They are taking it upon themselves outside the law to settle disagreements, but they want to leverage new laws to make taxes more aligned with their policy (but obviously they are okay with ignoring other parts of the law —that’s a disconnect).
Would it be a disconnect to illegally oppose an immoral law - like, say, the legal protection of slaves as property - while simultaneously wanting to pass laws that you expect people to follow - like, say, making slavery illegal? Probably not.
It's inaccurate to treat obedience to the law as a moral act. It can only be moral because the law itself reflects moral attitudes. Wherever there is a disconnect between the law and morality, it is the law that bends - which is exactly why laws can be rewritten in the first place.
If you want these things to stop, you need to change the incentives that people operate on. Anything else will be like trying to plug holes in a dam with your finger; locally effective at best.
The total harm of stealing billions from the public dwarfs any concern for the thieves' privacy.
They are following the law, sure... the unfair law they pay for to their advantage.
If you earn $100 a week and tax withholding let you have $80 to yourself. That $20 didn’t belong to the government. It belonged to you. You however, having entered into an implicit agreement with society agree you will part with your money and give it to the government (which is different from its being theirs). Now, if you donated some of the $100 to charity or whatever and reduce your tax liability, that’s not “theft”. That’s part of the initial implicit agreement.