By Marcus Coetzee, May 2026

I want many rich patriotic people to live in my country, and to invest and spend their money locally. I want them to pay tax and inspire others to follow their journey. I want the country to make it easier for hardworking and entrepreneurial people to become rich.

I say this as someone who currently earns a below-average income by UK standards, so I am not writing this essay to protect any privilege or great fortune.

I believe there is no categorical or ideological answer to anything concerning economics. My economics professor drummed this principle into us during my Master’s degree. Optimal economic solutions tend to be context-dependent. Rich people are not inherently good or bad. Whether they are an asset or a liability depends on how they earn, spend and invest their money.

1. Two opposing sentiments about money

I live in Scotland, which has a rich tradition of global industry and great philanthropists such as William Quarrier, David Dale and Andrew Carnegie. I would have expected this tradition of industry and philanthropy to persist and colour the perception of rich people, yet the current debate has produced two very different views that I encounter regularly. This is not just in Scotland, but also in online spaces. These sentiments, and their underlying paradigms, present such different views about the value and morality of having rich people in a country, as well as the conditions that enable people to become rich.

The first is the increasingly common sentiment that rich people are inherently flawed in some way, selfish, bad, corrupt, shallow or exploitative, and need to be curtailed and taxed extensively. The people advocating this view are often the same people who want the government to spend more on infrastructure, programmes and social security. The problem is that too many of them forget where the government gets its money from, which is the subject of a previous essay of mine.

Several economic ideologies underpin this sentiment. A post-Marxist interpretation tends to be deterministic, arguing that wealthy and powerful people with inherent advantages extract money from others. The rich are rich because they have designed the systems to achieve this at the expense of everyone else. Intersectional identity politics builds upon this, adding the concept of power relationships between privileged and oppressed identities, where wealth and opportunity are linked to inherent demographic advantages. Ecological activists argue that rich people consume a disproportionate and unfair share of finite resources, threatening us all. Some moral philosophers go further, arguing that rich people are unvirtuous and poor people virtuous simply by virtue of their situation, and that the rich must atone through taxes and other forms of penance. The Great Recession of 2007-2008 gave these views greater legitimacy, and the internet amplified them.

Proponents argue that the state should play a stronger hand in regulating the economy and, as far as possible, ensure that both opportunities and outcomes are fair. This tends to require a government to become much more heavy-handed in its approach, which carries the real danger of stifling the economy and reducing overall tax revenue.

The second view is more traditional and associated with free-market capitalism. Proponents enthusiastically and optimistically promote capitalism, deregulation and minimal state intervention as a universal cure-all for our societal and technological challenges. An overbearing government is therefore in opposition to the freedom and liberty of its people, constraining the optimal development of both economy and society.

The intellectual foundations draw on classical liberal economists like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, who argued that free markets allocate resources more efficiently than any central planner could. In its more extreme modern forms, this has evolved into a near-religious faith in markets and technology as self-correcting systems that, if left alone, will solve poverty, disease and even climate change.

Silicon Valley has exported a particularly potent version of this view, one that advocates rational thinking combined with technologies such as AI, computing power and embedded systems as more effective problem-solvers than governments or democratic institutions. In a sense, they are continuing the utopian project envisioned during the Enlightenment. They believe these technologies will be inherently good for humanity and its long-term future. What this view tends to undervalue is the role of governments and other civic and democratic institutions. It sees them as obstacles to be overcome rather than as the foundations that make markets function, and dismisses the important role they play in providing for the less fortunate. There is also a sense that the people doing this thinking are better positioned to make decisions for humanity than our own elected representatives, almost like Plato’s philosopher kings.

For the record, I believe in neither of these two views. I have found their advocates to be almost religious, and sometimes puritanical, in their faith and advocacy. Both worldviews share a utopian certainty that I find intellectually suspicious, if not outright dangerous. I don’t believe that a single principle or theory, whether market freedom or structural justice, can explain the complexity of human economic life and prescribe the correct response to it.

I certainly believe in the value of personal agency, while at the same time being mindful of structural constraints, though not so much as to unnecessarily constrain entrepreneurial and productive activity. I see real value in having certain types of rich people in my country, as I will outline in this essay.

2. Rich people pay significant taxes and contribute to the economy

Rich people pay taxes, start and invest in businesses, employ people, contract suppliers and buy many things locally. To illustrate the point, consider just their tax contributions, since this statistic is readily available and verifiable.

Here in the UK, the numbers are striking. In 2024-25, the top 1% of income taxpayers earned 13% of total income but paid 28% of all income tax. The top 10% earned 35% of total income and paid 60% of income tax. Over a third of the adult population, 36%, paid no income tax at all in 2023-24. HMRC data obtained through a Freedom of Information request by investment service Wealth Club found that the top 500,000 taxpayers paid £93.8 billion in 2023/24, accounting for 33% of total income and capital gains tax receipts. The top 100,000 earners alone contributed nearly £55 billion, almost one pound in every five collected.

