Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My intent was only to say that those in the government, the nobility, were rich, thus when it was said that Robin Hood stole from the government, not the rich, he was, in fact, stealing from the rich.
Those taxes were not collected FOR the government. They were collected to make the nobility rich(er).
At least that is how I understood the story.
Immie
I guess we just understood it differently. I am unaware that the taxes were given to the rich, but then I may not have read all the Robin Hood legends and lore either. That certainly was not the case when the kings and queens of England were on the throne.
The Robin Hood legend
So Robin took to the greenwood of Sherwood Forest, making a living by stealing from rich travellers and distributing the loot among the poor of the area. In the process he gained a band of followers and a spouse, Maid Marian. Despite the best efforts of the evil Sherrif of Nottingham he avoided capture until the return of King Richard from the Crusades brought about a full pardon and the restoration of Robin's lands. In other versions he dies at the hands of a kinswoman, the abbess of Kirklees Priory. That, in a very small nutshell, is the legend, but is there truth behind it?
See!!!!
I'm not the only one that says he stole from the rich.
Hehe, semantics? Yeah, we're arguing over semantics here.
Immie
I guess we just understood it differently. I am unaware that the taxes were given to the rich, but then I may not have read all the Robin Hood legends and lore either. That certainly was not the case when the kings and queens of England were on the throne.
The Robin Hood legend
So Robin took to the greenwood of Sherwood Forest, making a living by stealing from rich travellers and distributing the loot among the poor of the area. In the process he gained a band of followers and a spouse, Maid Marian. Despite the best efforts of the evil Sherrif of Nottingham he avoided capture until the return of King Richard from the Crusades brought about a full pardon and the restoration of Robin's lands. In other versions he dies at the hands of a kinswoman, the abbess of Kirklees Priory. That, in a very small nutshell, is the legend, but is there truth behind it?
See!!!!
I'm not the only one that says he stole from the rich.
Hehe, semantics? Yeah, we're arguing over semantics here.
Immie
Touche' I'll concede that at least one source has him stealing from the rich. Well done. (Even if it does make him less noble.)
The Robin Hood legend
See!!!!
I'm not the only one that says he stole from the rich.
Hehe, semantics? Yeah, we're arguing over semantics here.
Immie
Touche' I'll concede that at least one source has him stealing from the rich. Well done. (Even if it does make him less noble.)
I still believe he was... er the legend of Robin Hood, was noble.
The fact is that when I found that link, I was not even looking for that information. I was actually wondering if Robin Hood was "fact" or fiction. It appears that there may be some fact, be it ever so small, that the legend got its start from a real person. I have no idea if any other links said rich or government because I didn't look.
And also, I don't see him as being any less noble because he targeted the rich. It is not like the nobility got their wealth by honest means, now is it?
Immie
Touche' I'll concede that at least one source has him stealing from the rich. Well done. (Even if it does make him less noble.)
I still believe he was... er the legend of Robin Hood, was noble.
The fact is that when I found that link, I was not even looking for that information. I was actually wondering if Robin Hood was "fact" or fiction. It appears that there may be some fact, be it ever so small, that the legend got its start from a real person. I have no idea if any other links said rich or government because I didn't look.
And also, I don't see him as being any less noble because he targeted the rich. It is not like the nobility got their wealth by honest means, now is it?
Immie
Stealing back what was unlawfully taken from you is not stealing. Stealing what was never yours to begin with is stealing no matter how the other acquired it. And that is not a nobility anybody should aspire to. What a rotten world this would be to live in if everyone decided to just take what they wanted regardless of who owned it.
And why would you say that the nobility or any of the wealthy got their wealth by dishonest means? Did the legend address that other than regarding the activities of the Sheriff of Nottingham and his assistant? Do you feel that way about all the wealthy?
I still believe he was... er the legend of Robin Hood, was noble.
The fact is that when I found that link, I was not even looking for that information. I was actually wondering if Robin Hood was "fact" or fiction. It appears that there may be some fact, be it ever so small, that the legend got its start from a real person. I have no idea if any other links said rich or government because I didn't look.
