41
roles. He is co-chair of Discover Economics, the industry body that aims to increase the diversity of economics students, which is backed by the Bank of England. He popped up at the government’s Office for Tax Simplification as an adviser, served on the Skills and Productivity Board, is a council member of the Royal Economic Society and a fellow of the World Inequality Lab, and sits on the editorial board of Economics Observatory, one of the industry’s leading publishing platforms. Add in another dozen positions he’s held, and you get a feel for his long, distinguished CV. What’s more, Advani has risen to
prominence from relatively humble beginnings. Last year he gave a moving interview with Warwick University’s student magazine The Boar, in which he discussed the example set by his Indian parents, saying: ‘I think my parents worked hard. But however hard they would have worked in India, we would never have had the same levels of income if I grew up where they had grown up.’ He has become an advocate for widening participation in economics among women and people of low socioeconomic status, speaking in schools and running an annual Young Economist competition. In 2023 Advani got his biggest role yet,
when he was appointed to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) advisory panel, where he sits alongside 24 other academics, economists and industry specialists to run economic forecasting and evaluate the government’s performance. It’s a crow’s nest from which to survey the political landscape, while helping to shape the OBR’s policy on government spending. But in reaching such loſty heights, it’s
possible to become a target. Over the summer his views were covered widely, including in the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and Bloomberg, when Advani said it had been a ‘mistake’ to introduce non-dom inheritance tax changes he proposed without staggering the introduction to soſten the blow. In July, business secretary Jonathan
Reynolds ordered Labour MPs to forget their ‘daſt’ demands for a ‘magic wealth tax’, telling backbenchers to ‘be serious’. Shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith said: ‘Arun Advani should be hiding in shame, not dreaming up new ways for this socialist
chancellor to set fire to the wreckage that remains of the economy on her watch.’ But Advani is playing the long game.
Positioning himself as a credentialed academic rather than an ideological campaigner – although he is arguably both at once – he’s making the case for a wealth
tax, gaining a media profile, building momentum and maybe even moving the Overton window too. As he told the interviewer from the student paper at Warwick: ‘If you want to change the world, and you want to change policy in the UK, be an economist.’
The poll on tax
The Swiss referendum on inheritance tax is causing concern in the private wealth sector. Livia Giannotti reports
National stereotypes can be a dangerous thing, but some exist for good reason. Take Switzerland’s reputation as a haven for private wealth, which has been based on firm foundations, such as its banking privacy laws and friendly tax regime. Little wonder the Mitteleuropean nation topped a recent UBS ranking of countries according to average wealth per adult. But could things be about to change? A leſt-wing youth movement in the
country (led by Mirjam Hostetmann, profiled on p66) has gathered 100,000- plus signatures in support of its proposal for a federal inheritance tax on the super rich. The mooted levy would see 50 per cent of the value of estates worth CHF 50 million or more syphoned into govern- ment coffers to fund projects related to climate action and other causes. Having reached the milestone of 100,000 supporters, the proposal must now go to a national referendum, which will take place in November. If more than 50 per cent of the Swiss electorate votes in favour and a majority of the 26 cantons (counting full and half- cantons) also support the proposal, it will pass into law. But what are the chances of this
actually happening? In Geneva and Zurich, private bankers
and other professionals in the private wealth sector worry that even if the proposal fails to garner the votes it would need, the public debate is already damaging Switzerland’s reputation as a stable home for assets.
The Swiss press has already docu- mented the cases of several wealthy individuals who have relocated to Italy. Peter Spuhler, the owner of Stadler Rail and one of Switzerland’s wealthiest individuals, blasted the proposal as a ‘disaster for Switzerland’, and warned that it could leave his heirs facing a bill of up to CHF 2 billion. It has also emerged that Renaud de Planta, who stepped down in mid-2024 from his role as senior partner at private bank Pictet, has relocated to Italy, while still retaining seats on Pictet’s board and on the Swiss National Bank’s Bank Council. A PwC survey found that 78 per cent of those who would be affected are already considering moving abroad or restructur- ing family wealth ahead of time. However, there are many who character- ise the furore as a storm in a teacup. Xavier Isaac, CEO of Swiss trust company Accuro, notes that there appears to be limited support for the proposed tax, even from the Swiss federal authorities, ‘despite them being the intended recipients of new tax revenues’. Public opinion polls show that around two- thirds of voters are against the initiative. As a result, Isaac does not see the vote
‘as damaging Switzerland’s reputation on a pan-European platform’. And although he personally does not ‘anticipate an exodus of Swiss-based wealthy families or entrepreneurs on the back of the initiative’, he does allow that ‘the issue of growing inequalities between the rich and the poor remains to be addressed’.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116
