, or some such figure.

Just look at Chicago. It's a "big city", but it's unquestionably more working-class than it is "rich". Dallas, Houston... Probably some rich people, but for all that they're big cities you don't associate wealthy with them. I don't think you can write it off that easily.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 6:27 AM
Buckeye Native 001 Buckeye Native 001 is offline
Born Loser
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Backwoods
Posts: 28,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by scribeman View Post
Just look at Chicago. It's a "big city", but it's unquestionably more working-class than it is "rich". Dallas, Houston... Probably some rich people, but for all that they're big cities you don't associate wealthy with them. I don't think you can write it off that easily.
This may be more of an opinion than the presentation of actual facts, but I disagree. I also think the Chicago lakefront and many of the northside neighborhoods, as well as many sections Dallas and Houston, would also disagree.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 6:51 PM
scribeman scribeman is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001 View Post
This may be more of an opinion than the presentation of actual facts, but I disagree. I also think the Chicago lakefront and many of the northside neighborhoods, as well as many sections Dallas and Houston, would also disagree.
Yes, but I'm not denying that they have wealth. Even Little Rock, Arkansas has "rich" neighborhoods. But they are not rich cities, in terms of attracting the affluent with the promise of a lifestyle that accomodates their wealth.

So I think that's the point of the article. And why you can't simply write off big cities having wealthy citizens, because that wasn't the focus of the initial argument. Even New York City can't offer what London is now offering, apparently.

(I've made it clear that I don't like either city, so no one can accuse me of favoritism.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 7:10 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by scribeman View Post
Just look at Chicago. It's a "big city", but it's unquestionably more working-class than it is "rich". Dallas, Houston... Probably some rich people, but for all that they're big cities you don't associate wealthy with them. I don't think you can write it off that easily.

Cook county (Chicago+some of the burbs) has the 2nd most millionaires in the country after LA county. Your statement is based more on inaccurate stereotypes and exagerations. Chicago is "working class" just as Dallas is still the "wild west".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 7:41 PM
alex1's Avatar
alex1 alex1 is offline
~
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: www.priggish.com
Posts: 3,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcu View Post
Cook county (Chicago+some of the burbs) has the 2nd most millionaires in the country after LA county. Your statement is based more on inaccurate stereotypes and exagerations. Chicago is "working class" just as Dallas is still the "wild west".
cook is also the 2nd largest county. The next largest is Harris (Houston), with some 2 million less folks.

with numbers that skewed, of course Cook will be 2nd in the U.S. in terms of millionaires.
__________________
n+y+c = nyc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 7:58 PM
Jularc's Avatar
Jularc Jularc is offline
Time/Space
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 5,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by scribeman View Post
I suppose the lifestyle is there, although frankly I'm shocked at the idea of England being "tax friendly". I'll need to see some hardcore evidence before I buy into that.

Maybe this will help you understand...


The World's Richest People: The U.K.'s Billionaires



Paul Maidment
12.07.06

There are 24 British citizens on our most recent annual list of the world's richest people. And 32 of the world's richest people list the U.K. as their place of residence.

Twenty-one appear on both lists, with the Duke of Westminister being the highest ranking home-team billionaire, ranked No. 100 overall and the fourth richest man in the U.K. after Lakshmi Mittal at No. 5, Roman Abramovich at No. 11 and Hans Rausing at No. 56.

While his day job is as assistant chief of the U.K's defense staff responsible for reservists, his fortune comes from his privately held family company, the Grosvenor Group, with £9.1 billion of real estate assets around the world under management at the turn of the year, including 300 acres of prime Mayfair and Belgravia property in central London.

The three British billionaire ex-pats are retailer Philip Green, or more exactly his wife Christina (though they count as one for the purposes of our list); Clive Calder, the South African born ex-record-label tycoon who discovered Britney Spears; and currency trader turned investor Joseph Lewis. They live in Monaco, the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas respectively.

Now here's the twist: While those three places have long had a certain tax appeal to the wealthy, many of the non-Brit billionaires based in Britain, such as Mittal, Abramovich and Rausing, are attracted to the U.K.'s own emerging reputation as a tax haven with good schools, nice homes and safe streets.

