The reason he likes companies that pay dividends is that often he can allocate capital better than the companies. CEOs are often tempted to reinvest profits in projects (such as mergers) that generate a sub-standard return. Berkshire is different in that its principal purpose is capital allocation. As long as Buffett succeeds in achieving better than average returns, it makes sense not to pay dividends. There is nothing duplicitous about that.
No, he believes in companies that correctly value the capital they employ. He's happy for a company to use its profit to repurchase shares or expand its business so long as it's likely to achieve a good return.
> He is a folksy family man that has two wives
I would hardly call his actions 'duplicitous'. My take is that Buffett and his first wife Susie grew apart. Susie wanted to separate from Buffett but she still cared for him, so she hired Astrid as a housekeeper and looked the other way when Buffett and Astrid fell in love. I don't understand why they did not officially divorce, but Buffett remained very close with Susie and was happy to leave his fortune to her when he died. Of all the failed marriages, this one seems to have the happiest outcome.
> He is a big Democrat and believer in equality, and yet during the Washington Post workers strike he was working very hard with Katharine Graham to deliver the newspaper and counter the union's efforts.
It's perfectly coherent to believe in civil rights yet feel that some union demands are unreasonable. As a counterpoint to the Washington Post strike, look at Buffett's 1985 comments about the BH textile mill [1]:
"In contract negotiations, union leaders and members were sensitive to our disadvantageous cost position and did not push for unrealistic wage increases or unproductive work practices. To the contrary, they tried just as hard as we did to keep us competitive. Even during our liquidation period they performed superbly."
Buffett clearly cares about his textile workers:
"Could we have found a buyer who would continue operations, I would have certainly preferred to sell the business rather than liquidate it, even if that meant somewhat lower proceeds for us. But the economics that were finally obvious to me were also obvious to others, and interest was nil."
Yes, tax-advantaged accounts are a different question, but Berkshire can't pay a dividend to just "the people who need money in a tax-advantaged account". If you want a smaller impact from fees, make fewer, larger transactions.
It's not like this requires particularly large sums. At 7 shares per transaction you're already under the industry average stock index fund expense ratio (0.76%), and unlike those funds, that's a cost that's incurred once on just the shares you sell, not annually on your whole investment. People pay higher (relative) fees to withdraw cash from an ATM.
You aren't taking the purchase price of that share into consideration. If you bought the share at $140, your profit is only $20, and the tax on the equivalent dividend would only be $3.
What's the equivalent CGT on that $20 profit?
Frankly, I think the Berkshire approach, or at least companies that offer a dividend reinvestment plan, makes a lot of sense. For the average investment, dividends are fiddly, modest amounts of income that you just need to do tax paperwork for and then deal with reinvesting. Much more convenient to do nothing during the accunulation phase of your wealth building, then sell shares when you want the money back.