And also, I don't see him as being any less noble because he targeted the rich. It is not like the nobility got their wealth by honest means, now is it?
Immie
Stealing back what was unlawfully taken from you is not stealing. Stealing what was never yours to begin with is stealing no matter how the other acquired it. And that is not a nobility anybody should aspire to. What a rotten world this would be to live in if everyone decided to just take what they wanted regardless of who owned it.
And why would you say that the nobility or any of the wealthy got their wealth by dishonest means? Did the legend address that other than regarding the activities of the Sheriff of Nottingham and his assistant? Do you feel that way about all the wealthy?
Okay, first off we need to clear some things up.
When I entered this conversation, I said that Robin Hood taking from the government was the same as Robin Hood taking from the rich. In those times, from the legend, the rich were the nobility and the nobility was the government.
That was the entire point that I was trying to make. Nothing more, nothing less. I was not attacking the government nor the Legend of Robin Hood. I was simply stating that in those days, the country was ruled by rich nobles i.e. kings, dukes, earls and what have you.
Why do I say they got their wealth by dishonest means? Again, based only upon the legend of Robin Hood, the nobles basically stole from the people. They strong-armed them into paying "taxes"... at the point of a lance or many lances. That is not honest by anyone's stretch of the imagination.
Do I feel that way about everyone who is wealthy? Heck no, we don't live in the days of Robin Hood. I'm sure there are some people who are very wealthy who got there by dishonest means, but there are also many people who worked damned hard to get what they have.
Immie
Stealing back what was unlawfully taken from you is not stealing. Stealing what was never yours to begin with is stealing no matter how the other acquired it. And that is not a nobility anybody should aspire to. What a rotten world this would be to live in if everyone decided to just take what they wanted regardless of who owned it.
And why would you say that the nobility or any of the wealthy got their wealth by dishonest means? Did the legend address that other than regarding the activities of the Sheriff of Nottingham and his assistant? Do you feel that way about all the wealthy?
Okay, first off we need to clear some things up.
When I entered this conversation, I said that Robin Hood taking from the government was the same as Robin Hood taking from the rich. In those times, from the legend, the rich were the nobility and the nobility was the government.
That was the entire point that I was trying to make. Nothing more, nothing less. I was not attacking the government nor the Legend of Robin Hood. I was simply stating that in those days, the country was ruled by rich nobles i.e. kings, dukes, earls and what have you.
Why do I say they got their wealth by dishonest means? Again, based only upon the legend of Robin Hood, the nobles basically stole from the people. They strong-armed them into paying "taxes"... at the point of a lance or many lances. That is not honest by anyone's stretch of the imagination.
Do I feel that way about everyone who is wealthy? Heck no, we don't live in the days of Robin Hood. I'm sure there are some people who are very wealthy who got there by dishonest means, but there are also many people who worked damned hard to get what they have.
Immie
Well, we have a somewhat different perspective on the English form of government, and to assume that all those 'wealthy merchants' were nobility flies in the face of British history. Also all the nobility were not rich. Some country knights were little better off than the peasantry though their title afforded them a degree of social advantage and courtesy.
But at the end of the day, we're probably on the same side of the fence here and simply tilting at different windmills.
But 'barely getting by' for most folks is a strong incentive to improve one's lot ...
the primary function of taxes is to raise government revenue. other rational considerations are taken to reduce the impact on the population and the economy. progressive tax systems function with this in mind.
your idea that taxes that hold those near my 15k poverty line will incentivize them to raise out of their situation is not fitting with reality. its not comfortable down there, and these people already have a clear idea that wealthy folks have it better off. all that is going on in that model, is that a middle class person, albeit lower-middle class is not able to save or invest in anything to change his plight. upward mobility and consumption volume in the economy is strangled by focusing the burden of taxes disproportionately to the detriment of the middle-class.
progressive taxes, and other efforts to redistribute wealth are capitalist objectives aimed at re-introducing liquidity to the sweet-spot in the economy where profits are made and money is multiplied. this to avoid hoarding whereby the economy is suffocated by its top-heavy, comparatively stagnant wealth distribution.
have a look. find an economy which exports cheap goods or factors to the US, and you will see this setup. find a modern economy targeted by such nations and you will see progressive tax.
the incentive concept is a grade-school look at what nations are faced with, and uses logic to suit. first you'd say high taxes will incentivize the poor, then you'd say they'll punish the rich. whatever fits, huh?
theres plenty of room to strike conservative application of a progressive tax, but flat taxes simply dont take the health of the economy under consideration AT ALL.
