There are a number of stated numbers in that article. Would you like to debate any of them or simply plug your ears and cry partisan publication?
There is a lot of anecdotal "evidence" in that article. For instance, they made a broad claim that "People are generally more willing to move within their country of residence than between countries." This argument is made to support more state to state moving to avoid taxes rather than international. I don't deny some truth to it, but it's relevance is becoming less and less in today's global economy. Additionally, it points out a study in NJ where former gov McGreevey put a millionaire tax in his state and while 25,000 residents are attributed to leaving the state because of it, tax collected actually increased $850 million, but it shows no supporting evidence of where those increased taxes came from, and there is certainly a point where the pain threshold is hit for many - and that point varies. In 2004, life was good for a whole lot of folks. Do that now and see what happens. All one has to do is look at California right now to see that this point has already arrived.
Only an expression. So your second question stands as blithering nonsense. You're in such a hurry to prove you're right you can't even bother to proofread yourself. The government of England's revenues are down because they've made big spending cuts, the biggest in decades, which has resulted in the longest double dip recession in decades.
and the fact many of those being taxed moved themselves and or their money. blithering nonsense... try proven fact... I presented the link to the data to you in the past. England raised taxes on the rich and tax revenue went down. Bush lowered taxes and I showed you the studied with showed that very group paid more taxes at the lower rate. so it was not non sense... it just did not get past your leftist filter the first time I presented the info to you. I am in a hurry... because I trade in the morning... run a business, have 4 kids... and play golf in the late afternoon with 1 to 3 with them almost every day. I then return home finish my work after dinner. watch an hour of t.v. with my wife.. and then either watch a sci fi show on netflix or play and hour to xcom on the xbox. I type poorly because I try to type really fast. It is strange that the tenses come out incorrectly... it must mean I stalled why rethinking what I was typing.
Look at Dubai, very exciting projects in that country. people with big money and big egos are building some wild stuff. I don't know the tax structure of Dubai.
So how come, when they cut the tax the number of people declaring earnings >£1m p.a. went back up? "In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs. This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election." "George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April. Since the announcement, the number of people declaring annual incomes of more than £1 million has risen to 10,000."
There have been studies done in the past by economists that attempt to determine the optimal income tax rate. From the perspective of the federal government, the desire is to set a % tax rate that provides to most revenue to the federal coffers. If the rate is set too high then people attempt to dodge the tax by moving money offshore, moving out of the country, hiding funds, not declaring income, etc. -- and the overall tax revenue for the government goes down. These studies have demonstrated - especially among the rich - that the maximum effective tax rate is 32% to 38%. Once you go above that then the government starts to lose revenue from people dodging the tax. This was demonstrated once again in this absurd 50% tax rate in the U.K. Once you set a tax rate so high that it is worth people's time & effort to dodge it then the government is going to lose tax revenue. As soon as the British government drops the tax rate then the millionaires will start re-appearing on the tax roll; the lower the rate then the more millionaires who will "re-appear".