> 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.