I see it more like the wealthy want to maintain their relative position. They want others to have to pay to buy the things they want. They’ll still be just as wealthy, relatively, but they’ll also get the governmental changes they seek.
It’s not about getting the societal changes. If it were, they wouldn’t mind paying for it themselves. It’s about making others pay.
This doesn't make any sense. When people say this they mean they want more social spending and they are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The budget is what it is, the administration has made it clear that keeping the deficit low has nothing to do with the level of social spending they are willing to do. Sending money won't really do anything.
Demanding all wealthier people have a greater tax liability and not sacrificing one’s self is logically consistent and expected behavior.
If I am playing a game, and others do not want to ally with me, I am not going to make myself lose. But I can still signal that I am open to an alliance.
We want systemic changes, not patrons.
Taxes are for equity and fairness. Taxes are compulsory, donations are voluntary.
Taxes are payment for being for being rich.
Donations are taxes for being a good person.
Great rant: David Mitchell on Tax Avoidance from The Last Leg https://youtu.be/xc8epam4NyY?t=150
Then Mitchell being more serious: You can't blame the rich for paying as little tax as possible. I do the same https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/31/david-...