Don't hate the player, hate the game. Can't blame someone for trying to protect their wealth. A loophole is... a loophole. Close them, redesign the tax code. Lame to single out individuals in posts like this as though they are doing anything wrong.
2. If the government squanders tax payer money all over the world, isn't it morally bad to give that money to the govt. when you can legally keep it?
1. I'm not sure what the implication is here.
2. It sounds like he is attempting to create dynastic wealth by avoiding taxes owed after he dies. So, to me it does not seem like some protest against the US government. But if he was actively trying to do good with his wealth in the amount of billions of dollars, then maybe that could be defensible.
If I take the money I have and invest it then I'll get paid something for that. It follows that the person taking the money thinks they can use my money and end up with more even after they've paid me back.
Here's the question. Is every act of commerce an act of theft? If so then none of this means anything. If not, if a company borrowing money is making good and services (and jobs) that everyone benefits from then in theory my putting my money to work is making everyone better off.
The alternative is that government will use the money more positively. On the upside they just spend it on the downside all they do is spend it - the feedback from "good" and "bad" spending is delayed.
Ethics is a very subjective thing. I disagree with your take.
Take this up with the IRS if you disagree with it. Don’t blame the individual for following the law.
No man owes the government more than the government demands.
Ethics has no place in the discussion aside from being a consideration in setting what the government demands.
If we want fewer loopholes then we should prioritize that when selecting our government.
The law does not define ethics. Ethics does not define the law. It is folly to pretend there is more than a tenuous bidirectional link.
For example, any father ethically owes his children more than child support. And any child ethically owes his father more than refraining from stealing from or killing him.
1) Follow the spirit of the law, which is that on your death, your assets are taxed as they are passed on, thus you contribute to funding the laws and society we are supposedly working together to create.
2) Do work to avoid having to give up anything, even though you can easily afford it, and you'll be dead anyway.
I don't see how #2 is ethically the same as #1. He doesn't have to do the most selfish thing just because he isn't technically being forced otherwise. Caveat that I haven't researched if this guy is giving tons of money away otherwise or something, I'm just trying to explain why I think it's fair for people to criticize this behavior even though it might be legal.
People need to get real examples of how the tax avoidance is happening. How insane the amounts are. And realize that when the rich don't pay, it's left to the middle class to foot the bill. Abstract explanations won't work.
There can be no real change a witouth massive amount of political pressure. Pressure that can only be fueled, at least partly, by emotions. And the proper emotions are fear, anger, and the feeling of being tricked.