Taxing the Rich to Help the Poor – The Morality of the Robin Hood Syndrome

We all know the story of Robin Hood. He was the guy who roamed the Sherwood Forest with his band of merry men robbing from the rich and giving it to the poor. In fiction this makes a good story, but in practice there are some serious moral implications with this story as it is interpreted today. The reason this is relevant is that there is a growing attitude in America that I like to call the “Robin Hood Syndrome”. Indeed, much discussion is taking place within our government and even by rank and file citizens about taxing the rich to pay for war, healthcare, etc. Other than the obvious impact of being a slippery slope I see several problems with this.

1. The thing that people fail to realize about the Robin Hood story is that the true meaning of the story has been perverted. Think about the story – Robin Hood’s arch nemesis was the Sheriff of Nottingham, a government official. The story takes place where the form of government was not a representative republic based on capitalism, but on feudalism which, by definition, means that the “rich” were actually the government of that day.

2. Karl Marx, the author of The Communist Manifesto and generally regarded as the father of communism is credited with the quote: “From each according to his need, to each according to his ability.” This is the premise for wealth redistribution which is a foundational concept of communism. Communism has been proven time after time to be an epic failure. In stark contrast, over the past couple of centuries, capitalism has made the United States the greatest country in the world in just about any measurable way.

3. Regardless of how one feels about “the rich”, it is both illegal and immoral to compel disproportionate payment from those who earn/have more. A study conducted by the IRS in 2004 indicates that the top 25% of earners in this country pay fully 85% of the taxes whereas the bottom 50% of earners only pay 3% of the taxes! Even more amazing is that these figures are for a period after the dreaded Bush “tax cuts for the rich”.

4. Another thing that is frequently ignored in this discussion is a precise definition of “the rich”. Many income levels have been bandied about ranging anywhere from $150K/yr Married Filing Jointly (MFJ) to $250K/yr (MFJ) and all points in between. There are two problems with this -- the first is that these figures completely ignore the differences in the cost of living. Where $150K might be a decent living for a family in the Midwest, it may be barely a livable wage for someone on the East or West Coasts. The second issue is that this figure doesn’t take into account inflation. Many adults over 40 can remember that back in the day, simply making $100K/yr was an extremely good living regardless of where in this great country you lived. This means that even if we settle on what income level is regarded as “the rich”, according to the politicians that figure will remain static regardless of how much the cost of living increases. Don’t believe me? Do a little research on the scam called the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Now, let’s take one final look at Robin Hood. Why were the poor of Nottingham in the condition they were in? Because, due to living in a feudal system, they had all been reduced to serfdom by the government of their day! They were actually the ones doing all the work and providing the means of production, but the feudal lords (aka the government) were reaping all the benefits.

So… really when you think about it, Robin Hood was actually an advocate of tax cuts, taking money from the “government” and returning it to the people (aka the producers). I submit to you that if the true meaning of this story were to be applied to today’s political climate, Robin Hood would be leading Tea Parties right now. What say you?