I read your comment as responding to dman under the assumption that he was arguing (1) this taxation scheme qualifies as "double taxation" under some notable definition, (2) double taxation is wrong/bad, and therefore (3) this taxation scheme is wrong/bad. I think in fact he is not claiming any of these, he's just explaining how the incentives faced by the actors drive their behavior.

If you were not actually arguing along these lines and were merely correcting his terminology without rebutting his main point, I would have expected you to preface your comment to this effect, e.g., "Not disputing your point, but technically this doesn't qualify as 'double taxation' because...".

Apologies if I've misinterpreted.