London Heavy rain and grey skies are not the only storms over London this summer. Almost as frequent as the rain clouds are the rows over the capital's growing ranks of super-rich. There is unease about the have-the-lot sector colonising swathes of London, having it all too easy and enjoying tax breaks or not paying tax at all. The influx of top bankers, sheikhs, oligarchs and billionaires, plus the growing ranks of financiers on bonuses, has had a negative effect on two bastions of wealthy London life: growing competition for places in top private schools and upmarket property. When a Notting Hill financier grumbles about high school fees or property prices, something is amiss. When the editor of Tatler, Geordie Greig, moans, something is super amiss. Greig wrote: 'The hardworking professionals have become exiles in their own country.' 'I think most 'normal', successful Londoners are amazed by the new superclass of hyper-earners. It has changed the whole meaning of money in the UK. 'Houses in streets people once lived in, and never really thought their families would not live in, are now worth millions more than anyone expected and so are beyond their pockets. 'The price of having so many extremely rich people in London does have its upside. It is called trickle-down economics. But there is a price for that.' The new social order is 'wealth over worth'. The problem is perhaps exacerbated by a tax regime that the International Monetary Fund recently called the 'first onshore tax haven'. Foreigners can claim non-domicile status - tax designed in the 18th century to preserve the overseas fortunes of British colonialists. Unlike British citizens, non-domiciles escape tax on earnings overseas and UK income from property or capital gains. The number filing for non-domicile status is thought to have quadrupled in five years, up to perhaps 200,000 people a year. Rumours of resentment are rife within the city firms where international staff perform the same job, and get the same bonus, but get vastly different take-home money. Nowhere has this anger at the super-rich been directed so loudly than towards the private equity firms - investment houses that raise funds through loans rather than selling shares - and the sector's kingpins making hundreds of millions in takeovers. Trade unions claim the sector is saddling itself with easy and cheap debt, taking over firms wholesale, reducing costs, stripping jobs and then not paying tax on profits, because they can offset the interest charged on the huge loans. When the chemist, Boots, was taken over last year, it made a profit of #480 million (HK$7.6 billion). It all can be written off for tax purposes. But the final insult came from one private equity chief who said partners paid lower tax than their cleaners. Some pay nothing, many 10 per cent, while cleaners pay 20 per cent and the middle class pay 40 per cent on earnings over #30,000. Parliamentarians grilled three such private equity bosses, who conceded that tax breaks seemed unfair but that harsher taxes would ward off wealth creators or force taxable income offshore. If Mr Greig had the last word, what would he say? 'There is no turning back. London is the most desirous place on Earth to live for anyone wanting to live in a city. In the end this is all a positive.'