Any high level of taxation is stupid; the higher the stupider. High levels of taxation mean that people will act in ways that minimize the tax they pay; instead of producing or enjoying themselves, they are living their lives to avoid government burdens. High taxes of any form distort the economy. Short term, high taxes make most people worse off, long term everybody is worse off (because of the loss of technological advances.)

If the tax burden is low, it's not worth the effort to avoid it, and most people can't be bothered when they have something better to do.

Comparing to things that don't exist (color TVs in 1914) is fallacious and silly. It's hard to compare anything given that technology makes things easier to create, but commodities like gold trade for 60 times more dollars and bread 25X.

According to a study cited by the Washington Post, 14.7% of the wealth of the top 1% was inherited or received as a gift. That's nowhere near a majority. Furthermore,

Wolff and Gittleman also find that because wealth transfers generally make up a bigger portion of the wealth of poor and middle-class people, they actually reduce wealth inequality, in aggregate. “Our simulations show that eliminating inheritances either in full or in part actually increases overall wealth inequality and, in particular, sharply reduces the share of the bottom 40 percent of the wealth distribution,” they write. So while there’s no doubting that the rich are inheriting a lot of money — 14.7 percent of the wealth of the top 1 percent isn’t nothing, after all — it remains the case that inheritance does not increase wealth inequality.

Think about it: if you're poor and inherit a tiny slum house, it's proportionally a greater portion of your wealth (which might previously have been negative) than a million dollar estate to someone who has already accumulated, e.g., $300,000.

A: the purpose of the zoning code is to keep the poor and minorities out of middle-class and wealthy neighborhoods,
B: and that in turn restricts economic mobility,
C: keeping the poor dependent on social programs for their livelihood.

It is completely absurd to claim that A implies either B or C.

Where I live, the zones are 1. Village 2. Rural 3. Industrial 4. Recreational (a ski center)
The divisions are based on existing business (no housing allowed in the industrial zone) and the necessity for a water and sewage system in the more densely populated village zone.
Would you like to explain how those zones "keep the poor and minorities out of middle-class and wealthy neighborhoods"?

One person can only buy so much.

There are far more things available for purchase than any one person's money can buy; he'll run out of money before he runs out of things to buy or time in which to buy them. Consider politicians, they're very expensive and don't even stay bought!

Money saved at a bank doesn't stay in Scrooge McDuck's money bin; banks need to loan it out so that they can offer interest, pay their employees, and make a profit. Most of the money in savings accounts is loaned out to allow housing construction.

You're assuming democracy is a good hing.

Under your system the person who chooses to keep his money under his mattress is punished with additional taxation. Also, a person who accumulates goods in preparation to starting a business has those goods counted as consumption, which will be disproportionally taxed. It's an additional barrier to new businesses, particularly sole proprietorships.
In addition, there's no allowance for catastrophic losses like theft or fire.

Material costs are not properly considered expenses to be calculated into deductions. What is taxed is profit, not cash flow.

The Fair Tax (and other vastly simplified systems) has the advantage that it removes one burden on the economy: people whose business is to calculate and/or minimize taxes.

If you don't control something, you don't really own it. Heavily regulated industries aren't a characteristic of capitalism. Regulation has never been heavier than it is now; regulations by just the federal government are more than a person could read and understand in a lifetime. Regulations are increasing by 80,000 pages a year.

Government growth is primarily the domain of leftists and Democrats, and labor unions align with them. That labor unions are becoming weaker is a function of more people seeing through the union fallacy and the passage of laws preventing forced unionization and preventing intimidation by union thugs.

The wealthy are already heavily taxed, and much of that tax money goes to the poor to remove the poor's incentive to work. As this increases it gets worse. Your hypothesis that "social reform" (theft) "improves the life of the poor" was disproven in the Roman Empire and is being disproven again. But you don't care about the facts, you just want to assuage your self-induced guilt.

In the end economic systems are just ways of distributing resources

This is a typically leftist and obviously wrong viewpoint, regarding wealth as a fixed quantity, a "resource". There is very little of value that is not given its value by man changing it, from harvesting wheat to creating a car or a computer. Production makes wealth, production is made by human effort, and to the extent that you take a man's production or the money that results from his production, you are treating him as a slave.

The connector need not be ridiculously large if the system is properly designed. Power is turned off until conductors are clamped together hard. High amperage live connections would cause sparks, wear out the contacts quickly, and spot-welding would be a risk.

When every penny counts, induction charging is a poor choice. Some of the field is always going to leak, and there are going to be losses in the coil windings and cores. A heavy pickup coil in the vehicle is also not optimum.

Power companies don't like rapidly changing loads. It makes voltage regulation difficult, and requires a larger on-line power margin.

Stopping a bullet with your skin is nice, but the shock wave is still going to do a lot of damage. A bullet to the skull will produce a hail of bone fragments.