True Talk on Tax

Step by Step Reply

2006-08-09T13:36:00.000-04:00

Reply to Ms. Weeks

Weeks: I have replied to Mike Parker's' false Fair Tax rhetoric before, so when he tried to rebut my position I had to just laugh. He really has no real concept of the Fair Tax. As I have said before, read the book.

Reply: So the best advice is as always: Read the Book?

Weeks: He also claims "if you are paying 23 percent income tax on $40,000 of income, you will pay $9,200." Wrong again.

Reply: I think Ms. Weeks should explain how that is wrong. My example, which is on this website, is an example of a 23 percent income tax. If you are paying a 23 percent income tax on $40,000, your tax bill is $9,600. No one (in real life) making $40,000 pays a 23 percent rate on the total amount of income. The rate and amount were for the purpose of direct comparison to a before and after situation. It was created to show that an equal 23 percent income tax rate would be less than a 23 percent sales tax for the average family.

Weeks: Secondly, there is a "prebate" for essential goods. The prebate is set at the poverty level, to keep it fair, since many spend all of their paycheck on necessary items. That number is estimated to be about $5,902, which takes the $9,200 figure Mr. Parker quoted down to $3,298, and that's only if the person spends every dime that he makes.

Reply: Ms. Weeks has made the error of comparing apples with oranges. She's using figures from my income tax example and adjusting those with a "prebate" from the FairTax plan. But, she’s too busy contradicting herself to notice. She should use two seperate and equal examples instead of mixing it all up.

Also, consider her point of view that “many spend all of their paycheck on necessary items.” Then contrast that with her statement, “only if the person spends every dime that he makes.”

Well, we’re either spending every dime that we make or we’re not. She is trying to respond to my example of how the FairTax would work for people spending everything they make PLUS borrowing money to buy a new car. She's got the example confused in her head.

I have to agree that the FairTax will change how people live. Just not at all the way the Book and Ms. Weeks says it will.

Now the “prebate” is one of the most important feature to examine.

The Book says gross domestic product (GDP) will increase 10% the first year. That’s a direct function of the “prebate.” Government expenditures are added into GDP. The annual increase in government spending, using Ms. Weeks figure of $5,902, would be $1.7 trillion. That’s the increase of 10 percent in GDP.

Remember, the underlying act, SB 25 does not propose any huge cuts in spending. It does not propose balancing the budget. It uses 23 percent as a tax rate determined before the Republican led Congress authorized the current debt limit of $9 trillion dollars.

If the SB 25 is “revenue neutral,” meaning it doesn’t increase revenue, but it increases spending by $1.7 trillion through a “prebate,” then there is no private market increase in GDP.

Currently, the federal government spends $2.8 trillion dollars. Under the FairTax, it would spend $4.8 trillion. It’s a spending bill, among other things. Government spending would become about a third of all GDP.

The $1.7 trillion increase in spending would be roughly the 10 percent increase in GDP, IF all other factors remained the same.

Debt would rise and inflation would destroy the economy. Good tax plan.

Weeks: I realize both these men will assume that employers will keep all the extra money, but that is where a free market steps in. Once a company offers higher wages, the ripple effect takes place and others will follow. Don't assume employers are "evil." Most want the best for their employees, not the worst, as these two men would have you believe.

Reply: If Ms. Weeks understood business revenue, she would know that business revenue will fall immediately under the FairTax plan. A company with revenue of $100 million annually will have a revenue flow of $77 million annually, going by that Book. Where is this “extra money” that businesses will suddenly have?

Why does Ms. Weeks assume that employers will offer “higher wages” after the FairTax plan goes into place? As for other defective reasoning, why would businesses cut prices when revenues are falling?

Business revenues will fall under the plan by 23 percent. The Book makes that clear. Whatever costs a dollar now, will still cost a dollar. But, the sales tax will be 23 percent of the price.

Businesses that get a price of $1 now, will get 77 cents and give the government 23 cents in the future. Assuming no price increases.

What prevent businesses from increasing prices? No law. If the 23 percent cut in revenue hurts enough, those prices are going up. Market fundamentalism or not.

Weeks: Keep in mind most businesses are small, family-owned companies. They are not all Wal-Mart or Microsoft, so they have a personal relationship with their employees.

Reply: How many bad stories about your boss do you have to share?

Kellie Weeks Again

2006-08-09T12:42:00.000-04:00

LETTER IN GAINESVILLE TIMES

I have replied to Mike Parker's' false Fair Tax rhetoric before, so when he tried to rebut my position I had to just laugh. He really has no real concept of the Fair Tax. As I have said before, read the book.

Mr. Parker claims there will be "illegal tariffs on imported goods." Wrong. The consumer is taxed, not the importers, just as it is done now.

