Agree with some of that. It is a concern when an elected official, with no other source of income, becomes wealthy in office. But their leading bullet point isn't about that. It's a billionaire, who _then_ ran for office. It's very clearly trying to equate wealth with wrong-doing by association and implication, without any specific claims or substantiation. And it undercuts the story where it is cases of bribes, theft, and corruption.

And said billionaire, who ran on a anti-corruption platform, concealed assets that are were required by law to be disclosed. That's a crime.

For many ideologues, wealth is evidence of crime.

> This outrage is warranted, because it underscores how tiered the legal system is World wide (The US is least represented in the Pandora release but 2 Federal Reserve Presidents have just stepped down due to insider trading [0]) for those closest to power, whereas tax evasion is one of the most effective ways to get a criminal indictment for the average citizen in most of the World.

For those closest to the power, the easiest way to get around the law... is to follow it to the letter.

Biggest, and most famous Russian mafiosos live in the open in London, while diligently paying taxes on their multi-billion ill gotten wealth, and without using any offshore structures, or shady law firms at all.

And the British establishment, Downing St., is very happy with this arrangement.

What people forget about these things is that those offshores are a refuge for at most second grade rogue economic players, whose main rationale hiding their wealth is to hide it from other much bigger gangsters, and mafias from their home countries.

They themselves choose places like London not because it's a rich city to live in, but because of London offering much better protection from being gunned down in broad daylight than cities in their home countries.

> For those closest to the power, the easiest way to get around the law... is to follow it to the letter.

I'd agree but not for the reason(s) you've outlined, what they they will do is get their crimes legalized. Or, if they get caught as in the case with Christine Lagrade [0], they will get convicted but serve no sentence and remain in their position. Proving that selective application of the Law, nepotism and the failing up method is as prevalent as ever within these circles.

The City of London Corporation is nearly autonomous to the greater UK with it's own political and legal framework [1], and given it's incredibly checkered past, you'd do well to keep that in mind when you decide to be an apologist for Russian tycoons and oligarchs.

To be clear: I'm not against wealth or the wealthy, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy (and my disdain) for those who use their relation to the State for their own largess.

0: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38369822 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation

> because of London offering much better protection from being gunned down in broad daylight than cities in their home countries.

Highly doubt it. A targeted assassination would be as easy in London as anywhere else.

> The broader question and sentiment of this piece is: how exactly have people who supposedly work in Public Service amassed such wealth when these positions are paid so low

Usually, those folks come from money to begin with, which makes the situation even worse.

I saw this a lot living down in Texas, state congressional pay is so low that you basically have to come from money in order to run and hold state office (base pay is $7.2K annually and tops out at $40k for a two year period, depending on how many days they're in session, basically minimum wage). Even though it's technically not a full-time job, it's demanding enough of one's time that they need a prior career with enough flexibility in order both hold office and make extra income, which excludes the vast majority of the population.