Think Progress is accusing Ron Paul of hypocrisy for criticizing social security but taking it (they also suggest that he compared social security to slavery, which he did and didn't: He did in the "immoral" sense, but not in the "social security is a type of slavery sense):
Paul is, of course, not the only conservative to benefit from government programs that he or she opposes. But his crankish view of the Constitution has brought him to the conclusion that Social Security is altogether unconstitutional, which also hasn’t stopped him from collecting benefits.
Any critic A's criticism of policy x naturally leads critic B of critic A to see whether A is consistent with regard to x. Since x is government policy, or law, it's very easy to spot alleged inconsistencies. I'm against, at least I think I am, various tax breaks for people who make over a certain amount of money. These tax breaks might benefit me. I'm not a hypocrite for not writing a check to the federal reserve. I'm a hypocrite if the policy I advocate goes into effect, and I do not abide by it.
People might remember that this is, in essence, the Buffett criticism (we talked about it here and here and here and here): if you like taxes so much, pay voluntarily. Such criticism was bad then, and it's bad now.
It's bad in part because it would make it practically very difficult to criticize laws and policies without engaging in civil disobedience of one form or another.
There seem to be two very crappy albeit popular arguments against increasing marginal tax on people making over a certain very high dollar figure (let's call it "the Buffett rule"). I am not aware of any good arguments against the idea, but if you are, feel free to direct me to them in comments.
One argument involves denying that the Buffett rule will solve the debt problem. Another argument consists in pointing out that no one has voluntarily given extra money to the US Treasury. The first argument is something of a weak or hollow man, depending on how it's deployed. It's a weak man if someone makes this claim among many others; it's a hollow man if no one, as I suspect is the case, has actually made this specific argument.
The second of the two arguments, a textbook tu quoque, got another shot at life yesterday from the ever clueless Chris Wallace:
[I]f I may, David, the question I have for you is: if the president feels so strongly about tax fairness, is he going to he contribute money to the Treasury and they have a special department just for this, to help with the deficit?
What would make the President a hypocrite in this circumstance is if he advocated for higher taxes on earners such as himself and then refused to pay. Not, as Wallace seems to suggest, that he isn't currently just donating money to the Treasury.
I don't know how this stuff gets into people's brains. But Wallace gets paid a lot of money, and he went to Harvard. Doesn't Harvard owe us some kind of apology?
According to Pat Buchanan, taxing investment at something north of half of the rate work is taxed is
rooted in the philosophy of envy and the gospel of greed.
(Video here. Why's that?
Mr.Buffett says he is unhappy because he doesn't pay as high a tax rate as he says his secretary does.
I suppose he envies his secretary's high tax rate and is greedy for more tax payments. Watch the clip, not even John McLaughlin can make any sense of this. Asking Buchanan to explain how it is that Buffett's claim that it is unfair that he pays a lower tax rate on his investment than his secretary does on work might amount to greed or envy, Buchanan retorts:
I think he's a plutocrat who is playing to the crowd.
Plutocrats, always playing to the crowd by demanding higher taxes on themselves. This has to be the worst ad hominem circumstantial in the history of the McLaughlin Group.