And while the foreign-born take advantage of a well-known tax provision for non-domiciled residents ("non-doms") that allows those who live in the U.K. for some but not all the time be taxed only on their U.K. earnings, it seems that the legions of financial advisers that exist in Britain's billionaire support ecosystem can make the U.K hospitable to home-grown wealth, too.

According to a newly published study by accountancy firm Grant Thornton and commissioned by the Sunday Times newspaper, U.K. billionaires paid income tax totaling £14.7m ($29.1m) on their £126 billion combined fortunes last year, and only a handful paid any capital gains tax.

Grant Thornton estimated that three in five billionaires paid no personal income taxes, although they would have paid indirect taxes such as value-added and council (local authority services) taxes. Business income would have been tucked away in offshore trusts and companies. Most of the rest who did pay taxes would have paid themselves in dividends rather than with a salary. Dividends are taxed at an effective rate of 25% rather than the 40% higher rate of income tax.

Accepting that there is a degree of guesswork in the numbers given that neither individual tax returns nor the details of more arcane tax shelters are public documents, but taking them at their face value, we estimate that Britain's billionaires paid an effective income tax rate of barely 0.4%.

We are assuming a conservative 7% rate of return on the capital. If you are a billionaire you probably have the financial nous or can afford the financial advisers to beat that.

We also allocated the combined wealth of the billionaires between the doms and non-doms in proportion to their numbers and switched Green and Formula One motor racing Chief Bernie Eccelstone to the non-dom tally. Although domiciled in the U.K, they take full tax advantage of having non-resident wives. We calculate that these adjustments cut the collective taxable fortune of true-Brit billionaires to £49 billion, throwing off £3.4 billion of annual income.

Those billionaires are clearly effective at sheltering their income from the tax man. U.K. residents and those domiciled with U.K. companies will often draw out of their companies only what they need, and they will accumulate capital at corporate tax rates with a long-term plan to realize it at a 10 % rate using the U.K's business-taper rules. The rules progressively reduce capital gains taxes on long-held assets, or during a five-year period overseas, which might be an option for a peripatetic billionaire such as Sir Richard Branson, the Virgin Group entrepreneur with a zest for business matched only by his flair for self-promotion and love of globetrotting. How high does a balloon have to be before the tax man counts it as being out of the country?

The Inland Revenue forgoes a nominal billion pounds in income tax on the basis of our interpretation of Grant Thornton's figures, Critics of the U.K.'s tax regime point to this and to the social cost of rising house prices, especially in London and the southeast of England, and of widening wealth disparities, to argue that the tax regime should change. But as Mike Warburton, the Grant Thornton partner in London involved in compiling the survey, points out, "There is no need for many of these individuals to stay here. Even if we changed the rules, their offshore structures are already in place so very little additional tax would be collected."

Offset against that the value-added tax receipts on the goods and services those billions of pounds of capital imported tax free are spent on and corporate taxes, which Warbuton says, "will be considerable in some cases" plus the taxes paid and jobs created within the support system, from bankers to gardeners. This all adds up to sufficient income, it must be assumed, to keep Britain's officials minded not to change the rules.


© 2006 Forbes.com LLC™
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 9:17 PM
PhillyRising's Avatar
PhillyRising PhillyRising is offline
We're Still #5!!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Exton/West Chester, PA
Posts: 11,387
They move to London because it's Absoluetly Fabulous.....Sweetie Darling.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 9:34 PM
PDXPaul's Avatar
PDXPaul PDXPaul is offline
Redfin!
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fremont
Posts: 1,268
If I were a billionaire, I'd live in London. But mostly for the beautiful seattlelike drizzly weather in a city that's just a tad bit bigger than Seattle
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 9:49 PM
Master Shake Master Shake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 253
Every large city is more working class than rich, just a fact of the numbers.

