These two were more interesting:
> Ok, I'm calling bullshit. What does "sensible investment" mean? Does it mean the amount invested, the risk, and the amount expected in return? Because last I checked, you'd take the amount you're getting in return and decrease it by your tax rate.
He then goes on to note tax-deferred and tax-advantaged investments will see capital move to them if tax rates are changed.
Which is a good point. And yes, every serious investor calculates their after-tax return and makes it one of their decisionmaking criteria. That's a crucial point that's obvious when written out, but many people miss it.
> The rest of the blog is well characterized as Dunning Kruger in action.
This should be Godwin's Law II: Whoever accuses someone else of Dunning Kruger loses the argument. There were interesting points in there. You apparently disagree, but that's not a good reason to be flippant. Just address the points you disagree with. Changing tax laws changes the suitability of investments and changes the allocation of investments made and legal structures used. Those are good points and seem correct on a glance.