He also claims "if you are paying 23 percent income tax on $40,000 of income, you will pay $9,200." Wrong again. First of all, he assumes the person is spending his entire paycheck and not saving any money. You only pay the consumption tax; it is not an income tax on the things you purchase.

Secondly, there is a "prebate" for essential goods. The prebate is set at the poverty level, to keep it fair, since many spend all of their paycheck on necessary items. That number is estimated to be about $5,902, which takes the $9,200 figure Mr. Parker quoted down to $3,298, and that's only if the person spends every dime that he makes.

Now on to a letter by Wistar Harmon, who claimed the rich will fly out of the country to shop.You must be joking! Gas prices are so high that flying on a regular bases to purchase goods would hardly save any money. Plus you would still have to pay taxes in that country.

Mr. Harmon's other argument was that wages would go down; that is not true. More than likely, wages would go up. You see, when employers hire new workers, they must take in account the extra taxes they must pay as part of the cost of hiring. Once those taxes are eliminated, the employer will be able to afford to pay more.

I realize both these men will assume that employers will keep all the extra money, but that is where a free market steps in. Once a company offers higher wages, the ripple effect takes place and others will follow. Don't assume employers are "evil." Most want the best for their employees, not the worst, as these two men would have you believe.

Keep in mind most businesses are small, family-owned companies. They are not all Wal-Mart or Microsoft, so they have a personal relationship with their employees.

Please go to fairtax.org to get educated and get involved.

Kellie Weeks

The Real Lie behind it all

2006-07-23T00:25:00.000-04:00

To respond to Mr. Barnes' letter in the Gainesville Times

Barnes: The tax you now pay is unconstitutional.

Reply: “Prove it. Just saying it’s unconstitutional doesn’t make it really unconstitutional.”

Barnes: The Fair Tax in no way increases the upfront amount consumers pay in taxes, as Mr. Parker suggests. This 23 percent consumption tax is not in addition to any tax already on any product, as he would have you believe. Read the book and check it out.

Reply: “Oddly enough I can quote the previous sentence from Mr. Barnes to rebut his point. ‘I guess Mr. Parker thinks we do not pay tariffs on imported goods now.’ We can include state sales tax to the tariffs Mr. Barnes so conveniently forgot.

“That should remind readers of how the FairTax posse isn’t quite believable.”

Barnes: It is a voluntary consumption tax; the more you buy the more tax you pay, [versus] the less consumer goods you buy the less tax you pay.

Reply: “So the FairTax is as ‘voluntary’ as the income tax? Isn't that what you're saying, Mr. Barnes? The more income you make, the more you pay versus the less income you make, the less tax you pay.

[Yes, he did misspell verses/versus without the newspaper catching it.]

Barnes: Under the Fair Tax, a $20,000 Toyota would cost you $4,600 in taxes, which is 23 percent, and not the $9,200 Mr. Parker suggests, which would be double the 23 percent.

Reply: “I just hate people who make math errors, don’t you? My original example:

'If you are paying 23 percent income tax on $40,000 of income, spend everything you make, you pay $9,200. Under the proposed FairTax, if you make $40,000, live paycheck to paycheck, borrow $20,000 to buy a new Toyota; you will pay $13,800 in federal sales taxes. WHAT A DEAL! Who wants to increase their taxes?'

So, the current system taxes only the $40k of income. The FairTax would collect a federal sales tax on consumption, including borrowing. As my example is for someone living paycheck to paycheck … i.e. they spend all $40k of income and borrows for a new Toyota, their federal taxes paid would increase to $13,800. If both systems of taxation have a real tax rate of 23 percent.

Barnes: The Union you speak of will in no way be affected negatively. However, the United States will experience a growth in jobs and industry as has never in history been seen.

Reply: “Here is the real lie.

“If, as the magic book says, employers pay a 23 percent embedded tax in ‘compliance costs’ which gets passed directly on to all consumers, and in my opinion, if that fictional embedded tax gets removed, employment will fall by an equal amount. I hope I explain this simply enough.

“The theory being applied in the FairTax book says that prices shift costs from sellers to buyers.

“Now, the FairTax posse calls this embedding. Embedding is passing a hidden cost on to consumers. Compliance with government taxes is therefore a hidden cost to consumers.

“If the government eliminates all hidden taxes, they reason, including compliance costs, the economy will boom ‘as has never in history been seen.’

“Bullshit!

“If a corporation cuts costs because of a change in tax code, do you think it’s rental expenses being cut? Utility expenses being cut? Transportation being cut?

“No. The cuts will be direct cuts in employment, even if the theory is true.

“For the theory to be true, 23 percent of all employees are working in compliance.

“Look around our places of employment, are 1 out of 4 employees working to comply with tax record keeping?

“The FairTax posse wants you to believe that 23 percent of all business activity is compliance costs. And, those compliance costs are directly passed on to retail buyers as a part of the price of consumer goods. (Pages 106 – 107 and pages 39 - 50).

