I feel like I'm looking at this all wrong because I am so NOT upset about any of this. I would love for someone to please point out which part I'm being naive about.

So every year I contribute to my traditional IRA. I do this because I can deduct those contributions from my income, therefore reducing my tax liability on my contributions and my gains. I am basically deferring taxes until retirement when those gains are realized. Now, I know that when I'm in retirement my income will be significantly lower, thus my tax rate will be lower so that is quite advantageous to me. I could just put that $5,500 into my savings account, but it would just add to my taxable income so I chose to take the legal route of paying fewer taxes on that money in the long run.

These high profile people own property and investments under shell companies so they aren't taxed on these assets. When said assets and investments are sold, regardless if the beneficiary of the funds is the individual or ABC Company, taxes are paid. They're basically deferring the taxes until the profit from that asset is realized.

Is this not the exact same thing just with more zeros on the end? Anyone earning less than $100k/year would be called an idiot for not taking advantage of a tax break, but wealthy people are scrutinized for engaging in the same activities. I do realize that some wealthy individuals are going to engage in illegal activity since this shelters it so much, but regular individuals do shady things to avoid taxes too. I know personally I am going to take every (legal) advantage that crosses my path, so I feel that it would hypocritical to expect others not to do the same.