This is such a disingenuous comment it is laughable. A tax cut does not give more money to anybody at all, it takes less. Did you not understand the fable earlier in this thread? It really was quite simple and very well stated. Maybe you should try and think about your comments (or at least back them up) before spout useless partisan crap.Chirs
That's it in a nutshell.
The Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the rich, and the derivative bubble have stolen the wealth of ordinary Americans and given it to the rich.
It's a disgrace.
+1 for pointing this out, although I disagree on the outcome of the practice. This is defiantly a reasonable basis for the theory as it is quite true that the haves are in an infinitely better position for continuing their position then the have nots are of getting there.editec
It's actually based on the reconition of the power of compounding interest, and the theory that in a capitalist society, those with excess capital have such an advantage over those without it, that the game is wildly to their advantage, and that advantage compounds over time, too.
I would like to hear your reasoning for deductions though. I personally believe there should be NO deductions whatsoever. Taxes have a purpose, to fund the government. For what purpose is deductions to that end. I believe that people should be left to their own devises and that the government has no business attempting to influence people through the tax code. A good side benefit to a flat tiered tax system without deductions would be the massive savings in the IRS!the primary function of taxes is to raise government revenue. other rational considerations are taken to reduce the impact on the population and the economy. progressive tax systems function with this in mind.
I see your point about using that wealth to stimulate the economy but I do not see those as deductions. I would not count purchasing assets for a company as a deduction but would rather count that against your profits. That money was never a profit to begin with as it is used for the continuing of the business itself. What I was referring to was more like EIC credit, deductions received for child care, deductions for adding a solar paneled roof, current deductions for purchasing energy star appliances and purchasing a home. All of these are used as incentives to goad you into making decisions that I dont believe the government should be encouraging with taxes. If the government believes that there needs to be funding in a certain field then it can and does directly fund it and deductions are a poor way to supplement that. It causes what we have today where there are many people that are wealthy that can skirt the taxes they owe because they can afford the tax broker to find all the loopholes to a tax system that is impossible to understand. I would find it simpler if the actual taxes were reduced to a more manageable level but without deductions for people to hide their money in.I would like to hear your reasoning for deductions though. I personally believe there should be NO deductions whatsoever. Taxes have a purpose, to fund the government. For what purpose is deductions to that end. I believe that people should be left to their own devises and that the government has no business attempting to influence people through the tax code. A good side benefit to a flat tiered tax system without deductions would be the massive savings in the IRS!the primary function of taxes is to raise government revenue. other rational considerations are taken to reduce the impact on the population and the economy. progressive tax systems function with this in mind.
my thoughts on deductions roll out of the premise behind progressive taxes as i'd put it above. -- While the goal remains the same, tax systems can be configured to stimulate the economy rather than just take the wind out of it.
flat taxers' logic is based entirely on concepts of motivation and even gratitude to the bigger contributors in the economy. (i reject the concept of any fairness) we seem to both agree that these principles come at too great an expense to the bigger picture to stand alone. deductions incorporate these ideas back into a progressive tax code among other functions..
1. deductions motivate businesses and individuals to make decisions which the economy and society can benefit from. charity, capital acquisition and business development , etc. provide tax shelter.
2. premium tax rates on the wealthy are pretty high. if the idea is that these are the folks who contribute to society the most, deductions knock the sting out of these top rates. if not, you could cough up a third of your income or more for merely profit-taking from the land of opportunity. this stretches well down the tax curve to middle-class homeowners making improvements to their home, saving for retirement or donating to charity, etc.
