Robin Hood Socialism
75Robin Hood Socialism
Steal from the rich to give to the poor, is the creed of Robin Hood. It's a feel good tale of the heroic Robin Hood against the evil rich king, and by extension the rich altogether. It's the commoner vs. the upper class or the serfs vs. the lords in medieval times. In modern times, it is the haves vs. the have-nots. It is the It's Not Fair Complex because they have more than me, so somehow, I get to take what they have earned.
What many people fail to realize is that Robin Hood is a fairy tale based solely on the theme of socialism and the absurd egalitarian equality that can be acheived if we just redistribute the income stream to where everyone has an equal amount. It is taught to children who have no concept of economic realities. As such, they have no chance to analyze it for themselves and are lead to believe it is a great idea.
I ask, what is fair or equal about taking money from those who earned it and risked their financial well being for it as opposed to those who do not take the initiative or risk? How is it equal or fair to take income from someone who busted their butt to get where they are and give it to someone who did not earn it in any way shape or form?
The absurd position of socialism has not only proven to be an abject failure, but is also intellectually dishonest. How can one be in favor of allowing the government to take their hard earned money, just to throw it away on random waste? This question particularly applies to wealthy people who favor bigger government and more taxes.
Now, I always hear the rich do not pay their fair share. Any objective analysis has always proven this to be wrong. But yet, there are those who say we should tax the rich even more. The idea is, the rich can afford to be taxed, but the poor cannot. On its face, it seems logical. However, it is only logical in principle, but in actual capitalist economics, it is not. Without the wealthy and their entreprenurial spirit, investment, philanthropy, and job creating business ventures, large numbers of people would not have jobs. We would also not have the greatest economic engine the world has ever seen, in spite of its flaws.
If you tax the rich too much, the incentive to invest and take financial risks will stifle business and job creation. In doing so, the government strangles itself with reduced tax revenue as a result of lessening business and job development because the rich will be more protective of their money. The less money they have, the less they have to invest.
It is no secret the wealthy in the United States pay the most in taxes. Here is an example:
According to this website, and based on government info, the upper 1% of earners pay more than a third of U.S. income taxes and the top 50% of earners pay about 96% of income taxes, as of 2002. I know this is older data, however, this is a point of perspective. As of 2006, the top 5% paid about 60% of all income taxes and the lower 50% of taxpayers, making $32,00 a year or less, paid less than 3% of income taxes.. Here are the sources:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/taxburden06.htm.
I ask, how is this proportionate, fair or equitable? There is an obvious and massive imbalance and inequity here.
I know there are those of you are who saying that tax cuts only favor the rich anyway, what do I care? I ask, what is wrong with reducing the tax burden on the rich and corporations in order to invest more, produce more jobs and business ventures? That means more opportunity, not to mention tax revenue for the government. Opportunity is not waiting for the government to tax (a.k.a. steal money), via a vote, and give out at the welfare line to those who do not deserve it. Tell the deadbeats to put a little effort into their lives, instead of trading their personal rights and liberties for a welfare check . Remember, the more you are dependent on the government, the fewer rights you really have. Self-determination is the right to be free from the shackles of government.
I know there are those of you who believe that many rich people are silver spooners and they do not deserve what they have. First, it is not for you to determine what they deserve. And second, how they got their money and influence is none of your business. If they did something illegal to get their money, than the public interest comes into play.
By the way, I am not even close to being rich. I do not make even $30,000 a year. I also grew up under one of those deadbeats who thought it was a good idea to stay on welfare instead of making something of their life. I remember how humiliating and limiting it was. If I had money and influence, I would invest in anti-taxation and anti-socialism organizations and groups.
With all this being stated, it is why I am in favor of a 15 percent flat tax across the board, with no loop holes or trickery. This goes for all income groups and businesses. This removes social security and medicare taxation. I also favor making exemptions for charities, philanthropy, and non-profits in this setup. This will also reduce the role and authority of the IRS. Now, how can anyone be against that?
