Yet you quoting them make them true? I am not trying to refute them, but have yet to see your evidence. It is your claim and thus you need to validate that claim. However, let me take a stab at it - since you claim that I have.
=====
Per your first statement: "that potential net profits are higher in the 1st world major economies" which you have not (to my knowledge) posted any facts to that claim.
My argument would be simply that potential net profit is HIGHER for countries that are NOT 1st world. Why, simply because we know that costs (labor, healthcare, taxes, and other tariffs) are LESS in emerging markets. That fact is reflected in the massive move by U.S. and Western corporations that have moved both manufacturing and sevices to these nations.
For if "net profits" were greater in 1st world, as you claim, there would NEVER be a reason to move business out of those 1st world countries.
My argument is based on the exodus that we have seen for a couple of decades. I am sure simple math will bare that out.
Remember, "net profits" are in simple terms the difference between revenue and costs. Emerging markets have lower costs (taxes, labor, healthcare, etc.) I think we would all agree on that.
=========
Per your second point, "Or that tax havens are generally less free societies than places like the USA, Canada, Australasia and Western Europe?"
My argument is that most tax havens are in Europe, with a few outside of that arena. Many of them (Switzerland, Singapore, Monaco, and others) have consitantly rated the highest in the Economist ranking of "free societies". Actually, based on the Economist, the U.S. was further down than most people think. When I have the time I will look through my copies and post that information for you - it is freely available on the internet - but as time permits - abet my rapid response - I will find them.
====
Per your last comment, "Or that tax havens have less rich residents than the world's major economies." You need to clearly define tax haven nations vs. major economies. Also at what level do you define "rich". In your first statement you qualify "first world" but now you are comparing to "major economies". You are now curb fitting to make your point, without definitions or backing those claims. Would China be a "major economy" or "1st world"? So it is hard to confirm or refute your claims since they are clumsy and not clear. However, I will take a jab - if you are referring to tax havens (Hong Kong, Switzerland, Monaco, Andora, etc.) I would argue that the mean income is significantly higher than the "USA, Canada, Australasia and Western Europe" (which you had earlier defined.) That should be proof enough that the scale of wealth is higher on a per portion basis.
----------------------------------------
That is a good question and I don't know the answer. As per information that I have read, over 5 million U.S. citizens live abroad of which 2,000 per year expatriate (give up their citizenship). Certainly it is not much as by these numbers. The data, which I don't have and would find more interesting, is the net income value of those that do expatriate. This is for the U.S. only - however England and others reports an similar increase in expatriates.
As per using specific examples like Templeton or Soros - these are circumstantial (meaning that you have someone move to this nation and get citizenship - like Soros - because of political/historical reasons). As per Templeton - who knows why he said it and why he has NOT come back.
The point is that we have a net out flow of wealthy people, be it 10 or 2,000 per year and not a net inflow of wealthy people. Congress felt it was a big enough impact on taxable income to draft legislation in 1996 and again in 2008 to address what they feel is a rather large amount of income.
I grant you that some may regret it and others not. I don't want to go case-by-case. I have a very good friend that is a Cayman "status", ex-US - they are very happy have been there over 15 years, travel to the U.S., own a home in the U.S. I know of two others that gave up their citizenship in 2008 after Obama came to office, they have both been living in Switzerland for over a decade. They are happy too.
Will they regret it, who knows - they have made their decisions can travel the world, move where they want to, and have their quality of life they are satisfied with.
Lastly, there are those like Soros and Murdock that are ideologues of epic porportions (from different sides of the political spectrum) - it isn't about taxes it is about ideological differences that drive their agenda. However, as per ANYONE at some point taxes become a determining factor as to moving or staying.
What is too much, can only be determined by each individual. Eventually at some level a ground swell will rise and say "enough is enough" - how much that is - I have no f'n idea.
I know my number and that is all that matters. Correct?