3. rather than burden every dollar earned, deductions offer a freedom to the taxpayer to pay an income tax, or pass the buck to another tax payer. in this way, income tax can work like consumption tax, (taxing only the last dollar earned) at the option of the tax payer. ill expound...
if i do well this year, ill buy a shiny new work truck. some of the beaters i run are getting out of hand. next april ill be faced with, say, $60k in goddamn taxes. if i bought a $37k peterbilt bobtail stakeside with an aluminum maxon gate and the alcoa rim package, plus another $3k in signage and goodies for it.. in a simplified system, i'll only owe $20k, goddamnit. i passed $37k to valley truck center.
when valley truck center faces their half million $ tax liability, they'll back out their facility upgrades, the overstock of alcoas they have laying around, some new hires, etc.. and pay 100k. they'll pass those bux around to GM or alcoa or whatever.
when one considers that economic activity - transactions - are the point where wealth in the economy is created, this system is the only way taxes could stimulate the economy.
for economic stimulus, i say rather than across the deck tax reductions, extending deductions or exemptions to businesses hiring new workers (like a break on goddamn payroll taxes) or buying equipment is the way to go.
to keep it real, if i get a straight tax break, im going on vacation or something, rater than contributing more meaningfully to a sustainable cycle like the other scenario with the pretty truck.
I see... (Antagon's)... point about using that wealth to stimulate the economy but I do not see those as “deductions.’ I would not count purchasing assets for a company as a deduction but would rather count that against your profits. That money was never a profit to begin with as it is used for the continuing of the business itself. What I was referring to was more like EIC credit, deductions received for child care, deductions for adding a solar paneled roof, current deductions for purchasing energy star appliances and purchasing a home. All of these are used as incentives to goad you into making decisions that I don’t believe the government should be encouraging with taxes. If the government believes that there needs to be funding in a certain field then it can and does directly fund it and deductions are a poor way to supplement that. It causes what we have today where there are many people that are wealthy that can skirt the taxes they owe because they can afford the tax broker to find all the loopholes to a tax system that is impossible to understand. I would find it simpler if the actual taxes were reduced to a more manageable level but without deductions for people to hide their money in.
1. Government rarely knows what will benefit society and I feel that people in general are better suited to decide where their wealth should go than a bureaucrat that is creating law to suit his purposes.
2. Without deductions, premium tax rates could be reduced to a more reasonable level.
3. Addressed above in business. As a personal side I do not see this as a good thing. People should contribute when and if they can and there should not be a reason for the government to persuade you to make purchases. It is a much simpler thing to find an effective percentage to income ratio to provide for the funding of government then creating all these muddy provisions that try and achieve ‘good’ outcomes.
Sorry if this is a bit convoluted – it is late here and your writing makes mine look bad
I disagree. Taxes should never be used to engage in social engineering. The results are too ugly.
Remember the "millionaire's luxury tax" on yachts? Great idea, right? Stick it to those rich guys buying yachts and use the money to balance the budget.
Wrong. It's those unintended consequences again.
They tanked the boat building industry, throwing people out of work and on to unemployment, increasing gov't expense.
That is one small example.
Farm subsidies are another one. They are grossly inefficient at redistributing wealth.
In fact, I would go out on a limb and say there is not a tax enacted for social engineering reasons that has succeeded and has not had negative consequences that were unforeseen at the time.
I disagree. Taxes should never be used to engage in social engineering. The results are too ugly.
Remember the "millionaire's luxury tax" on yachts? Great idea, right? Stick it to those rich guys buying yachts and use the money to balance the budget.
Wrong. It's those unintended consequences again. They tanked the boat building industry, throwing people out of work and on to unemployment, increasing gov't expense.
That is one small example.
Farm subsidies are another one. They are grossly inefficient at redistributing wealth. In fact, I would go out on a limb and say there is not a tax enacted for social engineering reasons that has succeeded and has not had negative consequences that were unforeseen at the time.
I disagree. Taxes should never be used to engage in social engineering. The results are too ugly.
When it comes to thought, values, personal preferences, I agree. Taxes should never be used to engage in social engineering, most particularly in the public schools.
