I think his point is something like this:
-If you try to tax the rich too heavily, they'll start putting their money someplace else, where you can't get to it.
-If companies want to do business here, place some sort of minimum investment they must make in the country. Sure, they can flee the country, but if they do, then they can't access the market in the country at all.

Edit: snipped the quoted text for length.

Yes, I understand that. I would say that taxing the rich is possible with information exchange and closing tax loopholes but companies will see this just as additional fees. So they either make the customers pay for it or leave the market. In both cases the market may shrink and you lose what you hoped to gain.

But yeah: we have two possibilities: tax the rich more or tax the coporations more or do a mix of both. Let's try each and see what is better.

I just got reminded of your message when I was watching some stock market stuff and looking at DB being at the top loss of the DAX today (damn, I miss my trading days ^o^)

So, two simple historical graphs to illustrate your point. First one is one year, second one is 10 years.

If Germany don't want to give aid for free and is forced to, then that is discrimination. If Germany is single out and forced to give aid instead of EU as a whole, that's discrimination too. Why do you think Brexit happened? One of the driving factor is force to donate for Free. And yes a time will come when Germany economy is overwhelm and they cannot give aid anymore.

As for proof
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crickhowell-welsh-town-moves-offshore-to-avoid-tax-on-local-business-a6728971.html
https://www.aeaweb.org/research/how-much-tax-revenue-are-we-losing-offshore
https://www.scenesofreason.com/tax-avoidance/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20560359
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/double-irish-deception-how-google-apple-facebook-avoid-paying-taxes/

Of course it seems natural to take from those who have. Nowadays it is widely accepted to discriminate against the rich, the white, the men. Without considering it is moral to do so or the bad side effect.
If we apply this logic, people who have two healthy kidney must give one for free to those with kidney failure. People who have a house should share it with the homeless. Doctors / Engineers who earn a few times the salary of the waiter should share their salary. Now where are we heading with that mentality?

Correct it will be difficult to move the real estate. If we employ estate tax they can hardly avoid that. But we have to be careful if we tax that too high. Real estate owners feel it is no longer profitable and will shift away from real estate and there nothing to tax. We can only tax the real estate heavily when we are desperate enough to cannibalize the estate industry.

If we employ too high a tax that companies find it is more profitable overseas, it will of course fail. What did I call for high tax on companies? What I am saying is, instead of employing a high tax that companies have nothing in return, let the companies exchange their wealth for goods / service / assets. They will get something in return. Their wealth does not go poof as tax, but converted into something else that still hold value. They will be able to sell that if they no longer want to do business in the country. And when they put a certain amount of money to the local market, our local business will benefit. And of course there must be a balance between too heavy handed and scare away investors. Some country offer to throw in permanent residence and some other benefits.

The whole idea is keeping the money / resource in the country and make it go around instead of letting the money / resource escape the country and fewer money / resource can be spread out between the people.

China also a method of keeping money in. By employing a high import tax on goods except raw material and necessity like food. And giving benefits to exports. That way if a company want to maximize profit, instead of producing goods in overseas and importing it to China to sell, they import raw material, set up factories in China to produce these goods. More money / resource is poured in China and less go out, while creating more job opportunity for the people.

It will work for the short term, what stopping the rich from giving up their citizenship and go to greener pastures?
The US tried that and a record numbers of citizens are renouncing US citizenship.
http://blogs.voanews.com/all-about-america/2016/05/09/record-numbers-of-americans-ditch-us-passports/

Pat Condell on the outcome of the vote, right on target as always:

We Saved Our Democracy

Fuck stupid people who don't know what the fuck they're actually voting for.

Careful now. Your fuck bag is rapidly depleting. Sooner or later you're going to run out of fucks to give.

With May as new PM and also Johnson as new foreign secretary the government is at least fully operational again. There is a clear shift to the right visible and while May said she wants to help the poor I would not believe it for a split of a second until it actually happens.

Including Johnson was probably part of a deal but may not increase confidence or competence levels. As leader of the Vote Leave campaign he is responsible for the blatant 350m a week lie which was a very important piece in the advertisement of the Leave campaign. And apparently still people believe in the figure although it has been proven wrong again and again before and after the vote by experts and also if people would just google for a few minutes to find out themselves. Why are people so badly informed these days.

