India’s economic growth has always been marked by contradictions: optimistic entrepreneurs on one side and failing public services on the other. In a recent opinion article in ThePrint, titled Rich Indians can’t complain about taxes—move abroad all you want, but you must give back, the author criticises high earners who choose to settle abroad, framing their departure as an abandonment of moral obligations. I find this stance fundamentally flawed and overly simplistic.
People rarely make emigration decisions in a moral or social vacuum. These choices are typically the result of careful evaluation of fundamental living conditions, economic opportunities, and quality of life factors. If another country promises a more predictable business environment, reliable infrastructure, and transparent governance, wouldn’t people, regardless of their income bracket, want to move there? Dismissing this as “selfish” ignores the complex cost-benefit analysis that drives most migration choices.
High earners in India face a punishing reality: a maximum tax rate of 39 per cent and surcharges of up to 25 per cent. But they receive minimal returns on this substantial contribution. From unreliable public transportation to potholed roads, many wealthy Indians find themselves paying twice. First through steep taxes for basic infrastructure the state claims to provide, then again for private alternatives when those services fail to materialise.
Analysing govt failures
The government’s incompetence is not limited to failure in delivering on its core functions. It extends to actively disrupting private solutions when its own systems fail.
Take Bengaluru’s recent water crisis. When private water tankers stepped in to fill the gap left by inadequate public infrastructure, the government chose to take over them. The move was aimed at curbing exploitation by the ‘tanker mafia’ & addressing inequitable water distribution. However, it ended up destabilising even the private sector’s attempts to solve problems the Karnataka government couldn’t handle.
A similar pattern emerged with ride-sharing services, when aggregators stepped in to improve mobility amid unreliable public transport. The government imposed regulations such as caps on surge pricing, removing the financial incentive for drivers to operate during high-demand periods like rush hour or heavy rains, ultimately leaving commuters stranded.
Even more fundamentally, the state has failed at its most basic function, which is protecting property rights. Land and property ownership in India is a byzantine maze of unclear titles, overlapping claims, and endless litigation. Property disputes languish in courts for decades, sometimes spanning generations, while property owners remain trapped in legal limbo. This failure to protect basic economic rights drives away both talent and capital.
Compare this to Singapore, where a maximum tax rate of 24 per cent buys not just world-class infrastructure, but also robust property rights, efficient courts, and clear, consistent governance. In the UAE, zero personal income tax comes with strong property protection and reliable public services. In these countries, governments protect basic rights, provide quality services, and allow private enterprise to fill gaps efficiently. When high earners in India look at these alternatives, the choice becomes one of simple arithmetic rather than moral failing.
Also read: Rich Indians can’t complain about taxes—move abroad all you want, but you must give back
No incentive to stay back
The opinion article suggests these high earners “climbed the ladder of success” thanks to India’s slow but steady social mobility. In reality, most successful entrepreneurs and professionals succeed despite the system, contending with relentless red tape and bureaucrats who gleefully flex their power. It is not that India cannot foster growth; it is that the environment is actively hostile to those who create wealth.
A common argument is that India’s privileged have “low-cost domestic labour” at their disposal. However, as many Indians living abroad prove, the easy availability of cheap cooks and cleaners isn’t a powerful incentive to endure what they see as a dysfunctional system. Better infrastructure, cleaner air, and transparent governance overseas often outweigh the conveniences at home. Moreover, domestic labour is cheap precisely because we have a massive unemployment problem. Had our economy been allowed to grow at its full potential, labour costs would have naturally risen alongside wages, increasing overall standards of living.
Social mobility is not advanced merely through redistribution of wealth via taxes. It is advanced by unleashing innovation and enterprise that grow an economy comprehensively. India has been independent for over 77 years. At what point do taxpayers have the right to demand returns on their contributions? The real question we should ask is why the government is not providing better services and infrastructure despite its hefty tax haul.
Question the state
Insisting that the rich have an unending moral duty to pay more, especially within a system that offers little transparency, is unfair. Individuals should have the freedom to choose how and where they allocate their resources. Voluntary philanthropy, targeted investments, and private charitable initiatives often deliver more tangible benefits to those in need than bloated government programmes plagued by inefficiencies and corruption. The state operates without genuine accountability, yet demands ever more from its citizens.
Next, the opinion article argues that the departure of wealth creators will not stop India’s growth. However, the truth is that a steady exodus of entrepreneurs, innovators, and job creators can and does impede economic development. When the state neither provides services nor allows private solutions to flourish, investment that could have spurred Indian startups gets redirected elsewhere. These individuals find more welcoming environments abroad, and naturally choose to invest there instead.
The author argues that “giving back is a moral obligation” and criticises those who “glorify” leaving. However, this fundamentally misunderstands the power of exit as a form of protest. When wealth creators vocally choose to leave, citing specific failures of governance and regulatory overreach, they are not just making a personal choice – they are sending a powerful message that echoes through society.
“Voting with your feet” is perhaps the strongest feedback a citizen can give to a dysfunctional system. Far from being self-serving, openly discussing why talented individuals leave India helps spotlight systemic issues that hurt everyone from entrepreneurs to labourers. The more publicly and clearly this exodus is documented and discussed, the greater the pressure on the state to reform. Silently departing while paying lip service to “giving back” might ease some consciences but does nothing to drive the structural changes India desperately needs.
The decision to migrate for better opportunities and transparent governance is not abandonment – it is rational self-interest in its most basic form. Ultimately, nobody wants to leave behind friends, family, and cultural ties unless they feel the trade-off is worthwhile. A mass departure of wealth creators could be an impetus for real change, forcing the government to adopt more business-friendly, citizen-focused policies. Until then, it is unrealistic to shame taxpayers and entrepreneurs for exercising their right to build a life where their contributions are valued rather than squandered.
Ajay Mallareddy is co-founder of Hyderabad-based Centre for Liberty. His X handle is @IndLibertarians. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
Even if we pay 100% tax there will be no improvement (infrastructure might even go down or worse), RTI requests are also ignored (or partial / vague info provided) , and no transparency. elected leaders don’t have to know law/economics, just new schemes using tax to get votes (treat TAX like ATM) , Paid lot of tax + cess in the past (not sure why/what/how it will be used), The law is just give me money, but don’t ask how it will be used. Every living thing migrates, there is no question of morality here, no one has right to question.. Author who ever it is should start wring about corruption in India (We may never see any article again thanks to freedom of speech/press)
Well written. Who in their senses will want to live in India. What boggles the mind is the Indian propensity to procreate, despite knowing that their progeny will in all probability inhabit a hellhole without escape.
As a fellow libertarian, it boggles my mind how people support massive taxation when the whole government, years after years, has been at best inefficient and at worst malicious as well. The government infrastructure has been crumbling down even that was recently made such as Ahmedabad flyovers, or the lack of increase in standards in government schools , or pollution and so on. If the increased taxes every year gives the facilities, guarantees transparency, and empowers job creation, people would not leave the country in droves. Unfortunately that’s not the case, and right now the situation is taxes like Europe, facilities like Somalia.
Poor, socialist India can provide only this much. ‘Itna paisa mein itna ich milega, baba’.