similar in action, but vastly different in the ethics and consequence - in the same way that stealing a loaf of bread from a wealthy person to save a starving child is considered by most to be ethical, ignoring overbearing laws to provide for your family I consider ethical. You're free to disagree, but that's vastly different than the rich evading paying back into a society that enabled them to being wealthy. Magnitude always matters.

> that's vastly different than the rich evading paying back into a society that enabled them to being wealthy.

Given that you're talking about people earning a middle-class-US money, likely putting them in at least the top percentile or two, I think it's actually exactly the same thing. Even millionaires will tell you they're not rich and point to people who are richer than them to justify why they feel that way, but you shouldn't believe them.

well that's definitely your opinion, but when the choices are being poor by a poor countries standards or taking a job that allows you to pay for your entire immediate families lifestyle - the choice for me is obvious

It's also obvious this choice is barely even in the same category as an oligarch that has to choose between being in the top 100 richest people on earth and the top 10,000 richest people on earth.

There's effectively nothing different about a top 10k and top 100 richest persons lifestyle options, they can do practically anything they want so long as it can be bought.

> It's also obvious this choice is barely even in the same category as an oligarch that has to choose between being in the top 100 richest people on earth and the top 10,000 richest people on earth.

If you're at the top 10,000 level you'll think there's no difference between the top 1 and top 100 but a huge difference between the top 100 and top 10,000. If you're at the top 1,000,000 level you'll think there's no difference between the top 100 and top 10,000 but a huge difference between the top 10,000 and top 1,000,000. And so on at every level.