Remember the "millionaire's luxury tax" on yachts? Great idea, right? Stick it to those rich guys buying yachts and use the money to balance the budget.
Wrong. It's those unintended consequences again. They tanked the boat building industry, throwing people out of work and on to unemployment, increasing gov't expense.
That is one small example.
Yep. And it doomed George H.W. Bush to a one-term presidency. But that was an imposed tax, not a tax credit. Had he offered a tax credit on luxury items to boost activity, our boat building and jewelry and light plane etc. industries would probably still be in the USA instead of much or most of it being driven offshore, and we wouldn't have lost the tens of thousands of middle class jobs that were lost.
But the luxury tax was a revenue raising gimmick--one that failed miserably for that purpose--and was not targeted at promoting the general welfare.
Farm subsidies are another one. They are grossly inefficient at redistributing wealth. In fact, I would go out on a limb and say there is not a tax enacted for social engineering reasons that has succeeded and has not had negative consequences that were unforeseen at the time.
Most farm subsidies I agree. There has been much abuse of that system.
But say the people are wanting bread and grain prices are too depressed to be profitable for the farmers to grow it. A tax break (preferred to a subsidy) until prices can recover could help promote the desired commodity and keep hundreds of thousands dependent on it being available on the job. Again, I could see that as a valid promotion of the general welfare.
It is important to know what promotes the general welfare as opposed to social engineering.
It is important to know the difference between promoting the general welfare and providing the general welfare.
And there is some wiggle room in there to debate it all which is what sometimes makes it difficult.
I disagree. Taxes should never be used to engage in social engineering. The results are too ugly.
When it comes to thought, values, personal preferences, I agree. Taxes should never be used to engage in social engineering, most particularly in the public schools.
Yep. And it doomed George H.W. Bush to a one-term presidency. But that was an imposed tax, not a tax credit. Had he offered a tax credit on luxury items to boost activity, our boat building and jewelry and light plane etc. industries would probably still be in the USA instead of much or most of it being driven offshore, and we wouldn't have lost the tens of thousands of middle class jobs that were lost.
But the luxury tax was a revenue raising gimmick--one that failed miserably for that purpose--and was not targeted at promoting the general welfare.
Farm subsidies are another one. They are grossly inefficient at redistributing wealth. In fact, I would go out on a limb and say there is not a tax enacted for social engineering reasons that has succeeded and has not had negative consequences that were unforeseen at the time.
Most farm subsidies I agree. There has been much abuse of that system.
But say the people are wanting bread and grain prices are too depressed to be profitable for the farmers to grow it. A tax break (preferred to a subsidy) until prices can recover could help promote the desired commodity and keep hundreds of thousands dependent on it being available on the job. Again, I could see that as a valid promotion of the general welfare.
It is important to know what promotes the general welfare as opposed to social engineering.
It is important to know the difference between promoting the general welfare and providing the general welfare.
And there is some wiggle room in there to debate it all which is what sometimes makes it difficult.
No.
A tax and a tax credit are really the same thing, just put different ways. Jobs are going offshore for a variety of reasons. Tax policy is a small part of that.
As for farm subsidies, why would grain be too cheap for farmers to grow it? Unless you want to posit a development that makes grain worthless grain will always have a demand. The only way it would be too cheap would be from more efficiently produced imports. And what's wrong with that? I would love to pay half what I am paying now for bread.
In the old Soviet Union bread was subsidized but grain was not. The result was it was cheaper to feed baked bread to animals than grain. And that's what happened. Not very efficient.
A tax takes money from one person to give to another. A credit gives money to one person by taking it from another.
It is a difference without a distinction.
There is no way the U.S. was going to run out of wheat. That is the whole idea of a market. If a bunch of farmers had stopped planting wheat the price would have risen dramatically, bringing in suppliers at higher prices.
You need more understanding of the free market.
In the case of the luxury tax on yachts, I would bet virtually no production moved off shore since the issue was domestic demand. It wouldnt matter whether the boat was produced in ME or Caracas since no demand is no demand.