You tax to raise revenue to run the federal government - the only legitimate reason to tax. An income tax that does this by taking a flat % of income is in no way "redistributive" in aim or result.<quoted text>
False. The only tax that does not redistribute is the tax that is returned 100% to the person that paid it. And if you do that, why are you taxing to begin with?
Your lame attempt to argue otherwise is pure sophistry.
Any "misunderstanding" is all yours - and it is intentional.<quoted text>
False. Just like you are stuck on misunderstanding redistribution of wealth/income. There is natural redistribution (buying groceries at the store) and then there is redistribution that is forced (taxation) and there is redistribution that is encouraged (allowing employee's wages to be deducted from taxable income encourages the hiring of employee's).
Your lame attempt to obfuscate by equating free economic transactions between individuals in a free market with confiscation of private income/wealth by government via any form of progressive tax (which by definition has a "redistributive" aim at least in part) is pure sophistry.
Waiting for your evidence and argument supporting this assertion. Please make sure to include your explanation for the decline in US middle class wage rates, citing objective evidence supporting your theory.<quoted text>
False. While global competition does play "a" role, it is not nearly as strong of a role as you give it credit for.
If you do say so yourself. Of course they are.<quoted text>
As for your attack on the level of my posts, they are certainly as least as literate and knowledgeable as your replies and in many ways written at a higher level of understanding.