“If we buy into reducing all business costs (price) by 23 percent, should we believe employment will remain exactly the same? If we believe all prices will fall by 23 percent, doesn’t that mean the economy will fall by 23 percent. Wouldn’t this be especially true if ‘price’ is a direct transfer of tax, compliance, and all legitimate business costs to retail buyers?

“If prices (revenue) fell 23 percent at your place of employment, would you be one of the people whose job would be cut?

“This plan is all about causing chaos to existing businesses and the Federal Government. The FairTax plan would devastate your country.

“It would not boost the economy ‘as has never in history been seen.’

"Into that vacuum would ride the Sons of the Confederacy, complete with fully automatic weapons to restore order.

"I ain't whistling Dixie."

More promises to be broken.

2006-07-22T23:31:00.000-04:00

Your views

LETTER

I would like to respond to Saturday's letter by Mike Parker ("Fair tax is unconstitutional and won't save money"): Mr. Parker either has not read "The Fair Tax Book" by U.S. Rep. John Linder and Neal Boortz, doesn't understand what he read, or he has been grossly misinformed. The tax you now pay is unconstitutional.

The fair tax replaces the way we are presently taxed. It is a voluntary consumption tax; the more you buy the more tax you pay, verses the less consumer goods you buy the less tax you pay.

The Fair Tax would:

1. Abolish the IRS.

2. Close all tax loopholes and brings fairness to taxation.

3. Maintain our current Social Security and Medicare benefits.

4. Bring transparency and accountability to tax policy.

5. Allow American products to compete fairly.

6. Reimburse the tax on purchases of basic necessities.

7. Enable retirees to keep their entire pension.

8. Enable workers to keep their entire paycheck.

Yes, the Fair Tax would eliminate the IRS. The Fair Tax violates nothing. I guess Mr. Parker thinks we do not pay tariffs on imported goods now.

The Fair Tax in no way increases the upfront amount consumers pay in taxes, as Mr. Parker suggests. This 23 percent consumption tax is not in addition to any tax already on any product, as he would have you believe. Read the book and check it out.

Under the Fair Tax, a $20,000 Toyota would cost you $4,600 in taxes, which is 23 percent, and not the $9,200 Mr. Parker suggests, which would be double the 23 percent.

It appears Mr. Parker likes paying the first 4 1/2 months of his income to the federal government. The Union you speak of will in no way be affected negatively. However, the United States will experience a growth in jobs and industry as has never in history been seen.

Paul S. Barnes

Flowery Branch

Response to Kaulbach

2006-07-22T23:28:00.000-04:00

In keeping with this fairness theme, I always get the final word.

Kaulbach: Mike Parker, please tell me you have read "The Fair Tax Book." Your letter doesn't seem to indicate that you have. We spend $87 billion to collect taxes. Crime families, prostitutes, drug dealers, thieves and others do not pay taxes. Is that fair?

Reply: To address your point about reading THE BOOK, “Yes, I’ve read da book! I’ve also read War and Peace. Doesn’t make me Russian. Nor does reading ONE book on taxes make anyone a tax expert. Especially a book as flawed as ‘The Fair Tax Book.’

So Mr. Kaulbach, you’re absolutely okay with drug dealers, prostitution, muggers, bank robbery, etc… as long as taxes get collected? It seems you are more worried about money (or something else) than you are concerned about law and order.”

Kaulbach: It is estimated that $20 billion or more escape income taxes by these people. They are not stealing from the government. They are stealing from honest citizens who pay taxes.

Reply: “Now you’re worried about stealing since the money is being taken from you? Wow. Given that the Enron scandal cost us over $35 billion in one lump sum, you’re talking chump change from “prostitutes, drug dealers, thieves, and others. Actually, legal prostitutes, in Nevada, pay taxes. Most large-scale criminal activity results in money laundering through legit business, where taxes are collected as a part of the cleaning. But, again, your theme is not ‘crime and punishment’ or ‘law and order.’ You’re only worried about a lesser standard, your sense of fairness.”

Kaulbach: Under the plan, Ms. Weeks will keep her entire paycheck minus state income tax. Mr. Parker, do you realize that under the plan, there will be no embedded taxes, which currently amount to nearly 23 percent. Thus a new car under would cost almost 23 percent less with all embedded taxes deleted. Add 23 percent federal sales tax and the cost will be about $20,000.

Reply: “Ms. Weeks will not get to keep her paycheck minus state taxes. Whatever her bills are now, according to the book, she will still pay the same amount. Kaulbach, you’re engaging in double speak. If the cost before implementing a ‘FairTax’ is the same as after implementing a ‘FairTax,’ then Ms. Weeks doesn’t get to keep anymore of her paycheck than before. You explain that with your new car example. The cost of the car before and after is still $20,000 in your wacky math. Did you misunderstand what you said? Your math is wacky. If you reduce the price of the car by 23 percent then you must add back 29.9 percent in taxes to have a car that still costs $20,000.

