> But we're simply talking about Place A offering a better financial package than Place B. That's such a massive oversimplification of the truth that it no lon

> But we're simply talking about Place A offering a better financial package than Place B. That's such a massive oversimplification of the truth that it no longer resembles the truth. Place B is the place where these people grew up, learned, and became wealthy and powerful. They used the resources of place B to get to where they are. You don't see the many of the wealthy starting off in obscure islands with permissive tax codes. But suddenly when it's time to pay for all the resources they have used, they're shopping around? Give me a break. What you're proposing is equivalent to me going and stealing the shiny new Porsche I always wanted, then claiming it's okay because I shopped around and found a deal on an old Pinto at the local junkyard. I pay the junkman, I get my Porsche, and we're even, right? The only difference here is that I'm not rich or powerful enough to make that legal. > This is a moot and frankly prejudiced point. People & organizations with more wealth & power have greater flexibility and mobility, regardless of the system they're in. "Prejudice" means I've judged them before having any real information about them. The Panama Papers are far from the first indication that the rich leech off society and don't pay their fair share, but they sure are the most damning and specific. How much evidence so you need before you're willing to admit that I'm being judicial and not just prejudicial?