Oh Phil. Sadly, your math is pretty poor. If you make $900,000 playing golf, you taxes will look like this:
Federal Taxes up to $450,000 - around 22% - $99,000
Federal taxes above $450,000 - 39.6% - $178,200
FICA, etc. on first $114K - around 15% - $17,100.
California State Tax - up to $250,000 - aorund 7% - $17,500
250K to 300K - around 10% - $5,000
$300K to $900K - around 12% - $72,000
On his first $900,000 in earnings, Phil is taxed $388,000. 43%. Not 62%, not 63%. 43%.
(Someone self-employed making $114K, by the way, pays 22%+7%+15% = 44%, 1% more than someone making $900,000).
What Phil is REALLY bitching about is that he makes SO MUCH MORE than $1,000,000 a year, that every dollar he makes above $1,000,000 is taxed at 39.6%+13.3%(the new California rate). So it is the amount above $1,000,000 that is killing him. Once you get to $2,000,000, you are paying 43%+53% divided by 2 = 48% average rate.
So imagine some scenarios for Phil:
Make $0 - pay 0%, get some money back probably
Make $114,000 - pay 44%
Make $900,000 - pay 43%
Make $2,000,000 - pay 48%
So Phil's best option (assuming he has $0 in expenses), is to make $0. I doubt he will do that. Once you get to $114,000, you may as well keep going at least us to $2,000,000. I mean, does the extra 4% really discourage you that much, Phil? You'd stop working at $100K or $900K to save 4%?
If you make, say, $30,000,000 a year (as Phil may), then your average tax may approach 53%. So you need to ask yourself again - would I reject $28,000,000 in income because I would pay 5% more tax than I would at $2MM??? I'd think not.
Of course, Phil's real bitch is that he is a California resident. So if he moves to Texas he can save a good amount of money (Texas 0%, California 13.3%) except that in Phil's line of work he gets taxed where he makes the money (so, places like CA, NY, MA, all places with big tax rates).
Bottom line - Phil may move, but he isn't going to retire, and he isn't getting taxed at 63%.