“23 percent of $20,000 is $4,600. Subtracting $4,600 from $20,000 leaves $15,400. Then, 23 percent of $15,400 is $3,542. That would be $18, 942 when tax is added. But, to get back to a $20,000 car, the tax added would have to be $4,600. That’s about 30 percent, the real tax rate being proposed in the book and in your example.

“Further, my original example was a new Toyota. Imports would not see this mystical 23 percent reduction as explained in your favorite book. So, the new Toyota would have that 30 percent tax added to it. Then, the total would be over $26,000.”

I see no reason to believe you, Mr. Kaulbach. Or, your favorite book. I suggest you try reading Playboy. Then, at least you can pretend to be Hugh Hefner and walk around in pajamas all the time.

Please read on for more about your mystical 23 percent embedded tax.

More from the Dark Side

2006-07-22T22:35:00.000-04:00

Gainesville Times Friday, July 21, 2005

Mike Parker, please tell me you have read "The Fair Tax Book." Your letter doesn't seem to indicate that you have. We spend $87 billion to collect taxes. Crime families, prostitutes, drug dealers, thieves and others do not pay taxes. Is that fair?

It is estimated that $20 billion or more escape income taxes by these people. They are not stealing from the government. They are stealing from honest citizens who pay taxes.

Under the plan, Ms. Weeks will keep her entire paycheck minus state income tax. Mr. Parker, do you realize that under the plan, there will be no embedded taxes, which currently amount to nearly 23 percent. Thus a new car under would cost almost 23 percent less with all embedded taxes deleted. Add 23 percent federal sales tax and the cost will be about $20,000.

A $2 loaf of bread has about 43 cents in hidden taxes. Delete the hidden taxes and the loaf would be $1.57. Add a 23 percent national sales tax and it will be back to around $2.

Citizen George Soros has his great fortune in off shore banks. He pays no federal taxes. Under the plan, every dime he spends in the United States will have the national sales taxes added. There will be no tax loopholes for the wealthy to jump through.

There is more. My email address is suladu@alltel.net. Any one desiring further information, please send me your e-mail address and I will send you a seven-page summary of The Fair Tax Plan at no cost to you.

George C. Kaulbach

Cornelia

More on the effort to destroy the Union

2006-06-10T23:15:00.000-04:00

Mr. Woods, and others, have remarked that the American Civil War never happened. There was no civil war; it was, in the words of some, a War of Northern Aggression.

Georgia, one of the southern states to succeed, stated in January 1861, that a “condition of virtual civil war” exists between the two sections of the “confederate States.”

Kind of hard to follow these modern day reconstructions proposed by some and distributed by the FairTax Book, that no American Civil War ever happened. Specifically, that whatever conflict happened was between two equal countries.

Using the Avalon Project at Yale Law School, available for public download at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm, the Georgia document dated January 29, 1861 makes it very clear. Slave owners in Georgia believed themselves under attack. They believed $3 billion dollars in “personal property rights” had already been destroyed by the “Union.” Their document and their words recount “the actual invasion of the one of the slave-holding States.” These ‘invaders’ escaped “public justice by flight [and] found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.”

All the modern talk of property rights, by advocates for local control or States rights, can clearly be seen as a question of slavery rights, the more honest name. Georgians in 1861 clearly stated that the Republican Party was an anti-slavery party with “anti-slavery … its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state.”

Here is my thesis. Two political factions were at war and using the full powers of war: insurrection, rebellion, intelligence, counter-intelligence, and psychological operations prior to any act of succession. These two factions were legally bound by a Constitution and were internal political rivals within the United States of America. The political issue was “the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race.”

In January 1861, the state of Georgia called it “our Constitution,” not the Constitution of a foreign government. Georgia blamed the “non-slave-holding States,” not the federal government, for violating Southern property rights “of every kind (including slaves [sic])."

The South continues to fight the American Civil War, the war that stopped slavery. The FairTax Book helps promote the fight against the “Union” by including Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Ph.D. as a quoted expert.

That is not a technicality. It’s a goal, to destroy the “Union.”

A Response to Ms. Weeks

2006-06-06T22:13:00.000-04:00

Ms. Weeks: “That was asked by Michael Parker in his May 6 rant to The Times. I understand why they are a mess! (By the way, they do not want to get rid of the federal government, they just want it back the way it was intended: more local control.)”

Ms. Weeks was so angry she forgot to clarify which “they” is which they. My comments must have burned a nerve. As to how the Constitution was intended, she needs to read Federalist 6 and 7. Hamilton argues in Federalist 6 and 7 that a weak federal government would be a very bad thing. That states would battle each other for trivial reasons including fights over women.

