Wow, Mr. Lesperance. Everything you say seems so credible . . . oh, wait, no it doesn't. It's a pile of hilariously misleading crap.

First, you act as if the cutesy-titled "Golden Geese" get or got nothing from their affiliation with the U.S. in amassing their wealth. As if there was no SEC, no U.S. military, no National Guard, no local police forces and no judical system to protect their interests and maintain the stability required for their businesses; no stock exchanges and no educated workforce to accomplish their goals; and no government investment in basic research and/or infrastructure to exploit. You also act as if the Golden Girls --- sorry, Golden "Geese" -- will take all of these things with them when they go, and there will be no other people willing and able to take advantage of the same benefits once the 24 karat Honkers fly abroad.

Second, you act as if they are fleeing in greater numbers now than they were before --- which, as I stated before, is highly questionable. But since you are in such a unique position, I wonder if you've ever asked your clients "why now"? Why weren't these same folks fleeing in the 90s? Why weren't they fleeing in the late 80s? Why not in the 70s? 60s? 50s? Basically, I guess I'm asking why the rich now are so much wimpier now than they used to be. Don't they know the taxes the Kennedy's paid? Or the Rockefellers? Why are they so whiny?

Third, you conveniently forget that to the extent your numbers are credible, they are not indicative of how important these Golden Goslings are to the economy or the U.S., but rather how incredibly much more money they have been allowed to amass than other folks, especially considering a tax structure designed by their friends and cronies.

Fourth -- thanks for the nice "barnyard animals" reference. You're classy.

Fifth, please explain why we should grant your rantings any more credence than those of the fellow quoted in the article, given that your website brags about relocating rich people? "Helping international clients sort through the relative advantages of relocating to non-traditional tax havens such as Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada and Switzerland." I mean, that's your job, right? You help rich people dodge taxes, right? And what do you do when you "Consult[] on and propos[e] changes in economic citizenship legislation with the elected officials of several Caribbean nations"? Does that mean that you lobby elected officials to change their country's tax structure for the benefit of your clients who aren't even citizens? Elected officials who don't earn much money, live in a poor but beautiful country, and might be accustomed to a lesser degree of oversight with regard to the conduct of their business than officials in the U.S. -- sorry, in deference to your location, I should say "officials in the U.S. and Canada"? Because that's what it sounds like from where I sit, so I just wanted to ask.

If your entire professional existence is predicated on stoking these kinds of ridiculous perceptions, what credibility do you really have?