They're allowed. It's not illegal to act in a singular self interest. That doesn't mean everyone wants to elect someone who only works for their own self interest. We're talking about a public figure and that means they're subject to public opinion beyond the low bar of legality.
However, at this point this sort of thing is baked in to opinions of the president. I don't think anyone is surprised.
I’m of the opinion that no one should avoid taxes, so if you’re asking just about government employees, then the answer is still yes, they shouldn’t be allowed to.
What does that mean though? If the government introduces a new tax credit for home renovations that increase the energy efficiency of the home, are you saying no one should take advantage of that?
The problem I have with the word “tax avoidance” is that it carries negative connotations (which of course the media leap on in order to attack their preferred bogeyman). In reality, all that’s happening is that people are following the law and taking advantage of loopholes and tax credits to reduce their tax obligation.
If you think these loopholes and tax credits are unfair, then focus on fixing that. If you think the tax code is so enormous that it’s hopeless to fix it, then say that and offer an alternative. Otherwise you’re not really offering people an objective measure to live by.
That statement is meaningless. The government provides incentives and deductions for certain reasons (e.g. buying electric cars, home offices, charity contributions, etc.). It's put into law by the lawmakers.
How much do you choose to pay in taxes? How much do you think others should choose to? All discretionary income? All charitable giving? Some fixed percentage?