Ms. Weeks: “This was just a footnote. Anyone who listens to Boortz knows he likes to point out technicalities and, in Mr. Parker's case, get people riled up. This was one page out of 182. It is not what the book is about.”

The footnote negates the Civil War. How is that a technicality? Well, if you want to reconstruct slavery as a social and economic condition… it would be a technicality. I guess.

Ms. Weeks: “Now for those of you interested in real change, the Fair Tax is the way to go. It eliminates federal income tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, capital gains tax and you will never hear the word "audit" again.”

Again, Ms. Weeks is very wrong. She should read the legislation, Sections 505 and 508. Audits will conducted and penalties assessed. The New and Improved IRS, of which there will be at least 51, will have the power to issue summons and imprison people.

Ms. Weeks: “And best of all: You keep your entire paycheck! Think of all the money you will have and you won't have to save any more receipts or spend hours filing returns.”

It’s far more honest to say you will have visitation rights with your paycheck. The FairTax, if passed and held to be constitutional, will function like a tariff on foreign goods. That Honda or Toyota will cost at least 23 percent more than it does now. Plus, now that paycheck is taxed only for what you make, not on what you borrow. How many people are paying cash for houses or cars? The average American will pay double their current amount in federal taxes while businesses pay nothing.

The greatest problem with Ms. Weeks overly idealistic point of view? Even if Americans spend 100 percent of what they earn, 23 percent tax won’t be equal to the current expenses of the U.S. government.

The Other Side Speaks Again

2006-06-06T21:44:00.000-04:00

Part of my blog gets coverage in a local newspaper. Here is a sample of the responses:

"Do we understand why these two men (Neal Boortz and John Linder ) from Georgia want to do away with the federal government and the IRS?"

That was asked by Michael Parker in his May 6 rant to The Times. I understand why they are a mess! (By the way, they do not want to get rid of the federal government, they just want it back the way it was intended: more local control.)

What I don't understand, Mr. Parker, is your letter. It starts out by mentioning the Fair Tax rally, which I attended, then leads right into your biased view of "The Fair Tax Book" and the only page you actually read, page 11.

In chapter one, The History of our Income Tax, there is an overview of how income tax came about and its beginnings dating back to the Civil War. On page 11, which Mr. Parker sarcastically comments as the second full page of text in the chapter, there is a footnote that seems to have angered him. (Note: page 11 is only the third page in the chapter.)

That quote is from Thomas E. Woods, Ph. D. Since Mr. Parker conveniently left out the second half of the quote, here it is in full:

"Strictly speaking, there was never an American Civil War. A civil war is a conflict in which two or more factions fight for control of a nation's government. That was not the case in the U.S. between 1861 and 1865. The seceding Southern states were not trying to take over the U.S. government; they wanted to declare themselves independent."

This was just a footnote. Anyone who listens to Boortz knows he likes to point out technicalities and, in Mr. Parker's case, get people riled up. This was one page out of 182. It is not what the book is about.

Now for those of you interested in real change, the Fair Tax is the way to go. It eliminates federal income tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, capital gains tax and you will never hear the word "audit" again.

But don't worry, you will not lose any of your benefits; they will be funded by a national sales tax. The experts' estimate the tax will be 23 percent to fund the government at its current rate. If we can get our elected officials to actually cut spending, it could go down.

I know 23 percent sounds like a lot but keep in mind everything you buy has about 25 percent in taxes already in the price because it is taxed every step of the way. Those taxes will be gone, so with the Fair Tax in, prices should remain the same.

And best of all: You keep your entire paycheck! Think of all the money you will have and you won't have to save any more receipts or spend hours filing returns.

To get more information go to www.fairtax.org. Be informed so people like Michael Parker won't mislead you.

Kellie Weeks

Gainesville Times

Well, Ms. Weeks, thanks for making my point. The South still hates the union and is planning a victory party. As soon as the unconstitutional FairTax destroys the Union.

Why are these people still fighting this war? Aren't they tired of being whipped?

I actually read page 10 and 12, too. But, as my blog makes clear, the book is nothing but a sales pitch and an effort to take revenge on the Union.

All these folks are nuts.

Page 12 More Fraud

2006-06-05T18:13:00.000-04:00

More Fraud

Starting on page 12, the FairTax posse rants and rages about how politicians misname legislation. Seems these boys from Georgia think honesty is a family value, but not in their dysfunctional family.

The Georgia Boys cite an income tax legislation title as “’An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.” Using that title is a mouthful of fraud. This act has been called the Revenue Act of 1894 and the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1984 and even the Wilson Tariff. Many ‘revenue acts’ have been passed and the name “Revenue Act” may have little meaning. But, no one in 1894 sponsored or co-sponsored any legislation in the United States Congress with the title: “An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.”

