&gt; That&#x27;s a quite unwise ad hominem argument.<p>I would argue that accusations of immorality is also ad hominem.<p>Informal relationships between friends like the one you describe have direct feedback mechanisms if you take actions that you believe to be unfair towards each other. Because we both respect each other, we&#x27;re very unlikely to do something that would be considered untowards to each other because we both value and wish to continue the relationship. We can choose to or not to choose to bring law into this situation, but intent is more important in this relationship because it is a close relationship.<p>In the tax law situation, it&#x27;s more of a social contract. Social contracts are between individuals who have no direct relationship with each other. The way we describe these social contracts is via codified law. It&#x27;s very difficult to interpret intent from law, and then turn that intent into action or inaction. And those who are part of the social contract should not have to. My primary issue with assertions of immorality is that it&#x27;s unquantified and completely subjective. Your tax haven is somebody else&#x27;s foreign investment. You&#x27;re imposing your own subjective view of intent on it.<p>If you want to change the social contract, then please do so with trying to change the laws. It requires you to start from first principles and makes you examine what your actual intentions are (Increase tax revenue? Reduce income inequality? Discourage foreign investment in favor of domestic investment?) and also what the possible negative externalities are (capital flight? reduced GDP? etc.). But by making assertions of immorality or &quot;evil&quot;ness on the part of perceived bad actors, you&#x27;re not offering any solutions, and instead starting the conversation from a place where no progress can be made.