> The "why are people surprised" line is a huge red flag for me that a person is not arguing in good faith. Accusing people of being "surprised" as an implicati

> The "why are people surprised" line is a huge red flag for me that a person is not arguing in good faith. Accusing people of being "surprised" as an implication of naivete seems to be a very common tool of redirection when people are defending something perceived by others to be immoral or otherwise harmful. This is a bizarrely uncharitable take. Posting an article implies some form of novelty, which is why we don't see articles posted saying things like "if you don't water your plants, they die" or "companies with large valuations tend to have high profits or revenue". The parent comment isn't claiming that the lack of novelty makes an otherwise-bad thing acceptable; he's saying that any reasonable model of the current state of corporate taxation should already have assumed something like this. He _separately_ makes the claim that legally minimizing one's tax burden isn't immoral; this is a claim that you can disagree with, but pretending that he's dismissing this entirely due to its lack of novelty is a bizarre non sequitur.