[graphpapa]

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.

[lotsofpulp]

> 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.

[graphpapa]

I’m not saying anyone should go after them. They followed the rules, how do you go after someone who followed the rules?

I’m just saying that it’s still okay to condemn (just as an act of casting judgement) rule following when it’s anti social and the question of what sort of society we would like to live in is the more prescient point to bare in mind.

I put legally in quotes because I think legality is an unsound basis for reasoning about whether something is normatively okay or not okay.

[MAGZine]

I agree. I don't think it was the intent for people to amass a multi-billion dollar accumulation in their Roth account. And when we're talking about whether something is "right," or "wrong,"--which different from whether or not if it falls within the rules--I think we can look at the contribution limits as a hint of the intent.

I'd even go as far to say that the $5k/yr contribution limit of Roth account makes it pretty clear that Roth was not supposed to be used to gain tax privilege on vast sums of money.

It's a retirement account. How much money do people need for retirement? 22B? Give me a break.

[thunky]

> I don't think it was the intent for people to amass a multi-billion dollar accumulation in their Roth account

Intent doesn't matter now. The rule is the rule.

You can't call foul and say it's "wrong" when someone plays by the rules and wins.

If you want to advocate for changing the rules that's fine. But don't forget to consider the non-billionaire Roth holders out there, the ones that are "right", who may be affected by a rule change.

[lotsofpulp]

>I'd even go as far to say that the $5k/yr contribution limit of Roth account makes it pretty clear that Roth was not supposed to be used to gain tax privilege on vast sums of money.

How is this clear? By the same reasoning, one could say the lack of specification of maximum tax free gains makes it pretty clear that Roth was supposed to be used to gain tax privilege on vast sums of money.

[aww_dang]

>Do we approve of this behaviour in a normative sense?

What is the approximate amount of taxes for Mr. Thiel of which you would approve of? How much wealth should he retain?

If a single individual does not have the right to confiscate your wealth, but a collective body does, how many voters are required to confiscate your wealth?

Where exactly is this demarcation point? Is there a limbo zone where the morality of forcible confiscation begins to bend?