The deeper implication of this story is that the super-rich do not share our  economic pain. Therefore, they have less interest in good government or the development of competitive national infrastructure (both physical and social). Ditto for American-based, but transnational, corporations. So they only want minimal government with the lowest taxes for the wealthy. See robertreich.org/post/27527895909. Does Mitt Romney, with his sizeable off-shore wealth, have enough skin in the American economy? 

Taxing the rich more than the middle class, to a point, is alright, beyond which though, is both wrong and dangerous. Further, what does the culture that taxes the rich more than the middle class offer in return to the rich, for the extra tax money. Why should the wealthy stay in a given culture/country if they sense they are being ripped off, or worse threatened, made the scapegoat in some liberal, socialist, inspired game, of class warfare.

Since Obama became POTUS, wealthy Americans have abrogated or renounced their American citizenship in unprecedented numbers. In Obamas first year, `09, 742 Americans renounced, in `10, 1,534, and in `11 1788. This year, renounciations of American citizenship are ahead of last years pace.

What would anyone have expected to happen when an anti-American, anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, class warfare mongering, liberal man becomes POTUS. He is the biggest wrecking ball of his own coutry to take the helm since Caligula. But still Obama is not done, still Obama rattles the sabor of the wealthy cheating the country out of their share of tax dollars.

It is ironic that Obama would look at the wealthy as tax cheats, cheating the poor out of the said poor`s share of the wealthy`s money. In January ~09, as Obama prepared for the Oval office, many of his cabinate picks had baggage. At least three that I recall, all liberal/democrats were found to be derilict and delinguint in their taxes.

Hilda Solis, owed $6,400 plus unknown other $1,000s. Daschle failed to pay more than $140,000 in taxes, and Tim Geithner failed to pay more than $34,000 in taxes.

One may remember Geithner. He was the one billed as the only man smart enough to save our economy. When his tax fraud hit the proverbial fan, the LMSM spin machine spun it as a mistake anyone could make. This is a glowing example of liberalism`s right to have it both ways without losing a step. For here was the smartest man of all making a common man`s mistake, in his own favor, and there, according to liberals, was no stink of hypocracy or of a two faced postion.

When John Kerry, the richest person in the senate, a year or so ago, bought himself a $7 million, 76 foot boat, he docked it in a neighboring state allowing him to cheat his home state taxes of $437, 500 in a one time tax, and $70,000 annual excise tax, and further, pay nothing at all in tax. When word got out and John was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he agreed to pony up. How big of the guy.

The hypocracy is even more than already stated. Liberal/democrats are known as tax and spend people. They demand more from everyone, but manage to feel above their own laws. To be a liberal, among other things, means always getting it both ways.

It should further be pointed out, that liberal leadership, the progressives, here in America, are making it extremely difficult for legitament immigration, of the decent, matured foreigners, people who believe in the old American dream, to achieve citizenship. But these same anti-American, liberal dolts are making it very easy for illegal, third world, immature loser types, and their children, to gain American citizenship. We are denying the good and embracing the bad, and this is pulling America down into third world status.

The dream of the liberal leaders, the progressives, is a new world, one world order of globalism, socialism and democracy. This demands the end of the old world order of Republics, nationalism and capitalism. Their intended Utopia has proven itself to be a Dystopia, except for the few at the top.

Instead of getting huffy over the wealthy protecting their wealth, perhaps we should wonder what it is we others are doing wrong.

Liberalism, is the iceberg targetting the Titanic. Thank you.

I would remind PDK that the Bible castigates Mammon as well as Moloch.

I would ask him also whether he believes that great wealth, in and of itself, is always and everywhere reliable proof of a person's superior virtue, industry and intellect, superior to that of anyone else in the society, while having a low income - an income that does not cover or just barely covers the necessities of life - means that a person is stupid and/ or lazy and/ or wicked.  The reverse assumption - that all the poor as such are virtuous and all the rich as such are wicked - is of course equally fallacious; but I would warn PDK that in his zeal to debunk this latter fallacy, he is in danger of embracing the former.

One needs to reflect on the medieval poets and theologians, who had a much stronger conception of the role of Luck, Fortuna - and also a much stronger conception of divine goodness, Grace, and Gift - than most modern people (without being in any way fatalistic).

If one is raised in a society shaped by Christianity, then one knows that the very idea of being 'self-made' - owing nothing to anybody or anything except oneself - is perfectly nonsensical.  And therefore one will be more inclined to pay one's dues; and not only to pay one's dues, but to give intelligently and generously and, yes, joyfully (even if such giving is not tax deductible!), being well aware of how much of one's good fortune, one's abundance is, well, the fruit of good fortune, or of divine grace, rather than being what one 'deserves' to have.

(And if one falls upon hard times, and is in need, one will not be prevented by foolish pride from acknowledging that need, and asking for help; the sort of person who declares that he or she would prefer to die in the gutter rather than admit need to a fellow citizen, or to a fellow Christian, is a fool. When one cannot joyfully and cheerfully accept the occasional gift that is of a kind that cannot be repaid or earned, then one is spiritually limited; I remember being quite taken aback, reading the Laura Ingalls Wilder books, when the piously Christian mother of the family was totally shocked - and almost disapproving of - the fact that a guest upon departing had secretly left behind a sum of money to go toward their blind daughter's education in a special school.  I could not understand a Christian person's being unwilling to receive or even properly delight in an act of pure charity, of divine generosity.).

There is such a thing as the res publica, the common good, the commonweal.  

It is connected with the thing that Charles Williams called The City, or The Coinherence (which is not at all the same thing as the Collective).