Big government is just as bad, if not worse, than the richest a-hole. If you think it is a good idea to have the government take more and more money out of the hands of the citizenry, then you are nothing more than a beggar to your own demise and you deserve what you desire, a world with equality, but no opportunity. Wrap your mind around that.
Alan W.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
That is the right attitude, but any income tax at all is unnecessary if the goal is government at Constitutional levels. The income tax accounts for only 1/3 of the federal government's budget.
this article's really deceptive. even in the first paragraph, it sets the stage for a bias that's pretty nonsensical. i hate to be a broken record, but america runs on socialism. you're probably sleeping in garments that the production of which is in accordance with regulations overseen by the government. you'll wake up, and every product you use, every bite of food will be subject to the same argument, your food even moreso, since many of the food products we eat come from farms that're subsidized by the government. then, you'll get in your car, which is inspected by the government, get on the roads that the government built, and you'll get stuck behind a schoolbus on the way. it's pervasive. and in the fourth paragraph, when the author of this article says that socialism doesn't work, he/she's ignoring this fact, and he/she's further ignoring all the other industrialized nations that are even more socialized than we are. in the second paragraph, the author again misleads the presumedly, i suppose, miseducated reader that socialism is a system where everyone gets an equal cut. this has never ever happened. in fact, socialism within a totalitarian autocracy has proven to fail. the only socialism that seems, to this point, to be effective is when it is systematically called for by the people, where it is deemed that it can be beneficial to consumers/citizens. the third paragraph is just short-sighted. in claiming that the poor would be taking advantage of the rich, the hypocrisy lies in the fact that the rich (top 5%, more or less, as i understand it) have, for the past three decades, gotten significantly richer, while the rest of america have basically made about the same amount of money, accounting for inflation. it's not easy to stay rich when you have money to spend on marketing bad products, research to make those products cheaper (again, usually to the detriment of the end consumer), and you can pay lobbyists and make campaign contributions to ensure that your schemes don't come under substantial scrutiny from the government. fourth paragraph again, "random waste". i guess he/she's talking about saving forests and saving babies? or perhaps the author just doesn't like war. who knows? that claim is never substantiated. i'm sure that anyone that gets money from the government can explain to you why that money is not going to waste. and i'm sure many of us would argue with a minute minority of those people/entities. again, author talks about disproportionate payment of taxes, but completely fails to mention the fact that corporations often get out of paying a good deal of taxes through loopholes. a more accessible example would be the tax credit that people get for owning a home. renters, who obviously make less money on average, don't get such a credit. where's the fairness in that? the fact is that the rich have paid less in taxes over the past few decades, while their incomes have ballooned to account for all the growth in this country's economy, for a very long time now. all that while minimum wage, again, accounting for inflation, is the lowest it's been for almost a century. what's fair about that? author tries to justify tax reductions for the rich by claiming that this equals more opportunity for investment and job creation. again, it's reaganomics, it's played out, and it's proven to be completely invalid. citibank takes billions in tarp money, gives out more in bonuses than it did the year before, despite being in the red, despite their stock tanking. obama says they can't give out bonuses this year, so instead they're just gonna give retention something-or-others a.k.a. bonuses. these guys are not charitable or sympathetic. they're greedy. that's how they got rich. their priority was not to do something good for people, it was to make money by any means possible. but we're supposed to believe that the free market works so that these guys protect us by spending all the money that we let them have to create jobs and provide us with better, albeit less cost-efficient products? i thinks not. in all fairness, whoever this guy is, i can sympathize with always looking like you shop at goodwill. haha. but this really amounts to under-researched misleading talking points, and that's if you don't think this guy's so cynical that he really knows what he's talking about. it all sounds reasonable, but his points have already been disproven. of course, we all got that good government education from all those rich tax dollars, right? i think it's sad when people who aren't even rich are arguing to get screwed even harder, just because they don't know any better and have been convinced by people who make it their job to convince the ignorant, so that they can exploit them even further. it's just evil, in my opinion. as far as his last paragraph, bigger government exists in any government i can think of in an industrialized nation. if nixon hadn't been looking out for business interests instead of consumer interests, maybe our health care wouldn't suck so bad, but tricky dick thought like this guy, and now poor old women who worked two jobs to raise their children all on their own can't get the medicine they need to save their lives. that's unconscienable, from where i'm sitting, but i guess as a good american, this alan w. fellow would have me spend less time being sympathetic, and more time waving a flag, calling for more deregulation. i'll pass.
