[lotsofpulp]

> Nevertheless, the super rich ‘legally’ avoiding the proportional contribution to society nominally expected of them _because they can_ is still anti-social behaviour and however the laws came to be is irrelevant in my opinion.

Why do you put legally in quotes? Is it because you think there was zero downside risk to maxing out a Roth contribution with start up stock? The article conveniently leaves out all the possible downsides.

Seems like the problem is wealth inequality, and going after people who follow the rules (that they had no part in influencing) is a waste of time, and reduced quality of discourse due to decrease in trust.

[graphpapa]

I’m not saying anyone should go after them. They followed the rules, how do you go after someone who followed the rules?

I’m just saying that it’s still okay to condemn (just as an act of casting judgement) rule following when it’s anti social and the question of what sort of society we would like to live in is the more prescient point to bare in mind.

I put legally in quotes because I think legality is an unsound basis for reasoning about whether something is normatively okay or not okay.