By now everyone with a functioning brain has heard of the Mitten Man's taxing problem.  Today's NY Times has more stories (some Walter Mitty specific, others on the general topic) than I want to link; just go read it.  Even if you're not subscribed, you're allowed a few (don't recall the exact number) visits per month.  Kind of like NFL ref call challenges.  Burn one, it's worth it.

Here's what pissed me off, the sub-sub-headline (dead trees version) in the Times' front page story:
"Unwanted Look at How Rules Favor Investors Over Earners"

The Washington Post, also sub-sub-headline (on-line version):
"Most of his income is from past investments"

The LA Times doesn't have Mr. Magic Underpants on the front page; wimps.  They do have a stories over the last few days dealing with Mr. 15%, but no headlines of note (on-line version).

The Guardian doesn't have any meaningful headlines on its story about the 15%-er.

So, why am I pissed at both the Times and the Post?  Simple:  what the Mitten Man makes isn't by way of investment.  If by, and I sure do, one means actually putting money into new physical production.  He just moved money from some pockets, mostly other peoples', into his.  Trading stocks, and companies, is gambling pure and simple.  If you buy, you're betting the guy you bought from was a fool to sell so cheap.  Selling, that other guy's a fool for paying so much.  If you have insider information, and Mr. Mitty sure would with his hedge fund activities, the bet is sort of one sided.  Do regular gamblers get away with 15%?  Nope.  Here's a Las Vegas explanation.

Why should Wall Street gamblers get off cheap?