So apart from the somewhat funny new foreign secretary there are three important areas now I guess:

1. How much immigration is Britain willing to tolerate in order to gain economic prosperity? That is a trade-off that just has to be found among the public.

2. How much benefits is Britain able to negotiate with EU? I guess that both, optimists as well as pessimists, are wrong there. Both sides will have to give and the possible compromises are very narrow.

3. How long will it take and what will companies do during this time of uncertainty? I still think that time is money and that the whole process should not be drawn out needlessly (fortunately the new government came quick). At some point companies will not wait but will just do their investment elsewhere. So any unnecessary delay will be bad.

All in all: immigration can be reduced if Brits want to stay among themselves, but it will also mean less emigration and less economic prosperity because in the modern global world the economy wants to be global and it wants global movement of the labour force. However the effect should not be overrated, it may end up to only 2-3% of the GDP maybe, that Brexit will cost Britain in the long run.

I don't understand why EU acts as if there can't be entry inside the EU economic market without opening the borders also for immigration and labor force.

Those two are totally separate issues, coupling them together is just factitious. If Britain wants free trade but not necessarily free movement of people with EU, I don't see why EU couldn't grant that to them. As long as it goes both ways, ie. if it is harder for EU people to move and work in the UK, it should be similarly hard for Brits to move and work in the EU. (Generally I guess the stream would be more towards UK than the other way as it is less probable that a Brit can speak fluent German, Polish or Finnish, than for a German, Pole or a Finn to speak fluent English.)

Claiming they can't be discussed separately is like claiming that TTIP can't be negotatied with the US without freedom of movement of the people between EU and US included in the package. Sure it can.

The EU isn't just a "free trade" zone - it is quite literally a single market in which goods and services can be transferred from one member state to another with a minimum of bureaucracy and without them even being treated as imports.

The four freedoms exist as a fundamental anchor to a single and free market. If you exclude one of them while allowing the other three, the market ends up becoming very lopsided, as it attempts to exploit this imbalance. Like it or not, labour is a resource like any other and is subject to the same market forces of supply and demand like any resource. Supply ends up being concentrated around the poorer regions and the richer regions end up exploiting this.

To illustrate this, you only need to see what happened in the years between the accession of the Eastern European states before they were granted freedom of movement - many businesses, especially in the UK, outsourced their manufacturing capacities to Eastern European countries to take advantage of the low wages and poor working conditions there. Since Eastern Europeans have had the right to relocate to other member states, the incentive to outsource to Eastern Europe is gone.

I think UK has made it clear over and over again that it wished EU to be more about free trade, than free movement of people. If the consensus within EU is what you say and it will be integrated even further no matter what e.g. UK wants, I guess their only choice really is to leave EU.

As I said, negotiating free trade can be separate from negotiating free movement of people. That is quite common all over the world. I don't think the free movement of people is an integral part of e.g. the TTIP negotiations between US and EU, is it?

Sorry I don't buy that. That would mean that the Eastern European immigrants can be paid less in e.g. UK if you make a manufacturing plant there and import the labor force from Eastern Europe. Are you suggesting the UK minimum wages, labor legislation etc. doesn't concern immigrants? I am pretty sure an Easter European worker living and working in Eastern Europe is still much cheaper than an Eastern immigrant in UK.

Even if what you say was true, why should other EU countries be concerned about that? Isn't it merely UK's problem if its businesses and manufacturing plants move to other EU countries because cheap labor and asylum seekers can't freely move into UK?

On the other hand, Britain does not need to comply with the EU hate speech censorship that get abused easily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcXQpYKPl_s
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/31/facebook-youtube-twitter-microsoft-eu-hate-speech-code

Oh they could, but they don't want to and also they don't have to. I actually find it difficult to believe you don't see the advantages of free labour movement, not only for the economy as a whole but also for the individuals. Have you never worked abroad or do not know someone who worked abroad?

In this special case I think the reason is that free trade and somewhat free movement of labour are two of the strongest pillars of the EU and it would be outright stupid of the EU to give Britain the better part of the deal, even better than what member countries get. Therefore it won't happen.

Having millions of people working in Britain (and millions of Britains working in the EU) was always a big benefit for both economies and for the people. So why would the EU want to give that up without need?

