Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People frequently get Robin Hood wrong. What he did was steal money from the tax collector and returned it to those who paid the tax. It wasn't a situation of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Robin Hood was just simply returning the taxpayers' own money to them.
Well, if you go with the common myths I suppose you’re almost accurate. If you go back and look at the early stories that the character was based on, Robin Hood was pretty much a highwayman who was lining his own coffers with the proceeds.
The internet is actually not a bad example of what I’m talking about. Currently most places in the US have either a single mediocre/bad provider that has to be closely monitored for price gouging or multiple gigabit internet providers that have cheaper prices than what the isolated people pay. The cities/towns with municipal broadband have faster internet for cheaper, especially for more isolated areas. Consider Chattanooga, TN, which has fueled an economic renaissance by offering the fastest internet in the US for less than what most of us pay. Consider Romania, which offers some of the fastest internet speeds in the world through local public entities for less than 10 Euro/month.
Also, be on the lookout for ISPs to start treating websites like cable channels. Right now, many of them are throttling streaming services rather than upgrading infrastructure.
LOL. Thank you so much for proving my point!
The only reason you have local monopolies is because ... you guessed it, the government regulations.
Without the government, we would have multiple providers providing much better and cheaper services.
So not only was there a person, but a group who worked with him, that obviously never took any of that money for themselves, knew exactly how much each person paid and if not, then the "victim" would truthfully tell Robin the amount that was stolen. Do I have that correct?
He returned it to the villages. The villagers then sorted it all out according to what each had paid in taxes.
This is as good an explanation as any...
Quote:
"There is a problem with this Robin Hood idea and the way the Progressives see it. The Left sees Robin Hood as a plucky but lovable outlaw who spends his time in the forest robbing rich, wealthy, gold laden individuals who tax their people into submission, and then he scampers off and buys the good will of the people with stolen gold.
Here is where the problem comes in.
The rich, wealthy, gold laden individuals Robin Hood is stealing from, those greedy individuals who tax their people into submission, are the government. The rich nobles who traverse unknowingly through the woods represent the aristocracy, nobility, and royalty of the English crown, and therefore represent the government in every, single, Robin Hood story. The gold they carry on them is the fruit of the labor of the people, being transported to the central seat of government and ultimately the vault of the Prince John.
Robin Hood tracks down and steals gold from government tax collectors, who have placed crushing burden upon their surfs to pay for a political coup, and then returns much of that gold to the populace from whence it came.
...Think about it.
Robin Hood robbed from the government to return oppressive taxes to the people in order to deprive the illegitimate government of the ability to oppress the people in an effort to buy time until the original and legitimate government could return and restore the rights of the people."
I have always said that people with children should being paying MORE in taxes, not receiving a deduction for dependents. Parents should be paying ALL the taxes associated with the burden on government services until they are old enough to work and pay their own way.
Well, that's one way to force the birth rate even lower, and ultimately doom all social-welfare programs to collapse and die due to not enough "donors" into the system relative to recipients.
From the standpoint of the federal government, 7.5% across the board with no deductions. That will provide the federal government the funding to fulfill its Constitutional duties and nothing else.
States would individually set a method of taxation that is agreeable to the state's voters.
What about the 50% who don't pay a dime but receive virtually all the benefits?
Any VAT or sales tax is considered regressive, in that the poor pay a higher % of their income than do the rich. Here's a hint: rich folks don't spend all of their income, but poor folks do.
Right, the rich people invest their income, which in turn generates GDP, jobs, more taxes, better life, etc.
Well, that's one way to force the birth rate even lower, and ultimately doom all social-welfare programs to collapse and die due to not enough "donors" into the system relative to recipients.
You really shouldn't be having children if you can't afford them without government assistance.
Total federal spending = $4.8 trillion
US population = 333 Million
Per capita spending = $14,414
Tax bill for family of 4 = $57,656
So how will a family earning $40,000 per year pay their taxes?
Individual income taxes aren't the only source of government income, and I don't think anyone is seriously proposing just dividing it up evenly regardless of income.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