While Chicago is always referred to as a working class city, that is an outdated description of the city. Its definately an upper middle class city. Personally, I always feel that New York has more a working class feel than Chicago. Trump and his ilk are definately a minority in New York.
__________________
Wait a second, this ain't no brain... this a damn bee's nest.
- Meatwad
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 10:05 PM
Jularc's Avatar
Jularc Jularc is offline
Time/Space
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 5,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyNation View Post
They move to London because it's Absoluetly Fabulous.....Sweetie Darling.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 10:19 PM
staff's Avatar
staff staff is offline
low life in a tall place
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne.AU | Malmö.SE
Posts: 5,478
What's the news?
London is the natural place to go for pretty much anyone in Europe, no matter what you're looking for (or what you have - say a couple of billion €).
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 10:53 PM
London999 London999 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXPaul View Post
If I were a billionaire, I'd live in London. But mostly for the beautiful seattlelike drizzly weather in a city that's just a tad bit bigger than Seattle
London is a lot drier than Seattle
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted: Dec 9, 2006, 10:53 PM
scribeman scribeman is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcu View Post
Cook county (Chicago+some of the burbs) has the 2nd most millionaires in the country after LA county. Your statement is based more on inaccurate stereotypes and exagerations. Chicago is "working class" just as Dallas is still the "wild west".
I can't get the damnable link buttons to work, so you'll have to suffer large link addies.

According to the 2004 figures located here:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/30/pf/c...ings/index.htm
Chicago isn't in the top ten wealthiest cities or counties in America.

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2005...28home_ls.html
This article from last year doesn't place Chicago, either. California apparently still sits at 40% ownership of the wealthiest counties in the top ten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest..._United_States
And here are the 2000 Census figures. The highest county in Illinois to make the list is Lake. At 31st.
Even if Cooke County has the most millionaires, it still isn't the wealthiest.

My point was not to knock Chicago down a few pegs, but to point out that Chicago (and by extension, most cities in America) do not have the kind of lifestyle the super wealthy want to live. The culture of most cities is either working class or genericly business-oriented, with the exceptions being highly notable. No matter how big, they still do not attract the super wealthy.

I'd be interested in an analysis of local weather in relation to population of wealthy citizens... and I'll read the big post about London's tax-friendliness later.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted: Dec 10, 2006, 12:29 AM
WesTheAngelino's Avatar
WesTheAngelino WesTheAngelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Washington and Main, Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 2,239
Who really gives a flying fuck? As if having more billionaires actually matters for the other milliions of residents of a large metro.
__________________
Drop Bush, Not Bombs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted: Dec 10, 2006, 2:33 AM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,255
[QUOTE=scribeman;2499493]I can't get the damnable link buttons to work, so you'll have to suffer large link addies.

According to the 2004 figures located here:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/30/pf/c...ings/index.htm
Chicago isn't in the top ten wealthiest cities or counties in America.

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2005...28home_ls.html
This article from last year doesn't place Chicago, either. California apparently still sits at 40% ownership of the wealthiest counties in the top ten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest..._United_States
And here are the 2000 Census figures. The highest county in Illinois to make the list is Lake. At 31st.
Even if Cooke County has the most millionaires, it still isn't the wealthiest.

My point was not to knock Chicago down a few pegs, but to point out that Chicago (and by extension, most cities in America) do not have the kind of lifestyle the super wealthy want to live. The culture of most cities is either working class or genericly business-oriented, with the exceptions being highly notable. No matter how big, they still do not attract the super wealthy.

I'd be interested in an analysis of local weather in relation to population of wealthy citizens... and I'll read the big post about London's tax-friendliness later.[/QUOTE


Wealthiest counties stats are misleading. It basically means they have a large upper middle and middle class with not many poor people. Only small portions are really wealthy. Fairfax and Loundon counties are good examples of that.


Cook County is HUGE. A county of 5 million people wont show up on those lists. EVER. LA County wont with 10 million. But both of them do have the extremely wealthy enclaves inside their counties...wealthier than those counties that show up on those stupid lists. There isnt anyth
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted: Dec 10, 2006, 3:13 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 6,033
this thread is about where billionaires live, not people who are "just" ( ) millionaires or wealthy areas. FWIW here's the Forbes list of Illinois billionaires http://www.forbes.com/static/bill200..._Illinois.html and here's the map for all those interested in checking out where billionaires live. http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/08/hom...aires_map.html

Last edited by waterloowarrior; Dec 10, 2006 at 3:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:31 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.