I assume that your use of the abbreviation "FT" means FairTax and not Flat Tax. In any event my comments were to the poster (not you) who was offering up notions of "profit maximization", "demand curves", etc. (among other ideas).
Despite your claim and pretense of economic snobbery, most of the FairTax backers grasp the issues quite well, thank you.
Your representations merely illustrate why economics is called "the dismal science". There are many economic theories that may be cited to illustrate almost any point one chooses (the meaning of the "dismal science" phrase since it is not a science at all, but merely - given the trappings of such by those such as yourself who wrap themselves in calculational economics - has the appearance of a science but is merely a manner of expression).
And one does not deed to "deal with" economic theory at all to realize the deleterious effects of the income tax and the fact that a good bit of this is passed forward to consumers. To argue otherwise as you do is nonsense no matter how many "economists" you may cite. Most people are not foolish enough to sign on to such a representation.
With respect to economics and economists (or even "economists" such as yourself), there is this to illustrate their Alice-In-Wonderland approach to things
THE DISMAL SCIENCE:
"A slang term used to describe the discipline of economics. It was given this description by Thomas Carlyle, who was inspired to coin the phrase by T. R. Malthus's gloomy prediction that population would always grow faster than food, dooming mankind to unending poverty and hardship.
While this story is well known, it has been debated and deemed to be inaccurate by some. Those doubting the story say that Carlyle was reacting not to Malthus but economists such as John Stuart Mill, who argued that institutions, not race, explained why some nations were rich and others poor. Carlyle attacked Mill, not for supporting Malthus's predictions about the dire consequences of population growth, but for supporting the emancipation of slaves. It was the discipline's assumption that people are basically all the same and thus entitled to liberty that led Carlyle to label the study of economics "the dismal science". The connection was so well known throughout the 19th century, that even cartoonists would refer to it knowing that their audience would understand the reference."
So, you see, economists never agree on anything (not even to the meaning/origin of the term for which their discipline (discipline, not science) is known: To pretend that you (or your sidekick with the Nightmare VAT) have all the answers to all economic concerns is ludicrous as is the repeated promotion of off-topic points.
Yes, we haven't been discussing the Flat tax.
All those issues are relevant to the FT discussion. Crucial in fact.
Few of the FTers have demonstrated any grasp of microeconomic principles merely an overwhelming FAITH in the theories of the FT.
My points have not been the understanding of any particular school of economics but are accepted by ALL. They are not even controversial.
Any mathematical economics I have used have been High School level at best. Nothing that should confuse anyone with an eight grade education. Economics attempts to use the Scientific Method by proposing hypothesises, then testing them against the available data. It has more complications to deal with than physical science which makes its conclusions more dubious.
People don't like taxes. But that does not give them justification to ignore the conclusions of those who become experts in the field. Conventional wisdom generally has limited usefullness. Distorting my views has less if truth is the goal.
Economists agree on quite a lot even if you are unaware of it. The only pretenders to having all the answers are the FTers. The heretics raising questions or objections to their generally unsupported statements are merely without the Faith they demonstrate.