As a non-US citizen living in the US, I'll be one of the first to criticize the US tax code, particularly for the onerous provisions it places on non-US citizens and US citizens living overseas (the latter is an honour it shares with Eretria and maybe one other country)

It's also true that the US tax code makes it pretty easy fodr the rich to legally avoid taxes. A good example of this is the carried interest tax credit, staunchly defended by the senior Senator rom Wall STreet (Chuch Schumer, "Democrat"). Only when making a bid for the presidency did Clinton jump on the bandwagon of repealing it.

But I have to give the US some credit here. The US is really the only one who is pursuing tax evaders. A notable example of this is pursuing Swiss banks. If you read some of the details of what these banks did, it goes way beyond avoidance and was clearly criminal behaviour that includes vague language to avoid culpability in discovery of communications, hand delivering debit cards full of cash without names and so on [1].

Some people like to criticize the US government for going after corporations for foreign income (the US being an exception in this regard). But really what's happening is companies are (ab)using transfer (mis)pricing, which in many jurisdictions is illegal.

What really bothers me is it seems like this idea has set in amongst wealthy individuals that their supposed philanthropic efforts cover their debt to society and that they don't need to pay any taxes at all. This is rationalized in various ways. The government is wasteful (true; can we cancel the JSF already?). Private philanthropy is more effective than public welfare. Also true but the rich aren't being philanthropic to pay more taxes or even the same amount of tax.

Honestly I think much of this "philanthropy" is thinly veiled social exclusion (you're not rubbing elbows with the unwashed masses at a dinner that's $30,000 a plate) and bragging, essentially.

Taxes pay for public infrastructure. That infrastructure and the political stability its tied to is an essential element in wealth creation. Most of these wealthy people owe their wealth to the very country they now seek to short-change.

As much as people like the criticize the robber barons (etc) of the 19th century (and into the 20th). The Astors, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Carnegies and so on. These people had their failings for sure but they also contributed, not to mention the legacy they left behind (turning the US from an agrarian backwater to an industrial superpower in the span of a century).

There's so much wealth now that's simply inherited, providing next to no value to society.

People usually say you become more (politically) conservative as you get older. Honestly I think I'm becoming more socialist.

Here's an example: owners of apartments in NYC pay a disproportionate amount of property tax. Single family home dwellers pay a much lower rate as these are the bulk of the voters. It's not quite as bad as Prop 13 in CA but it's not far off.

At the other end of the spectrum we have these super-luxury condos where a $100m condo (of which there are now several) pay taxes as if they were worth $15m. This heralds from the days of Bloomberg who argued that you can improve NYC by attracting the billionaires [2].

But honestly what does undertaxing billionaires who come here a few days a year do for the city really?

Historically war and revolution have been the ultimate redistributors of wealth. There's a reason Caesar's descendants don't own half the world. I think we can all agree that we don't want that but the current trend towards hiding wealth offshores and the bankers as willing criminal accomplices has to eventually give. The roads, bridges, police forces, military and so on don't pay for themselves.

[1]: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2acaa1cc-d6fd-11e4-97c3-00144feab7...

[2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreign...