Everyone knows the story of Robin Hood.

“Robin Hood is a heroic outlaw in English folklore who, according to legend, was a highly skilled archer and swordsman. Traditionally depicted as being dressed in […] green, he is often portrayed as ‘robbing from the rich and giving to the poor’ alongside his band of Merry Men. Robin Hood became a popular folk figure in the late-medieval period, and continues to be widely represented in literature, films and television.” – Wikipedia

It’s easy enough just to accept the premise that this hero of the people “robbed from the rich and gave to the poor” – but that’s not really the case, is it?


Robin Hood is a fictitious character that, in popular culture, is typically seen as a contemporary of Richard the Lionheart, the late-12th-century king, however, the earliest writings about him suggests his character lived in the 14th or 15th centuries. Regardless, Robin Hood is almost universally seen as a green-clothed archer or woodsman, a leader, and a proponent of the working class – and a thief.


But who was Robin stealing from? Again, according to popular culture (and supported by some of the early ballads), Robin stole not from the “rich”, but from the tax collectors and the ruling class. The “peasants” of the day were poor, in part because life was hard back then, lack of widespread use of machinery and automation made virtually every task manual chose, and the People were overtaxed. A significant percentage of what the People earned was required to be paid as taxes by the King and his subordinates.

That’s where Robin Hood came in. After the tax collector had taken the hard-earned money from the People, Robin stole the money from the tax collector and returned it to them. The People could honestly say they’d paid their taxes, and the ruling class would go after the thieves – rather than the People.

In modern tellings of the story, the bad guy is Prince John (the embodiment of of greedy, arrogant government). His thug was the Sheriff of Nottingham (the ruthless guy responsible for putting down the tax protestors) – what we now call the IRS. The victims were the taxpayers who were forced to feed the Prince’s lust for money.

The subtext here is that taxation, in general, isn’t bad. It’s over-taxation that is – particularly when tax funds illegitimate, unconstitutional government. Even modern tellings of the story claim that “Prince John, the phony king of England” has overstepped his legal authority and exercised raw, unconstrained power.

The real message

Prince John was breaking the law, violating his oaths, and using the People to fund his own vain desires. He exercised unlimited power and violence against those who objected to his orders. Yes, he was “rich”, but he was “government”. He wasn’t a small business owner. He wasn’t an entrepreneur. He wasn’t one of the people whom we’d call “rich” today. He was a government official. Think of him as the Vice President. It was him – well, actually his minions – that Robin Hood was stealing from. And it was you – the taxpayer – that he was giving it back to.

That’s the inconvenient truth the liberal left doesn’t want you to know. That’s the inconvenient truth that the government hopes you don’t figure out.

Now go and tell some friends.

Robin Hood [Blu-ray]

New From:$13.86 USD In Stock

Taxes… oh how we all hate taxes! Our paychecks are taxed, our groceries are taxed, our telephones are taxed, even our cable TV is taxed. If you were to lump all the taxes you pay in a year into a single sum, in 2014 would have paid 100% of your income earned from January 1st through April 21st (111 days) to cover your “annual debt”. We call that “Tax Freedom Day” and it’s getting further and further into the year.

If we simplify things down, there are two primary types of taxes. Tax on what we spend, and tax on what we earn. (Yes, there are others, but we’re trying to keep this simple.)

Taxes on what we spend are often referred to as “usage taxes” and, as the name implies, the more one uses, the more taxes one is required to pay.

Unless you have a well, your municipality probably provides you with water – for a fee. Unless you have a septic system, your municipality probably provided you with sewer service – for a fee. The more water you use, the higher your fee is. That makes sense, right?

Fuel Tax

Let’s switch over to fuel tax, or taxes on the gas that you put in your car. Where I live, you pay 24.5 cents to the State of Utah for every gallon of gasoline or diesel you buy. You also pay an additional 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline, or 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel to the Federal government.

  • $0.429/gal for gasoline
  • $0.489/gal for diesel

Compare that to the price per gallon and it’s clear to see that a fairly large percentage goes to the Governments for taxes.

The heavier your vehicle is, the more gasoline you have to use to power it. The more gasoline you use, the more taxes you have to pay. Since these vehicles put more wear and tear on the roads, the additional tax revenue makes sense.

If you use a lightweight vehicle, you get better gas mileage than heavier vehicles, and therefore purchase less gasoline per mile. Since your vehicle puts less wear and tear on the roads, paying less taxes than a heavier vehicle also makes sense.

In both cases, the more miles you drive your vehicle, the more gasoline you have to buy, and the more taxes you have to fork over to the Governments.

Alternate Fuel Vehicles

My wife and I both drive hybrid vehicles. This cuts our fuel consumption almost in half – it also cuts our gas taxes by the same proportion. Hybrids are usually lighter weight than their non-hybrid counterparts, and don’t pollute as much from the tailpipe, brake pads, and tires (bet you didn’t even consider pollution from brake pads and tires, did ya?).

Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles are very popular. They get about 10% less miles per gallon than the same vehicle powered by natural gas, but CNG costs significantly less per gallon. It’s also taxes less, with Utah only charging $0.085/gallon.

Electric vehicles can plug into your home’s power outlets, dodging the gas tax altogether. Of course you’re still charged energy taxes, so this line is kind of blurry.

Doesn’t Cover Everything

Even with as much taxes as are currently being charged at the pump, it doesn’t cover everything. Both State and Federal Governments have to pull taxes in from other sources to pay for roads. This shouldn’t happen under a true usage tax situation. There, usage taxes should pay for everything under their umbrella.

To account for this gap, the Utah Legislature is considering how best to address the situation. Of course, being a Taxing Entity, it first jumps to “raise taxes”, because we all know that throwing more money at a problem is the best way to solve the problem. (Hopefully you caught my sarcasm in that last statement.)

However, since more of us are turning to CNG, hybrids, electric vehicles, and even more “exotic” alternatives like vegetable oil and biodiesel, collecting taxes per gallon is becoming less viable.

Ironically, one of the problems the governments were trying to solve (reducing pollution) is actually working! People don’t want to pay as little taxes as possible, and are doing a decent job finding ways to reduce their tax-footprint. Fuel efficiencies are improving, pollution is decreasing, and alternate fuels are becoming more realistic with every passing day!

Odometer based?

To make up for reduced gallons being sold, Utah (and others) are looking at ways to get away from (or add to?) the tax per gallon, and instead charge a tax per mile. We already pay taxes each year when we register our vehicles. These taxes get lower every year (until they hit a certain level). Would the DMV simply look at our odometers and charge us a tax (they’d call it a “fee”) based on how much we drove versus what the number was the previous year?

If so, what about that road trip you took to Florida last year? You’ll be charged taxes in Utah for using the roads in other states. Currently, the gasoline you buy along the way is paid to those states, as it should be.


Along I-15 in Utah you might see the HOV lane. That’s really a lie. It’s not a “high occupancy vehicle” lane. You can drive in it if your 7-seat minivan only has two occupants. Or, if you want to pay a toll, you can get a special chip that you mount in your car. Every time you pass under a toll-reader it deducts money from your account. Or, like me, if you have a hybrid (or CNG) vehicle, you can get another special chip that you stick to your windshield. Every time you pass under a toll-reader, it knows who you are.

The latter two are concerning. Since the State knows the locations of these readers, it also knows the distance between them, and when you passed under each of them. With these two bits of data they can calculate your speed and could (in theory) automatically issue you a citation for speeding or perhaps even for impeding traffic (a catch 22 that sounds a lot like entrapment, but probably wouldn’t be seen that way in court).

Add to this the fact that the State can track where you are, and privacy becomes a real concern. Pundits will argue that this “won’t happen” or “they wouldn’t do that”. They’ll be quick to state that these readers only exist on a small portion of the I-15 corridor, and even then only in one lane. What they won’t say is that they could easily be added to traffic signals – the same ones that have cameras mounted on them already. This could be the “magic bullet” to taxing by the mile.

Of course, no one will want to talk about how much money buying, installing, and maintaining all those new pieces of hardware is going to cost. Instead they’ll focus on the “couple dollars” that the stickers cost. They’ll probably even say the sticker will cost less than the amount of taxes you already pay on a full tank of gas.

They’ll argue how it’s more “fair” because those that use the roads more should pay their “fair share”. They won’t tell you that all the trucks that use the roads will be charged even more than they already are, the same trucks that deliver goods to the grocery store or packages to your doorstep, and that those companies will have to raise the prices on things that you buy.


Instead, we should be looking at how we can eliminate the Federal gas tax. Since the vast majority of use from a gallon of gas is used in the state in which it’s purchased, the states should collect all the taxes, and use them efficiently inside their borders. No, projects like “the bridge to nowhere” wouldn’t have Federal monies to be funded – but isn’t that a good thing?

Do you believe corporations have too much influence in Washington?

There’s one simple way to remove a signficant portion of that influence and revive the economy at the same time.

But you may find it radical…

Abolish corporate income taxes.

If this idea seems strange or even abhorrent to you, then please read this letter I sent to my Representative and Senators and consider the arguments…

In his State of the Union address, the President frequently threatened to tax corporations for doing things he doesn’t like and recommended tax breaks for corporations he likes. http://bit.ly/yT5Trp

Instead he should’ve called for the abolition of ALL corporate income taxes.

You don’t have to be a conservative ideologue to oppose these taxes. They simply don’t work…

  • Corporate income taxes bring in only about $200 billion in a year – far less than 10% of revenues and about 1/7 of the deficit.
  • The only nation with a higher corporate tax rate is Japan, which has been in a slump for 20 years.

Taxing corporations is NOT a form of taxing the rich, because shareholders include the pension funds and 401(k)s of the middle class and retirees. Not only that, but corporate taxes kill jobs and stifle wages. Here’s how…

  • When adding in the cost of compliance with the tax code, corporate taxes cost corporations about $250 billion per year.
  • Tax compliance costs PER EMPLOYEE range from $517 in large firms to $1,584 in small firms (http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371tot.pdf, Table 1)

Companies pass on these costs through…

  • Lower wages for employees
  • Higher prices for consumers
  • Less money for investment in innovation or job-creating expansion
  • Smaller taxable earnings for shareholders
  • Or, they leave the country altogether for a more business-friendly environment, killing even more jobs in the process

And that last point explains why most Americans sense that manufacturing jobs have left.

And these costs even work against the alleged goals politicians like you advocate…

  • Less is collected from individual income taxes
  • And MORE is spent on anti-poverty programs

Isn’t it fair to say that these costs are far greater than the revenues from corporate taxes?

The U.S. would gain a competitive advantage over every other country by simply eliminating the corporate income tax altogether.

  • Corporations would relocate to the U.S., the new “tax haven.”
  • Leading to better wages, lower prices, and more jobs.
  • The expanding economy would quickly compensate for the “loss” of corporate tax revenue.
  • The anti-poverty rolls would shrink and so would the burdensome expense of these programs.

Ending the corporate income tax would also mitigate corruption. Corporate influence in Washington would be reduced because companies can’t lobby for tax breaks when they’re not paying taxes in the first place!

This isn’t about ideology. It’s in the national interest to repeal the corporate income tax and to elimate similar taxes on non-incorporated firms.

If you agree, we encourage you to send your own letter to Congress. You may borrow from or copy the the above.

Do your friends know that the U.S. has a higher corporate income tax rate than all of our competitors except Japan? Do you think they would find this letter interesting and persuasive? Then please share this message with open minds and encourage them to join you in taking action: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/one-simple-act-to-create-more-jobs-and-revive-the-economy

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Romney Proposed (Then Backed Away From) Plan To Implement “Internet Tourism Tax” On Users Of Online Travel Booking Sites Like Expedia And Travelocity

In 2005, Romney Backed Away From His Plan To Implement An “Internet Tourism Tax” After Being “Spooked By Even The Suggestion He Might Raise Taxes.”

“Governor Mitt Romney, spooked by even the suggestion he might raise taxes, has backed away from precedent-setting legislation that would have changed the way travelers pay hotel occupancy taxes when they get rooms from companies like Hotels.com, Expedia, and Hotwire. The rationale for the legislation was fairly simple: State and local occupancy taxes should be assessed on the rates consumers actually pay for their hotel rooms. That’s the way it works now only when a traveler buys a room directly from a hotel. When the traveler purchases a room through a third-party website, taxes are assessed on the lower wholesale rate the website paid for the room.”  (Bruce Mohl, “State Backs Off Adjusting Online Occupancy Tax,” The Boston Globe, 2/13/05)

Plan Would Have Raised $12-18 Million In New Taxes.

“[The proposal] would have raised an estimated $12 million to $18 million a year for the state by making consumers who book rooms here through travel websites pay more in state and local hotel occupancy and convention center taxes.” (Bruce Mohl, “State Backs Off Adjusting Online Occupancy Tax,” The Boston Globe, 2/13/05)

Romney’s Proposal “Worried Many Hotel Operators Here Who Feared They Might Get Caught In The Middle.”

“The proposed legislation worried many hotel operators here who feared they might get caught in the middle. The hotels feared the Department of Revenue might come after them for the additional tax money if the online resellers refused to voluntarily pass it along. Hotel operators worried they might have to chase the websites for the money or, worse, collect it from customers at check-in.” (Bruce Mohl, “State Backs Off Adjusting Online Occupancy Tax,” The Boston Globe, 2/13/05)

Boston Herald Called Romney’s Plan “Pennywise And Pound Foolish.”