This is in response to "controversy". I am against big government in all forms. I am for reasonable regulation that sets reasonable standards for products and business practices. Having no regulation is absurd. Reasonable regulation is not inherently socialistic, it's really more capitalistic. The quality of products and protection of the consumer is more likely to promote private enterprise. I do not expect everyone to be a flag waving ignoramus either. I expect people to challenge the government and get informed.
What I am arguing for is moving the Federal government back to its intended role as it is stated in the constitution and leave the rest up to state governments and the people. I am arguing for reduced tax burden on everyone, not just the rich. I am arguing for the government to be as fiscally conservative as possible. I am arguing for people to think logically and in reality, instead of the feel good, emotionalist way that many liberal/socialist types think with. I am all for conservation, planting trees and saving babies, but that should be done at the state, local, and grassroots level. The federal government should stick to its duties as stated in the constitution and no more. If it did, the states would have a lot more money to spend on the needs of the population.
So before you typecast me as some ignorant republican that listens to Limbaugh, think again.
As for the remainder of your commentary, you are trying to sound like one of those Berkley intellectual economist types who surreptitiously uses capitalism to support the ideas of socialism to justify your point. As we have seen in Europe, it is a failure and they have admitted as much. You also sound like you tacitly support the communist manifesto, in which case, you lose all credibility. Go read Thomas Sowell or Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) and tell me I am wrong.
You have to be kidding. All capitalism does is allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and that's what's been happening in America for a very long time. There has to be some redistribution of wealth because the system is so unblanaced. You can talk all you want about penalizing success. There are limits to success. Who's to say that it's right that someone should earn as much as they do while others are starving to death? It is a completely irrational view to say that it's right because the system allows it. Poverty keeps on increasing while the wealthy 5% or so keep getting richer. That is not fair by any measure.
As far as taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, that's another ridiculous argument. Social Security was set up to protect workers if they somehow were not able to work any longer. That means it's there for you or anyone else who might need it. You make it sound like somehow the rich have some divine right to control all the wealth, that someone our society is built only for them. That's why there is a need for people like Robin Hood or anyone else who sees this joke of a system for what it is. Capitalism was built by the rich to protect the rich. Someone has to look out for all of those who are left behind and if you haven't looked at the overhwleming poverty numbers, there are tens of millions left behind and more and more left behind each aqnd every year. Seems to me the only people who defend this system are the rich and those who are just ignorant to the reality of what this system is.
Robin Hood was a great idea as a fairy tale and Robin Hood is a great idea in reality. He was and is a hero. It's people like you who are the evil villain because all you care about are the rich and protecting what you seem to think they're entitles to when they're really not. You must have grown up watching a little too much Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Do you really think one person is entitled to as many houses and cars and boats and yachts and they want while others are left to starve to death? Shame on you and shame on anyone who defends this backward system.
crkirchoff says:
17 months ago
Amen to that. I wouldn't even propose a 15% flat tax, but 10%. It's frightening how ignorant people are of their government and tax system. What kills me is the liberal cry that "tax cuts only benefit the rich." Well duh, they pay the most! What this government is doing is discouraging wealth and success by taking people's hard earned money and giving it away or wasting it.
Government has gotten too big. The Fed's only responsibility is to the military. That's IT! Social Security, Medicare, Welfare are all tasks that used to be handled by the churches and various charities. It is not the government's responsibility to take care of people who, for whatever reason, cannot take care of themselves. Where in the Constitution does it say that taxpayers are responsible for the care and well being of others?
I'm with you 100%, and I hope that more people start realizing this. We're being taxed to death.