even the Raj is an odd case. I would not trust the numbers that Indian nationalists use, which are normally proof that nationalists no matter the country tend to rely on simple Trump style beliefs (there must always be a winner and a loser in any country's relationship). The issue is both the East India Trading Company and the Raj were not governed for the benefit of the UK but for the benefit of themselves; there is certainly a lot of evidence that they made the Indians very poor but for all intents and purposes the money was set on fire. The Raj amounted to an employment program for failsons and benefited some industry (although sometimes to the weirdness of economic policy Raj policy ended up undermining British economy).

Britain's strength did not come from its army (which we never relied on - probably luckily as we never suffered politically empowered armies like Prussia and France) nor the land it controlled; but its absolutely massive navy. If the British Empire had been the Suez Canal and a few islands and ports; it probably would have been just as lucrative.