Have a look at this Bloomberg story:

Billionaire Edward Lampert may have found a way to shield himself from millions of dollars in taxes under legislation that would raise levies on profits at private- equity firms. ESL Partners LP, the Greenwich, Connecticut, hedge fund Lampert started more than 20 years ago, and affiliates distributed about $829 million of stock...to him on June 2... By taking direct ownership of the shares, Lampert would be taxed at the capital-gains rate of 15 percent when the stock is sold, rather than the ordinary income rate of 39.6 percent that his fund would have to pay under the bill, according to Robert Willens, whose New York-based firm analyzes tax and accounting rules for Wall Street clients. Lampert is ranked 316th on the Forbes list of world's richest people, with an estimated net worth of $3 billion. “It's totally an astute thing to do,” Willens said in a telephone interview. “It doesn't take a fortune teller to predict that we are going to see a lot of this activity between now and the end of the year.”

The economist thing to say is that it's obviously rational to avoid taxation when possible, and this is why governments need to take heed when designing tax regimes. Individuals will do what they can to avoid paying, either by reducing the taxed behaviour or acting to take advantage of loopholes. And the rich will be best able to do this.

But let's be honest for a moment. According to this Bloomberg story, Mr Lampert is worth $3 billion. If he earns just 1% per year on that fortune—and he certainly earns much more—then he takes home $30 million in income. Per year. That's 600 times the median household income in America. It's more money than a person can reasonably spend. With that much money you can binge every day, and yet the money will just keep accumulating.

And yet Mr Lampert feels he needs to take special steps to avoid paying the regular income tax rate for individuals in the highest tax bracket, which begins at around $373,000 (the 15% bracket, by the way, begins at $8,375 for an individual). Obviously, most of the people bringing home that level of income are generating it in wages and salary, and they have no choice but to pay the income tax rate. I'm sure if you approached Mr Lampert and told him he didn't work for his money, he'd bristle at the suggestion. And yet he wants to continue to take advantage of the silly rule by which the money hedge fund managers make from doing their job is taxed as capital gains rather than income.

As far as I can tell, this is entirely within the law. But I don't think it's improper to declare it obscene. Shameful, even. With a fortune of that size, additional wealth is about little more than score-keeping. You can afford to be a grown-up and pay the same taxes as everyone else.

It sounds horribly populist to say so, but the fact that this kind of behaviour is lauded in the financial press when it ought to be scorned is a real problem. It's a problem in that it reveals big money men to be as brazen in their behaviour as they were before the crash. But it's also an indicator that something remains broken in America's attitude toward wealth.