Sadly, it does. Not people who are paying attention, maybe, but there are few enough of those that they don't matter quite so much.
In what way is having people who are paying attention be angry and the people who are not paying attention not angry the success of the government to account for the populace's emotional states? It isn't. People who don't pay attention are.. not paying attention. All the sleight of hand keeps the government from having to actually justify their actions. They're happy with the low effort fig leaf.
When did a taxing entity have an attitude at all?
The taxing entity is the legislature. The public employees that implement the policies are the administrating agents. The sleight of hand is from the top. We're getting pretty far afield here (and Iv'e got someone to be soon), so I'll leave off my undistilled outlook on who is perpetrating the the madness.
I'll be honest -- I don't see the boundaries you're talking about here
When planning spending and taxation, politicians should really (mostly? generally?) be concerned with whether or not they do more harm than good. What we actually get with public policy is favor trading, pork barrels, and bandaids. Pragmatism dictates the compromise .. but once you're in that area, you've left the discussion about taxation. If the compromise result was a good idea, why wasn't that the first draft?
I wouldn't, however, say you're hypocritical for holding an opposed position and arguing from and for your position.
Would only perfectly fair redistribution satisfy you?
Not at all. I just feel that if someone is going to argue for redistribution that they be the first to sacrifice in line with their argument. To call on others to sacrifice and then refrain from sacrificing until the others do for personal gain is an act contrary to one's words. The sacrifice of others will cause them to sacrifice more than the money. Everybody has personal preferences. Placing one's own personal preferences ahead of one's sacrifice while extolling that everybody should sacrifice, against their personal preferences, is hypocrisy. And it will be against their personal preferences. If people wanted to pay out money to the government, they would. They don't. Hence taxes. For non-monetary-related preferences, everybody has them. Redistribution of wealth will affect them. What makes the presenter's preferences more important than everybody else's?
It is rational self interest to not pay taxes until compelled. It is probably rational (although not necessarily self interest) to argue for taxes to be raised. But doing so puts the needs of the group over the needs of oneself for whatever amount of money that person believes is the "correct" amount of taxes. Keeping the money kicks the argument to the curb.