Why would anyone mislead others on the title of a piece of legislation?

The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, or the Wilson Tariff Act, is the right name. Under this name, tariffs were reduced and an income tax reintroduced to the top one half of one percent of Americans (.005%). Opponents of the Act schemed to have it invalidated before any taxes could be collected.

An income tax had been collected from 1861 to 1872 and modified by various revenue acts. In 1881, in Springer vs. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court had declared income taxation to be constitutional.

It would be too much to expect a posse, which is the right name to call the FairTax mob with its anti-Union rage, to respect the truth.

The first challenge to the Wilson Tariff’s income tax provisions were from a John G. Moore in December 1894 who sought an injunction to stop the collection.

It would be William D. Guthrie who would persuade the Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company directors along with the Continental Trust Company directors to join in a backroom scheme. The scheme was simple. The two companies would make resolutions that the tax was unconstitutional while setting aside funds to pay the tax. Then, two stockholders were recruited to seek an injunction against each company for breach of trust. Born from this scheme were Pollock vs. Farmers ’Loan and Trust Company and Hyde vs. Continental Trust Company.

Guthrie hired James C. Carter to represent the companies and defend the income tax. Lawrence Maxwell, the solicitor general of the United States made arraignments with Guthrie for direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

These maneuverings are documented by Ratner (1942), Swaine (1946), and the Grover Cleveland Papers held in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Ph.D. and Rufus Choate

2006-05-28T21:00:00.000-04:00

Today's frustrated historical reconstructionist is -- surprise -- Tom Woods. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I've posted excerts of his pithy remarks and my "mean and nasty" responses.

WOODS: "Thomas E Woods" brings up your blog and the entry on Blosser's site. I didn't bookmark it because I don't visit it much, because I already have a zillion bookmarks it takes 10 minutes to scroll through, and because I didn't realize I'd need to go back. Hello?”

Yes, Dr. Woods, if your bookmarks are unorganized and left in a shambles, it will take ten minutes to go through your zillion bookmarks. So if you in a hurry, you could search through the 7,571 posts the blog search returns for Thomas E. Woods. Going a page at a time, with ten to a page, is a much more efficient use of a Ph.D. than any other method you could have used to find the conversation you lost.

Not to mention there are other ways to keep informed such as automated notices via email of responses in threads.

WOODS: “[Y]ou oppose secession and believe in an unbreakable Union.”

Currently, there are no issues of ‘union’ or ‘succession’ for me to oppose or support. Just as I have no passions for dead men, I have no passions for dead issues.

WOODS: “And your weird quotations about him are from his political enemies.”

No, I used a single source. One that comes up at the library. I wrongly assumed you would know the specific source. I guess I overestimated your knowledge of 19th century history.

WOODS: “Why not find out what Daniel Webster or John C. Calhoun -- ideological opponents who nevertheless agreed Choate was an important thinker -- thought of him?”

No, I’d rather read Brown, “Life of Rufus Choate,” Neilson, “Memories of Rufus Choate,” Whipple, “Recollections of Eminent Men,” or Fuess, “Rufus Choate.” I’m sure a Ph.D. would agree that reading a variety of biographers would give a broad or even handed portrait of the pro-slaver, Rufus Choate. "His style is peculiar and characteristic, but hardly a model for imitation."

WOODS: “My work stands or falls on its merits.”

And, that is how is should be, Dr. Woods. But, if your ‘work’ targets a specific audience, has a catchy title … like … I don’t know… maybe… “The Politically Incorrect Guide” to something, you retain a publishing agent, get a few endorsements from talk radio hosts to your target audience, have your agent take a few reviewers to a nice business dinner or two… Well, you might do very well at selling ‘works.’ I believe ‘marketing’ is an acceptable study in college and no longer socially frowned upon as it once was.

WOODS: “I'm pursuing this because it's fun and you're so easily excitable.”

Is that what you told Jon Swift at http://jonswift.blogspot.com/? Seems I’m not the first excitable male friend you've made online. And, not the first time someone has found your ‘work,’ your manner, and your demeanor offensive.

See http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2006/01/politically-incorrect-guide-to.html for blogs and comments.

Announcing the New and Improved Product!

2006-05-27T22:10:00.000-04:00

Oh well, back to the first pages of the first chapter.

Page 9

In true Madison Avenue form, the FairTax is announced as “a new method [of taxation] that will send the American economy into warp drive.”

What a crock full of puffery! An economy on warp drive? Isn’t that also called runaway inflation? Might be. If a warp drive economy is so desirable, if it exists at all in a positive form, why does the Federal Reserve target economic growth rates in single digits? If Alan Greenspan believes in keeping economic growth rates in check, maybe an imaginary warp drive engine (also called a sales tax) is a bad thing.

And, if the Federal Reserve is manipulating money supplies and interest rates to control economic growth, how can taxes be the key to economic freedom?

