> This is something people love to rage about, yet it's not one with an obvious fix. Rage about. Off to a good start. I wonder what the conclusion will be? >

> This is something people love to rage about, yet it's not one with an obvious fix. Rage about. Off to a good start. I wonder what the conclusion will be? > [look at all of these reasonable-looking arguments for the existing tax laws] Sure. Most people are fine with rich people not getting taxed into the middle class or having to work for a living. What does this prove about anything? > These all suck, and the government generally collects money on assets as they move not assets at rest. I see no way to resolve it that isn't suckier than the status quo and so am left with the conclusion that people who agitate for such changes are more resentful of the rich than they are worried about the justice or lack thereof of tax avoidance. Hmm. I knew there was something off about attributing “rage” straight off the bat. I don’t know how you disentangle “justice” from “resentment” so easily. Resentment IS EXACTLY injustice over a sufficiently long enough time. But I tend to see this idea that people who are upset about something real need to have... pure emotions. They must be upset because someone else (the poor maybe) are getting shafted. They certainly can’t be resentful (jealous) or something selfish like that. (I don’t know what dimension you live in in the real world, confronted with these kinds of people, where this would be a compelling argument to anyone. Seems like a Let Them Eat Cake position.) So people who are rightfully upset—you don’t even argue against that part—get dismissed because they have allowed impurity into their hearts. While the rich get to do their tax schemes. But, he shrugs his shoulder, better that the rich fleece the government than that the commoners have impure thoughts.