I for example find it unfair that in a future Britain with free market access but without immigration my products could be consumed by British people easily but I would not be allowed to work and live there. No borders for products but huge borders for people - that seems unfair. In the end, everything is connected with everything and everything can be bargained - it just depends on what you want and what the other party wants. Everything is up to negotiation.
I am pretty sure an Easter European worker living and working in Britain earns more than he/she would in Eastern Europe but less than the average British worker. That's why there is the incentive to immigrate but as an immigrant you are usually so disadvantaged that you end up doing most of the low paid work.

Effectively it is a benefit to both. Cheap labour for the British industry directly in Britain where the consumer lives and higher salaries for Eastern European workers which they can send home. Cutting it, is a loss to both.

Anyway where do you draw the line? Limiting movement from poor regions to rich regions is not only disadvantageous for the economy as a whole but also increases unrest in the poor regions strongly. You basically never have a chance to get better if living there.

Just taking a fresh article from this week in my bookmarks:
http://www.lesoir.be/1263125/article/economie/2016-07-11/dumping-social-65-des-societes-construction-controlees-sont-en-fraude
19.000 lost jobs in the Belgian construction sector due to social dumping.

Looking at your proof:

Link http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crickhowell-welsh-town-moves-offshore-to-avoid-tax-on-local-business-a6728971.html:
Is about business using tax loopholes, not about rich people avoiding paying taxes.

Link https://www.aeaweb.org/research/how-much-tax-revenue-are-we-losing-offshore:
Is about business using tax loopholes, not about rich people avoiding paying taxes.

Link https://www.scenesofreason.com/tax-avoidance:
Again, is about business using tax loopholes, not about rich people avoiding paying taxes.

Link http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes:
Again, is about business using tax loopholes, not about rich people avoiding paying taxes.

Link http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20560359:
Again, is about business using tax loopholes, not about rich people avoiding paying taxes.

Link http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/double-irish-deception-how-google-apple-facebook-avoid-paying-taxes/:
Again, is about business using tax loopholes, not about rich people avoiding paying taxes.

Link http://blogs.voanews.com/all-about-america/2016/05/09/record-numbers-of-americans-ditch-us-passports/:
Is indeed about rich people avoiding paying taxes in the US and just for the record, the record number is 4,000 out of 400 million people, that is 0.001%, which shouldn't have any visible effect on the total tax income at all.

I thought you would present proof that more taxation on rich people would result in negative tax income and mass emigration of wealthy people. You presented instead evidence of tax scams by multinational companies. While this is indeed a big problem this wasn't what I proposed at all.

Your idea was to put additional burden on national business in order to increase tax income but it did not become clear which actions exactly you proposed. Maybe you meant closing the tax loopholes instead?

This is not an easy thing to do. Good luck with it! (Although it's totally worthwile to do it.)

I'm still absolutely convinced taxing the rich is the only doable alternative until closing of the loopholes works for business. Also I'm not impressed by the record number of 4,000 rich US emigrants per year. If this is everything I would be in strong favor of taxing the rich.

But I think that actually both could work even better if done together. So closing tax loopholes for companies and wealthy individuals and taxing the rich and the companies in order to close the budget deficit. That could actually be the best.

Italy is in the unlucky situation that it will have to try out one of these strategies soon. We will be able to see what actually works and what doesn't. I think that it would be better already now taxing the rich than later when it might be too late. But we will see what happens. I really don't want to be in the next Italian government.

And before the usual let's blame Germany for everything game starts, please have a look at your own country first. Hollande pays 10,000 a month to a lousy hairdresser. With his hair it doesn't make a difference if he would visit any hairdresser in Paris once every two weeks and pays 200 if he wants to. So much waste, so much inefficiency, so much corruption. Someone has to pay for it.
And probably 35,000 jobs gained to non Belgian construction workers and some money saved on the way which meant lower taxes and more consumption for other Belgians.

But you are right. Free movement of labour is good for poor regions and for skilled labour but not so good for unskilled labour in rich regions because those face higher competition. There are losers too.

The net effect is positive but not for everyone and that is true also the other way.

Look at all those talented British people who would find cool jobs in the EU but maybe cannot anymore in the future because of Brexit. Aren't they the losers of Brexit?