Sort of makes you wonder who’s driving the boat for the FairTax group?

Page 10

Bozo et al aggressively restate what others have said about taxation. A much better (and humorous) description of taxation involves plucking a live goose. Taxation is the art of plucking the goose without having it honk in constant pain.

Speaking of pain, it just hurts when the author or authors portray patriots as being gullible. But, since the FairTax posse hates elected officials, public servants, and the so-called free-spending political class in the world's greatest democracy, I guess they hate the gullible patriots just to keep their fairness issue going.

I’m curious, but not enough to ask any of the rabid IRS haters, when the US was at war with Britain in 1812 –1814 (or a far more modern, far more expensive and far longer war on say – Terrorism) … and enacted higher taxes for the gullible patriots, how would the FairTaxers have paid for the war? Are we to believe retail sales increase during uncertain times like war?

Back on page 11 again

I’ve covered that wonderful aspect of Union bashing needlessly inserted and arguably inaccurate on page 11. But, tracing the income tax back to the Northern War of Aggression by the evil Union and its “political class?” That just wasn’t enough. The idea migrated from the North to the South. Since the book calls the dream of a permanent income tax a snake, I’m okay calling that a migration. Unless of course, it’s a Biblical snake. I think those have to be transplanted by evil people.

Page 12
As they say on the street, it just doesn’t get any better than this! Waahoo! Did the second term of Grover Cleveland cause the Panic of 1893? Oh, I hope that is not the premise being offered! But, Bozo and Lintel ignore the twenty years of decline starting in 1873. As Heilbroner describes it, “lagging growth set off an irregular twenty year decline, at the end of which prices had fallen by two-thirds and the business failure rate had approximately doubled. Looking over the wreckage in 1893, Bradstreet judged the crisis to have been the worst in eighty years (Heilbroner, 163, The Logic of Capitalist Development. Also see Hoffman, 1956, “The Depression of the ‘90’s” Journal of Economic History).

As much fun as it might be to reference a well know board game, like Monopoly and the Reading railroad, which the FairTaxers did, I don’t judge the average person to be that stupid or gullible.

If Grover Cleveland had nothing to do with the economic downturn that started in 1873, why mention him? An imaginative story needs an evil villain so why not blame the President? Bozo and Lintel, by using a very abbreviated and selective history get to ignore economic cycles and causation.

In trying to motivate the reader to hate the IRS, the Federal government, and the current tax system, the needed background information has to be dropped. No point in analyzing anything not relevant to the sales pitch.

Well done, Madison Avenue.

Historical Reconstruction

2006-05-27T08:03:00.000-04:00

Gosh, doc. I had no idea!

With your wonderful memory, advanced degrees, and the best technology in the world, you couldn’t remember where you left your comments? You couldn’t find Blosser’s blog? Is that like forgetting whom you’re talking to? What search terms were you using to find little ol' me? Since your sign-in is Tom Woods and Tom Woods does not appear anywhere on my blog title or any post title, I just find your story incredulous.

I’d suggest having a 13 year old show you have to use the bookmarks feature on your browser. Or, the old-fashioned pencil and paper. It will keep you on task.

So I know “nothing” about nineteenth-century American history?

Your emotions clearly cloud your reason.

I demonstrated that I knew Choate was a Whig, died before succession, died before the attacks on federal forts –like Fort Sumter, and was never faced with making an active choice between the a “Union” or the Confederate States of America during his lifetime.

Why would I “of all people like Choate?” You presume to know me!

WOW! I need to get me one of these Ph.D. things if it will let me know what’s inside people, especially complete strangers who have weblogs.

Yeah, I’m just kidding with you. I know a Ph.D. didn’t make you jump to conclusions about who I should be in life. Or, how history should remember the drug addicted Whig, Rufus Choate.

As for being 33 and a scholar, if the cosmic accident of your birth had physically taken place on the East Coast of Africa, you could brag more about your remarkable survival to age 33 and look forward to the real pleasures of human life -- growing old.

To continue the line of “reasoning” used by Neal Bozo et al, “Those who can, do. Those who can’t teach community college.”

Good luck with your historical reconstruction of the Southern oligarchy.

But, remember! If a pack of dogs hike their rear legs to piss on a tree, it's still just a tree --not a water closet.

Fairness

2006-05-25T21:43:00.000-04:00

A Tom Woods responded to my blog.

In all fairness, his comments rate a blog.

Tom Woods:

To the point of your comments:

Why should I like Rufus Choate? Mr. Choate is dead and dead many years. Unlike others, I have no passions towards the dead. His death on July 13, 1859 precluded his joining either a “Union” or the Confederate States of America. There is no reading the mind of dead men and declaring them to be for or against a thing that did not exist during their lifetime.

