You have not provided any evidence for your position that Nebuchadnezzer took captives in Jehoiakims's third ;year (acc). The Bible, secular materials, Josephus and Berossus are completely silent on this matter. No it was not until Jehoiakim;s fourth regnal year that the political circumstances changed from a vassalage under Egypt through to a measure of independence and inhis last three years, vassalage under Nebuchadnezzer. This fact is attested biblically, by Josephus and Jewish tradition.
Berossus indicates that there were Jewish captives taken on Nebuchadnezzar's return to Babylon in 605, and Josephus explicitly agrees with him. Further, there is no reason to assume that Daniel himself meant any year other than 605, the third year of Jehoiakim's rule. To say anything else is simply twisting scripture to suit an agenda. Josephus neither says, nor implies, that Daniel was taken in 597. What is more, absolutely no source supports 617. You indicate that at Jehoiakim's fourth regnal year (which is his third year by the accession-year system) - 605BC - that things changed with respect to Jehoiakim's reign, and there is a measure of correctness in what you have said. He certainly did feel a measure of independence from Egypt at this time, for it was at this time that Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho's forces. Thereafter he headed back to Babylon, where on his way he threatened Judah. Jehoiakim let him take some treasure and captives to avoid a larger conflict. 4 years later, Nebuchadnezzar demanded that Jehoiakim pay a regular tribute which he paid for three years but thereafter, in his 11th year - 597BC - he refused, at which point his reign was brought to an end.
Nebuchadnezzer's accession year could not begin until the fourth year of Jehoiakim, during the latter's third year, Nebuchadnezzer was a mere Crown Prince. The system used by Daniel denotes an epochal method of dating which means a dating between special events and that is why scholars use the term 'kingship' rather than reign. Jehoiakim as with Nebuchadnezzer were world rulers. Your method is impossible because Daniel 1:1 links the third year immediately with the time of Nebuchadnezzer laid siege to the temple, deported utensils and captives and installed Jehoiacjin on the throne. The context of Daniel 1:1-2 clearly refer to events that only occurred at the end of Jehoiakim's reign.
For a start, Jehoiakim was certainly not a world ruler. The Society uses 'kingship', but the original word implies nothing about some epochal method. There is no evidence for your suggestion that Daniel uses any form of dating other than the accession-year system referring to the normal reigns of the kings of which he writes. Most sources agree that Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, and Jehoiakim's fourth regnal year both occurred in 605, (though it should be kept in mind that the first month of neither of their calendars matched the Gregorian).
There is a clear difference between the treasures taken to Babylon and the utensils that were taken because 2 Kings 24:13 refers to the cutting up of gold utensils in addition to the treasures. In ch 25:14 there is another reference to utensils of copper. So in the course of both deportations treasures and utensils were taken and in the latter utensils were taken to Babylon.
Yes, both 2 Kings 24:13 and 25:14 indicate a much more thorough collection of treasure in 597 and 587 than was taken in the event referred to at Daniel 1:1.
Daniel does not consistently refer to the kig's reigns using the acc system of reckoning at all for it is observed by scholars that Daniel' use of malkut is used in an absolute sense for world kingdom. This absolute use of kingdom is repeatedly used in the Aramaic chapters of Daniel.
Jehoiakim never ruled a "world kingdom", which immediately invalidates your suggestion. Assyria was the world power, and then Babylon was the world power.
Josephus confirms the fact that events ascribed to Jehoiakim occurred not at the beginning of his reign but toward the end which saw an end to Jehoiakim;s wicked rule. Josephus also confirms that Judah was not conquered in the fourth year of Jehoiakim but only in the Neb's 18th year with the land becoming empty, temple destroyed and the seventy years commenced. If he omits any reference to booty or captives taken in Jehoiakim's fourth year then one can only conclude along with the biblical texts that Nebuchadnezzer did not take such things in his first year.
Again you force me to repeat that Josephus indicates that Jerusalem was not conquered in 605, but this does not preclude captives and booty being taken, given to him by Jehoiakim to allay the siege that began when Nebuchadnezzar came through on his return to Babylon. Josephus specifically says that he accepts what Berossus said about Jewish captives being taken back to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year.
Jehoiakim paid tribute to Neb in the last three years and then he rebelled which brought about the invasion by Neb and the deposing of Jehoiakim with the deportation to Babylon, all confirmed by Josephus and the biblical narrative.
Finally you give a sentence that, in itself, is actually valid. However, you are probably implying that Daniel was taken at this time, and if so, you are still wrong.