Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, has an Austrian economist adressed it yet?

[John_James]

@Smiling Dave

I’m not referring to the radio debate here, but rather to the idea expressed at length by Rothbard, quoted at length on Wenzel’s blog, which I don’t think Peter has rebutted. As I said in the blog, my impression was that Rothbard’s idea was not well expressed in the radio show, so Peter didn’t know what he was being asked to reply to.

I’ll grant you Wenzel wasn’t talking any sense, but even granting the notion that a sales tax is still an income tax, I still don’t see how that defeats any of Peter’s overall point on this whole tax issue.

I was referring to an earlier part of the radio show, while they were still discussing sales tax vs income tax, and head tax was not yet brought up.

Could you please link to the part you’re talking about? I want to know where else Peter mentioned a natural ceiling so that I might try to figure out why he would even bring that up outside the context of a capitation tax.

In other news Wenzel appears to have gotten my comment (although he didn’t publish it…figures) about him lying about Peter Schiff (possibly just to ease a bruised ego). So naturally he posted again, this time to make himself out to be the victim who got unfairly silenced by the big bad radio host and his mute button. See, Wenzel actually was making a great case in that discussion. He and Peter were “really going at it”. He really put Schiff in his place. But alas, his economic prowess was censored by an unfair bully.

Granted, I don’t doubt there were times he was still rambling on and we couldn’t hear him. But as a commentor with audio experience points out, the fact that we heard Schiff over Wenzel doesn’t necessarily mean the latter was being muted.

And he actually does acknowledge he was totally wrong in his claim that Peter said capitation was unconstitutional. He doesn’t apologize for falsely accusing Schiff (twice), and he certainly doesn’t publicize it, but at least it’s there. And of course it’s mixed right in with a full explanation of why Wenzel wasn’t really wrong, it was just that Schiff was cutting him off and he didn’t hear all of Schiff’s statements, and that Schiff’s statements were totally irrelevent anyway, so of course Wenzel innocently thought Schiff was just ignorant. See Wenzel already addressed Schiff’s question before he asked it, we “just didn’t hear him”, so Schiff’s question had nothing to do with the point he was making. And that of course means Schiff said it was unconstitutional. Because that’s what asking a question always means.

See? Wenzel’s just a hapless victim yet again. Schiff doesn’t deserve an apology. It’s all his fault Wenzel assumed he was making an ignorant claim in the first place.