Not just "to me". "To any reasonable use of the term".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hardship
You're misusing words because your position cannot hold up to honest scrutiny, and you
know it.
Minor annoyances he would get his accountants to deal with is not "hardship" by any measure.
And nothing I'm saying has anything to do with any "lack of empathy". There you go with the personal attacks and/or projection, again. You can't make your case on the
facts, so you have to portray me as a "bad person".
This is recursively false.
They aren't "forced to sell their property", they're obliged to pay their legally-owed taxes. Like everyone is. If you're going to call that "forcing", all you're really saying is that law enforcement exists as a concept. It's a meaningless use of the term "force". It's the same kind of "forced" like "they force me to stop murdering people".
If you're not against the very basic concept of "rule of law", then you know you're being dishonest, here.
And if you are, you're absolutely nuts and that position says everything anyone needs to know about you. You really
are opposed to stopping serial killers from getting their kill on, in this instance.
And despite the nonsense use of "forced", it's not a "hardship", since we're talking about wealth over $50 million, and you're using that word incorrectly.
You can't define your terms properly. And you deflect every time you're asked to. Because you're using scary-sounding words out of their proper context because you hope that dishonest appeals to emotion might gain you some ground when you very clearly know that logic and reason can't gain you any.