As to the use of nut or crazy to describe anyone with a professional reputation and a Ph.D. browsing an unlinked, unadvertised blogspot at 1:38 am … Well, the words obsessed and paranoid come to mind. Perhaps, you have been conditioned by events to defend your reputation in such obscure venues.

As to the praise you’ve received, I hope it was not condemnation by weak praise but genuine academic praise which will result in your 2004 book someday being used as a history text in a small community college.

Racism in the Modern South, Page 11

2006-05-24T18:50:00.000-04:00

So let’s answer one question I’ve raised. Why do Bozo and Lintel hate the federal government?

Pretty easy to understand that when you read the book, especially the first footnote which appears on page 11. Oddly enough, page 11 is the second full page of text in the first chapter.

Mr. Bozo and Lintel hate the Union. I said that exactly right. They don’t acknowledge the federal government as the lawful government of the southern states. The American Civil War was a misnomer. It was the War of Northern Aggression.

Just typical historical revisionism for a couple of good old boys with white sheets.

To defend these assertions, before the cursorily protests from the brave sons of the Confederacy, why does an elected official, Congressman John Linder, use any space in a book on taxation to cover a dispute over a inhuman form of slavery and economics?

Footnote 1 reads in part, “Strictly speaking, there never was an American Civil War. A civil war is a conflict in which two or more factions fight for control of a nation’s government.” This quote is attributed to a Thomas E. Woods, Ph.D. Dr. Woods is a nut case determined to revive the South, complete with all the trimmings. He’s a founding member of the League of the South, devoted to the Whig, Rufus Choate, and an associate scholar of the Abbeville Institute. The Abbeville Institute is harmless enough in it’s desire, “namely to explore the metaphysical image of things human and divine to which the Southern tradition bears witness.”

Myself, I’d never call human slavery divine.

The American Civil War did determine the future government of the United States. It was properly named a civil war in that there were two or more factions, self-aware, with organizational capacity to plan and execute military actions in support of political goals.

Do we understand why these two men from Georgia want to do away with the federal government and the IRS?

The Book Arrives!

2006-05-22T22:58:00.000-04:00

Ah the wonders of the complex modern world!

Big Brown, also known as UPS, tossed a box on my doorstep, almost. The shipping box containing the “The FairTax Book” arrived closer to my garage doors than my front door. Before I could stop the driver, he was gone without a signature.

Gratefully, there is no evidence I ever received that 172 pages of brilliant buggery. The market economy thrives on efficiency. That’s why residential deliveries are completed without a legal signature.

Since there will never be positive legal proof I have the book, am I bound by the legal warnings in it?

“All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations in critical articles and reviews.”

Loopholes, you’ve got to love them. I will be critical.

So, if anyone liked the book, they can or can’t quote the material? I’m not real clear on this.

But I don’t really care.

I really didn’t want to buy a new book. Bozo and Lintel have enough money from royalty. Clearly, they have royally screwed anyone paying full price. A used copy of the book sells for more than a new one. That’s a sure sign people want their money back. The book stinks so much, even the publisher is discounting the book.

So, in this world of market economics, where UPS can’t be bothered to prove delivery, only critical writers can quote trashy prose, and less than 200 pages can explain market fundamentalism, I am now armed to do battle against … the IRS?

How patriotic of the Congressman and the Con-man to pick on our government.

So why does Bozo and Lintel hate law enforcement, at least in the form of the IRS?

By the way, when Karl Marx explained 18th century capitalism, it took four volumes and over 2,500 pages. But, he didn't have any book signings either.

True Talk on Tax

2006-05-15T23:57:00.000-04:00

What opening line would be best in a blog about taxes?

A Mark Twain quip about the certainty of death and taxes?

Something less humorous but still on the point that someone has to pay for government?

I’d rather ground the discussion in reality and let Milton Friedman rage that I’ve stolen something from him.

“There is no free tax.”

Poor Milton just loved to say there is no free lunch. But, I’m not just stealing his line. A free tax implies that a taxpayer gets as much back as they pay.

And, there is no free tax.

We do not go down to the government store and make selections off the shelf. “I’ll take some national defense, death penalty for murderers, and no toll roads.”

The busy taxpayer, if not too busy to notice the final bill, seldom notices the services of government. My favorite example is any form of currency. Use the ATM, write a check, or use a debit/credit card and the government makes that transaction possible by creating and maintaining a stable currency in a real time world.

The many aberrations of the dollar gets defended by the government even when our citizens attack. That should be a Fox Reality Show. When Citizens Attack!

Just another diversion before we get into serious talk about taxes.

Fairness lacks an objective meaning. Somewhere we could find a dozen theories on justice and present relative meanings of fairness within those systems. We’re just not going there.

We are doing something even harder than abstract discussion.

We’re looking for fairness in the reality of a 21st century United States.

Can it be done?