Repeating that line won't help your argument.
I cannot go to the school I work for and say "Hey school I work for, I was going to pay $30,000 to fix up my house. But that would involve me taking out a loan or something. I have an idea: instead of you paying me $50,000 you instead pay me $20,000 and fix up my house. You pay the same, my wealth will grow the same since my house will be worth $30,000 more, but I'll only earn $20,000 in income, which is minimum wage area, and get a huge tax break. Everyone wins!"
Because
real people can't do that. That's something the very rich can do, and then evade the taxes when they sell or trade the items later.
The problem you're having with your Trump-defending argument (yes you are) is that you're trying to defend the ethics while the outrage comes from the morals. Making $100 billion while paying 1% in taxes, because $95 billion was in stock or property, might be legal, but so is what happened to Treyvon Martin. People aren't outraged about the exact phrasing of the law, they're outraged that it's legal...for
other people and not them.
But let's address your thoughts about taxing 401k. First of all, it'd require a rewrite and probably a massive rebalance of tax brackets and rates, which incidentally I'd be 100% okay with as long as it was still progressive like it was pre-tax-cut-for-the-rich. So I'd still win.
But let's pretend it magically didn't somehow (yeah, your idea requires magic).
Let's pretend I earned $50,000 in income and $100,000 to my 401k. Considering I actually did pay taxes on the money I earned, I'd really only worry about the marginal tax rate applied to that last $100k which means I'd need $24k. Obviously, I'd take out $24k from my 401k and use that. This is probably the issue you're talking about, even though my 401k would still grow $76k and I'd never have to pay taxes when I took it out later in life.
*ahem*
But.
Bezos would have to pay the much higher 37% rate on every single penny of that $95 billion he never paid taxes for. (He'll be comforted when he sells his properties or stocks and doesn't have to pay money at the time, because he's already paid like I have)
And we get to a situation where income tax is
actually progressive.
And I'd still win.
Now again, in reality it wouldn't be those numbers. I'm using your magic solution about 401k going up requires tax payments without a rebalance of the tax code -- which, again, I'm 100% for. I mean,
we already have special rules and rates for capital gains so it's reasonable to assume that, if 401k growth or property values increasing was taxed, it's be at a different rate. And Cuban, Bezos and Trump would have to pay it, and this discussion would never have happened.
Until then, you're pointing out what the Bond villain is doing is legal because it's in international waters while the sexy lady is in a room filling with water.