I disagree with this I think wealthy people can unhyproctitically advocate for higher taxes without necessarily giving up all their money themselves. It's logical to realize one's own small contribution won't do much but the compulsory contribution from everyone will

Do you think Warren Buffet and Bill Gates can only make a 'small contribution' and it won't do much?

I call BS.

You know why they don't voluntarily pay higher taxes, and yet advocate for it? because they know if the tax rates/laws change, they will just pay their lawyers extra money to figure out how not to pay it - they want someone else to do it instead.

Same reason Bezos preaches on GW, and yet drives around in a yacht that burns more fossil fuels than thousands or of typical Americans will use in a year.

It's all virtue signaling, and nothing else.

I think I see now why you're being angry and confused. I'm not talking about Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. I'm talking about people like Marlene Engelhorn in Austria, who literally toured TV shows making arguments that border on anti-capitalism. She's a millionaire heiress and advocates not just for a higher maximum income tax rate but also for reinstating the wealth tax and raising inheritance tax.

She's basically advocating for policies that would make it impossible (or extremely difficult) to become and remain as wealthy as she is, let alone a billionaire. And she's directly going against her own financial interests with this because no amount of creative accounting would shield her from all of it if it became actual policy.

For the record, I remembered her being a billionaire heiress but it seems I was off by a digit or two. So I apologize for incorrectly referring to one-percenters when I meant mostly her and other millionaires (afaik) who support her project called Taxmenow. She also criticized philanthropy.

They're actively lobbying to raise the taxes of their tax bracket. That's the opposite of empty virtue signalling. Their messaging is "people like us don't pay enough taxes, please raise the taxes people like us have to pay". That's a concrete, actionable demand that directly goes against their supposed interest. Unless you can demonstrate that they're being disingeneous and go behind their own backs to sabotage any actual attempts at tax reform, you have no argument.

I gave this as an example of people asking for a systemic solution that goes against their own self interest but solves a systemic problem that is bad for society as a whole. "Why don't they just give away their money" is an individualistic "solution" that does nothing to fix the systemic problem except going against their self interest.

Of course this assumes you agree with them that them being able to have so much money is a systemic problem worth addressing, i.e. that the system needs to be changed. "The law forcing them" is literally the system being changed. Because, as I said, the system incentivizes harsh competition and maximizing personal financial gain, so without changing the system there is no incentive for any individual to give up their excessive wealth if nobody else will.

If you are desperate to find hypocrisy, you'll have more success looking at "philanthropists" who argue against having to pay higher taxes but instead "give away" their money to their own charities (which just happen to shuffle that money back into their own companies).

EDIT: I see now that you were thinking of the exact billionaire philanthropists I mention as an example for actual hypocrisy, so I guess we agree on the hypocrisy, you just weren't aware of the group of people I was referencing.