that was the response I expected - get tromped in a debate and plead ignorance.
Is your attention span so short that you have no idea what you have previously posted?
Let’s review: your first post to me was a reply to my statement that a couple decades ago, something very close to a flat tax was passed, and it was quickly corrupted. Your reply had no valid content; it was a disingenuous snipe pretending that I was referring to the original income tax, and not the 1986 reform.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and clarified that I was referring to the 1986 act, passed just about twenty years ago. You then replied again with some incoherent nonsense about seagull poop.
And now you appear to have the delusion that not only did you at some point respond in a relevant fashion to anything I said, but that there was an actual debate, which you won. Now, I’m willing to help the confused, but there needs to be some effort on your part to post things that have at least tangential relevance both to the topic of the thread and to to the post to which you are replying. You’ve already lost the plot on this thread, but you’re welcome to try again another time.