I think it’s still worth being critical of individuals even if they follow all the rules. The super rich have the largest influence on society as a whole. They cast a vote on the status quo by endorsing anti-social policies with their actions. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. I’m not arguing any particular consequences etc. whatever. I also agree that ‘news’ which emphasises a misleading causality is not helpful.

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. Democracy is so flawed especially at the individual policy level I consider the argument that ‘the populace voted for this’ conservative in the worst most nebulous way, defending the status quo for no reason other than it is the status quo.

Of course policies that protect the super rich are beyond the normal reach of democracy because lobbying and donations are so prevalent.

Do we approve of this behaviour in a normative sense? That seems like a more important thing to keep in mind than if individual’s playing of the game is technically above board. Or how the rules came about. To me the details of the case amount to details of a symptom and what is of more interest is the underlying condition which is revealed.

FWIW I don’t know the details of the case I’m just trying to nudge the discourse in a direction I find more interesting.