Accountancy Age published an editorial last week that I can't find on the web. This is it:

Actually, the calculation wasn't that hard. It's based on the available evidence. All that I know of. Of course it includes estimates and assumptions, that's the nature of these things. But I have been transparent about what they are.

As for the other questions raised the answers are:

a) People will invest in London whether they live here or not if it really is the best financial services centre, so the domicile rule makes no difference;

b) People will own businesses in the UK if they make money, whether or not they live here;

c) The people who will leave don't need to work here, so they won't affect economic activity in terms of employment and job creation in any material way, especially as their wealth is not in the UK, by definition. Those who do need to be here will stay, so economic activity will continue as before;

d) There will be no other material tax losses as a result. And if there were, corporation tax is the most likely (VAT will be unaffected - a realistic residence rule will still let the gadflies come and go as they will). Given that the income tax loss is roughly 10% of the corporation tax take the whole banking system has to virtually collapse because of this change before the loss is enough to have an impact. And the bankers seem to be doing that quite well in achieving that of their own accord right now, whether they're domiciled or not.

e) As such we reckon there are no other costs to calculate.

So, our cards are on the table. Who wants to put theirs down as well, face up? We think our numbers are reliable. In the absence of contrary evidence that's what we'll continue to believe. Who's first?