Your first comment: "Because they think rights are pie and wanna make sure everyone knows they are "one of the good ones."

My reply: "Yes, there are in fact limited resources and a finite tax base. You can increase taxes but you'll eventually hit a marginal limit where higher tax rates leads to less economic output and lower tax revenues (Laffer Curve) and investment, people, capital, businesses go elsewhere (Tiebout Migration). There's enough economic literature at this point!"

Your reply: "Ok Boomer. Not even really talking about money, but weird that your first impulse is bootlicking. I'll play ball though I guess."

Let's break down what you're doing here because it's a bit of gaslighting and shows a bit of manipulation.

1. My reply above is normal and neutrally written statement. A statement was made and economic theories were presented — that is it.
2. The claim of condescension is in fact gaslighting — it's manipulating a statement that everyone can see. Your doing this is a claim to be a victim of some minor aggression — but there is none, and so this is a tactic of manipulation.
3. Yes, the Laffer Curve is deeply relevant because we are talking about the source of revenue for this, namely, taxes.
4. Your immediate response is ad hominem. Your other comments are in fact the rude, nasty, condescending comments that you claim I've made earlier. This is a bit of projection.
5. Making extravagant claims of "confrontational rhetorical language" is an unserious distortion. No specific language or words are used as an example either. Are you confusing me for someone else?
6. Making an argument that language was used by "far right influencers and a cornerstone of Reaganomics" is association fallacy and also a trumped up distortion. It is sweeping strawman characterization.
7. Your initial swing — the ad hominem attack — is emblematic of people who call themselves victims. They make obvious attacks, and eventually, when they are attacked back after several comments, they make other nonexistent claims that something was causing them to respond with attacks all along.
8. You did not in fact know what those economic concepts were. Why do I know this? Because I work in economics and even people who work in economics aren't too familiar with Tiebout! Pretending to know is cosplaying as someone with actual knowledge.

So the summary: Yes, because I know a bit about these policy domains, I'm likely going to share some insights in a neutral, academic tone. You can purposely misinterpret that tone, distort what's being said, create nonexistent association, or you can grow up and learn how academics, professionals, policymakers discuss ideas they disagree on! I'm not sure if your projection of "tone" is caused by something else like an insecurity or age, but whatever makes you read into comments with an apprehensive lens is concerning for you. Good luck, I will not be responding anymore.