In the end it’s not a question of obeying the rules it’s a question of individuals or companies writing those rules to favor themselves and others objecting to those rules.
But anyway. That still is irrelevant to this point, which is that writing down rules is the easy bit, and creating value year on year is the hard bit. Blame the people who get free money to write rules that get them money if there are loopholes. Don't blame the people actually working to make them that free money.
Borrowing isn’t free money, it’s in fact more expensive than taxing people directly.
> That still is irrelevant to this point, which is that writing down rules is the easy bit, and creating value year on year is the hard bit.
Hardly, making money from investments isn’t difficult and has some of the largest tax breaks built in. As someone that’s inherited money I can say theirs nothing inherently virtuous or difficult about it and wow it’s tax free!
But hey I am glad you’re working extra hard so I can lazy around as much as I feel like it.
You might be the world's best trader if you're saying that, but you still can't just reach into companies' bank accounts and take their money. You take on the large risk of losing money when you invest.
Also, individual investors don’t generally need to raid companies they can simply sell to other investors. But collectively or with a large enough percentage of the stock we can dissolve the company and sell off its assets. This tends to happen if the stock price falls so far as to make plundering the company look appealing. See: Corporate raiding etc
Other than that, I'm struggling to make out what you're saying. It once again doesn't seem related to what I'm saying.
The question is: should we be of the mindset that companies that obey the rules as written are somehow not obeying the "real" rules, rather than putting the fault on the rule writers, whose only purpose is to write good rules, and who are part of the "extremely valuable services" we all pay for?