Good point on Buffet. Claiming the rich should pay more taxes but having an army of accountants and lawyers on staff to minimize your tax burden seems very hypocritical.
Warren Buffet's personal income tax rate is not a competitive sport. It only affects his take home pay. I could kind of see your analogy holding for the taxes his company pays because they have to compete with other companies. But I believe Buffet is arguing for a higher personal income/capital gains tax rate. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-...
> There's this kind of sick expectation of consistency.
Is it sick to live in a constant state of dishonesty and conflict between your words, thoughts and actions or is it sick to try to live a life free of hypocrisy?
I don't think anybody would disagree that it's perfectly fine for people to have normative desires that aren't reflected in current reality. People who desire less or more taxes still pay the taxes at the current rate.
But it's an entirely different animal to rail against something that you are 100% participatory and complicit in.
>I've even pointed out point-blank that their salaries are paid for by the same taxes they rail against incessantly and are met with blank stares or wry grimaces before they launch into an extended soliloquy about "values" or personal responsibility or some such.
There's this kind of sick expectation of consistency. I think it's fine if someone directly benefits from taxes and calls for their decrease. You make a villain out of them, but when someone like Warren Buffet says 'the rich can contribute more' you applaud him even when he directly benefits from less contribution. Anytime anyone espouses some belief and doesn't reflect adequate action to demonstrate that belief you could fault them for it. If you're going to fault the deeply conservative anti-federal government types for being inconsistent, you may as well fault everyone who doesn't meet your standard, less you yourself become the inconsistent one.