The concentration is equally stark among businesses. In 2022-23, approximately 6,000 companies, just 0.4% of all companies with a tax liability, contributed 60% of total corporation tax, amounting to £44.7 billion. At the other end, approximately one million companies representing 65% of all taxpaying companies had tax liabilities under £10,000 and contributed just 4% of the total.

Capital gains tax tells the same story. According to HMRC’s Capital Gains Tax statistics, in the 2023-24 tax year, 40% of all capital gains tax came from individuals who made gains of £5 million or more. This group represents less than 1% of all CGT taxpayers.

The situation in South Africa, which I left in 2021, is even more stark. In the 2024 financial year, 3% of taxpayers paid 75% of personal tax and 0.1% of businesses paid 75% of corporate tax. The government relies very heavily on a tiny group of people and businesses, and has failed spectacularly over the past 32 years, since the end of Apartheid, to broaden this tax base. It has also discouraged many taxpayers, including myself, from remaining in the country. Most of my broader social circle from university have emigrated, further eroding an already narrow base.

Whether you like it or not, a government clearly needs rich people and businesses to pay their fair share of taxes while at the same time encouraging them to remain. Governments must maintain a healthy equilibrium between total tax revenue and government expenditure. Tax too heavily and entrepreneurs become disincentivised, and wealthy people emigrate or move their assets abroad. Tax too lightly and the opportunity is wasted. Discouraging people from becoming rich, or removing the realistic prospect of doing so, is predictably bad for a country.

3. The proportions of income are less of a problem than people think

I am not too troubled about the percentage of income that rich people earn as a share of the economy, or from the businesses they own and run. Some of my activist-orientated friends often cite statistics about X number of rich people earning Y proportion of the total. But modern money is no longer a fixed pie. Since the world abandoned the gold standard in 1971, currencies are no longer anchored to any finite physical commodity. Modern money is largely an abstraction which central banks can expand or contract according to economic conditions.

Commercial banks multiply money further through fractional reserve lending. A single deposit cascades through the system as banks lend, re-deposit and lend again, creating several times the original sum in economic activity. The same pound then changes hands many times over. It might be paid as wages, spent in shops, collected as tax, reinvested, and so on, with each transaction generating further value for someone downstream. What we call GDP is essentially a sum of all these transactions, meaning we are counting the same piece of money many times over.

A rich person’s money today is therefore very different in nature from what it would have been before 1971, and certainly during Karl Marx’s time. But the fixed pie intuition persists, and it distorts the debate accordingly.

4. The specific types of rich people I want here

I should acknowledge upfront that some millionaires and billionaires do not pay tax and do everything they can to exploit the system. HMRC is unable to quantify the exact numbers. This is precisely why the type of rich person matters, which brings me to the heart of this essay.

I would want as many rich people as possible to live in Scotland, and more broadly in Britain, subject to some specific conditions about how they earn, manage and spend their money.

The most fundamental requirement is that they root their economic lives in Britain. I want them to invest locally, keeping their money in British banks, buying equity in local businesses and lending to entrepreneurs who need capital. I want them to spend as much of their money in Britain as possible, and as locally as they can. Most importantly, I want them to have their tax residency here, making minimal use of international tax havens, accurately reporting their income and expenses to HMRC and promptly paying any taxes due. A wealthy person whose money circulates locally, invested, spent, taxed and reinvested, is a genuine economic asset. One whose money flows silently offshore is not.

I also care about how they earn their money. I want them to operate in accordance with British laws, offering goods and services that people genuinely need and using local suppliers wherever possible. I have some personal preferences here. For example, I am strongly against the gambling industry, having seen the immense harm it causes to people and families. I want them to employ people legally, paying wages and salaries that enable dignified lives, treating their staff well and investing in their knowledge and skills. An employer who extracts value from workers while offering the minimum possible in return does not meet my definition of the kind of rich person a country should be proud of.

Beyond the economic domain, I want them to contribute something less tangible but equally important. I want them to be an inspiring example to young people, demonstrating what is possible through discipline, hard work and ingenuity, and cultivating a genuine sense of personal agency in those around them. I want them to respect and conserve the natural environment, appreciating its biodiversity rather than treating it as a resource to be extracted. And I want them to keep going, never settling on their laurels, but continuing to make money, start businesses and satisfy the needs of local people. Restlessness and reinvestment are good virtues in an entrepreneur.

My expectations beyond these principles are modest. It would be wonderful if they became philanthropists and supported charitable causes, but I don’t insist on it. They are already paying taxes, and the government performs this redistributive function on their behalf. It would also be wonderful if they were paragons of virtue, but that is an unrealistic expectation in any era. I will settle for them simply obeying the law and adhering to the principles above. As for their flashy toys and extravagant expenses, I don’t begrudge these at all. If a yacht or a sports car motivates someone to keep building and creating, then I am fine with that.

