But it wouldn't work under a 100% tax rate - and THAT'S how you analyze whether it would work or not.

If you can't understand that (and it's evident that you can't), I have to assume that you don't actually understand pragmatarianism (which is more complex than analysis), you're just parroting what someone else said. Kind of like Christians just repeating what the priest or minister told them.

If you can't explain how we would end up at a 100% tax rate...then the critique is completely irrelevant.

If you can't understand how we use a 100% tax rate for analysis even if it's impossible to actually have a 100% tax rate, you don't understand enough about financial analysis to even be asking the questions you asked in this thread.

We DON'T end up with a 100% tax rate. No one ever claimed we would. That's totally irrelevant to the analysis. Stop asking for an explanation of a graduate level subject when you're still in 3nd grade.

Let me see if I follow your logic...

1. Tax choice would never result in a 100% tax rate

2. Tax choice wouldn't work at a 100% tax rate

3. Therefore, tax choice wouldn't work

Let me try...

1. Tax choice wouldn't turn people into marshmallows

2. Tax choice wouldn't work if people were marshmallows

3. Therefore, tax choice wouldn't work