[hueving]

>I agree that changing tax law would be the best remedy but I'm not entirely sure if tax "avoidance" on a massive scale doesn't have some ethical considerations.

Do you suggest that people are unethical if they choose to take a mortgage interest deduction or deduct business expenses? How about people that rollover their retirement accounts?

I disagree with the tax benefits granted to homeowners and parents. However, it is the current law and I don't rant that people are being unethical by limiting their payment to the government under the law that exists. I would consider them fiscally irresponsible to do otherwise.

[Inconel]

While I too disagree with some of the tax benefits afforded to homeowners, particularly with regard to long time homeowners here in CA, no, I would not consider that unethical. For one, there are probably more homeowners and parents than billionaires, so if they vote to give themselves certain tax breaks, even if I happen to disagree with them, I don't view it as a "corruption" of democracy. I'm sorry for using the word "corruption", it might not really be appropriate but I'm tired and couldn't think of a better term. At the very least, politicians seem to be pretty straightforward regarding tax breaks for homeowners, the process of taxation and financial lawmaking seems significantly more opaque to me. I view tax avoidance on the scale of hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars, differently than tax avoidance on a much smaller scale, even if both are perfectly legal. I admit this may not be a very good way of looking at things but I can't help but feel that scale is important here.

I hope my posts didn't come off as a "rant", that was not my intention and I deliberately tried to make sure to point out that I'm not concrete in some of these views. I like coming to HN largely because ideas can be challenged in a respectful manner, I apologize if my posts came off as rants.