Finally, I want these rich people to be patriotic, believing in the future of their country and feeling a sense of solidarity with its people and businesses. Patriotic people are more likely to dedicate their time and money to spending and investing locally, and to supporting local charitable causes. I encounter a fairly high level of this kind of patriotism in Scotland, evidenced by the number of successful business people I see helping local charities and community projects. Patriotism is almost a proxy for all the other principles above, though it has come under intense scrutiny in recent years, which makes it more difficult to propose without qualification.

5. Rich people’s assets deserve a separate discussion

My requirements regarding assets are slightly more nuanced, which is why this deserves its own section. I don’t want rich people owning an unfair proportion of limited physical assets, more than they reasonably need. The concept of how much is enough is a genuinely controversial topic that has never been conclusively resolved. Exploring philosophies like John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism is a conversation for another essay.

Where I become more particular is with physical assets that are genuinely scarce. I would not want rich people owning excessive amounts of land in areas where it is in short supply, or residential property in areas with housing shortages. The exception is straightforward: if these properties are rented out at reasonable market rates and fulfil a genuine economic need, I have no objection. The economy always needs rental properties for people who are not in a position to buy.

Short-term letting is a different matter. There are over 9,300 Airbnbs in Edinburgh alone, and they exacerbate housing shortages by removing properties from the long-term rental market. Spain has recognised this and is cracking down, banning short-term lets in some cities. I would much rather see more inns and hotels that employ local staff, procure from local suppliers and pay their taxes.

The current manifestation of short-term letting is very different from the original philosophy of Airbnb, which was genuine home sharing, renting out one’s own home or holiday property when not in use. I understand the sentiment of someone wanting a holiday home in Britain that they visit regularly, but if it sits in an area with acute housing pressure, I would rather they stayed in a good hotel. If they want to own a castle in a remote part of Scotland with no housing shortage, I genuinely don’t mind, provided they use local staff and artisans to maintain it and take care of the biodiversity on their estate.

For abundant physical assets, my position is entirely relaxed. I am happy for rich people to own and indulge in sports cars and yachts, designer clothing and footwear, horses, watches, jewellery and wine collections, provided this brings them joy and motivates them to keep moving forward.

My one request is that they favour British brands with strong local manufacturing and supply chains. Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Aston Martin, Barbour, Glenfiddich and Harris Tweed are obvious examples. For those who love well-made leather boots, I recommend Lanx, which operates its own Lancashire-based factory and works with a network of small British suppliers. I would also want rich people to store, service and maintain their assets with local suppliers, preferably drawn from the communities where those assets are kept.

I am not particularly concerned about their ownership of intangible assets such as equity value, intellectual property, brand value and financial instruments. These are not grounded in physical reality. They are created from human ingenuity, shaped by supply and demand, rather than extracted from a finite pool. When an entrepreneur’s company doubles in value, nobody else’s share has shrunk.

Consider the controversial Elon Musk. More than 99% of his assets are intangible. His wealth exists almost entirely as unrealised gains, paper valuations that fluctuate daily and have never been extracted from anyone or converted into actual money or physical things. His net worth dropped $126 billion between December 2024 and March 2025 simply because Tesla’s share price fell. No one outside of Tesla investors actually lost any money. The value simply ceased to exist. Intangible wealth of this kind is not a slice of a fixed pie that shrinks someone else’s share. It is created and destroyed by market sentiment, investor confidence and expectations, not by physical resource extraction. The actual physical assets he owns, houses, cars and rockets, are comparatively small.

This is one of the reasons why I think wealth taxes, especially those based on intangible assets and unrealised gains, are a foolish idea. They treat money as more real than it actually is. You cannot tax an unrealised gain without forcing a sale to pay the tax, which is itself economically destructive. Such policies would lead to a significant flight of money and investment from the UK, doing more harm overall to the economy and long-term tax receipts. Living in South Africa for much of my life showed me how easy it is for money and investment to flee a country, how quickly it deteriorates the currency, and how difficult it is to get back.

6. Conclusion

We need to limit ideological thinking when formulating economic policy and move beyond binary interpretations and solutions. This is good, that is bad. These encourage lazy thinking and make for effective political soundbites, but they insufficiently consider context, nuance and the actual merits of available options.

Rich people are clearly an attractive asset for any country, provided they earn, spend, invest and conduct themselves appropriately. They pay significant taxes and strengthen the economy. Governments should do everything in their power to attract and retain such people, encouraging them to settle, invest and become patriotic. Governments should also strive to create the conditions for ambitious and enterprising people to become wealthy, regardless of their background, and in accordance with the country’s laws.

Although I am something of a minimalist, and my friends accused me of being monkish when I was younger, I don’t begrudge the desire of rich people to reward themselves with things I would be unlikely ever to buy. I have also taught myself to suspend automatic judgment about rich people, bearing in mind that I don’t want to attach negative associations to a state I am striving to move towards. I would rather look for admirable qualities and lessons I might learn from them. And if I must judge, I will try to learn more about them first, using the principles outlined in this essay, and ask myself whether they are contributing and living meaningful and virtuous lives