“Bureaucratic quibbling aside, consumers will be stuck paying higher taxes if a proposed Internet hotel tax becomes law. That sure sounds like a textbook tax increase to us. In a state where tourism is the third biggest industry with an economic impact of some $11 billion a year, it is pennywise and pound foolish to raise taxes on hotel rooms booked through Web sites like Expedia.com or Travelocity .com for the relative pittance of $18 million.” (Editorial, “Hotel Tax ‘Loophole’ Sham,” Boston Herald, 7/9/04)

Romney “Got Cold Feet” And Dropped The Plan To Raise Taxes On Internet Tourism After Opposition From Low-Tax Advocates.

“The state Department of Revenue last year sought to tax all rooms the same way, no matter how they were purchased. The hotel industry blocked the measure, deriding it as an ‘Internet tourism tax.’ The department was ready to try again this year when Romney got cold feet and deleted it from a loophole-closing package. Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s communications director, said the governor dropped the initiative for two reasons. First, it failed to pass last year and its chances this year were considered slim. Second, Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, objected to it. ‘She thought it was a tax increase,’ Fehrnstrom said.”  (Bruce Mohl, “State Backs Off Adjusting Online Occupancy Tax,” The Boston Globe, 2/13/05)

Romney Proposed And Instituted Sales Tax On Downloading Software

Romney Proposed The New Tax On Downloaded Software.

“A recent proposal by Gov. Mitt Romney to tax software downloaded from the Internet has drawn mixed reactions from legislators and industry organizations.

Consumers must pay a 5 percent sales tax when they buy software in stores, but do not need to pay it when shopping online. The bill would tax programs downloaded from the internet with the state’s standard 5 percent sales tax.” (Andrew Shapira, “Romney To Support A Sales Tax On Downloaded Software,” [Boston University] The Daily Free Press, 4/25/03)

Sales Tax Applied To Downloaded Software For The First Time.

“Software that is delivered to the end user by download will, for the first time, be subject to Massachusetts sales tax starting next month. The same goes for so-called ‘load-and-leave’ delivery, through which a software maker installs the program on your computer. Lawmakers estimate the annual windfall to be somewhere along the lines of $50 million.” (Op-ed, Cosmo Macero Jr., “Download This: No More Free Ride On Net Software Buys,” Boston Herald, 3/7/06)

New Tax Approved “With The Full Support Of Romney.”

“The quiet tax hike was included in a package of ‘loophole’ closing legislation approved last year with the full support of Romney.” (Op-ed, Cosmo Macero Jr., “Download This: No More Free Ride On Net Software Buys,” Boston Herald, 3/7/06)

Software Sales Tax Expected To Impact Businesses The Hardest.

“[A]ccording to Department of Revenue spokesman Tim Connolly, the tax would not significantly affect the average consumer because most of the revenue would come from corporations rather than individuals.” (Andrew Shapira, “Romney To Support A Sales Tax On Downloaded Software,” [Boston University] The Daily Free Press, 4/25/03)

Romney Signed Multistate Pact And Passed Law To Allow For Internet Sales Tax In Massachusetts

Massachusetts Originally Opposed Internet Tax To Be Seen As A “High-Tech Friendly State.”

“To foster a reputation as a high-tech friendly state, Massachusetts took the lead in supporting a congressional moratorium on such taxes, which was extended in 2001 to November of 2003 with the support of President George W. Bush. Where some Main Street businesses saw unfair competition, state leaders saw the almost boundless potential of the Internet to open new markets, and Massachusetts as an incubator for new cyberspace technology.” (Editorial, “Internet Sales Tax Shortsighted Move,” Boston Herald, 3/19/03)

Romney Endorsed Plan That Would End Moratorium On Internet Sales Tax For 35 States, Including Massachusetts.

“Now, Romney has signed onto a plan for Massachusetts to join the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, with more than 35 other states to simplify sales tax rules and ultimately clear the way for all online merchants to collect taxes and return them to the coffers of the proper jurisdiction.” (Editorial, “Internet Sales Tax Shortsighted Move,” Boston Herald, 3/19/03)

Romney Signed Law To Enroll Massachusetts In The Multistate Collaborative.

“A new law signed by Gov. Mitt Romney enrolls Massachusetts in a multistate collaborative looking for a better way for states to collect taxes on Internet sales.” (Steve LeBlanc, “New Law Could Pave Way For Internet Sales Taxes In Massachusetts,” The Associated Press, 3/16/03)

Romney Signed Bill To Help Balance Budget.

“Romney spokeswoman Nicole St. Peter said the governor signed the bill after a suggestion from the legislature. ‘It was part of the budget balancing bill for the fiscal year ‘03,’ St. Peter said.” (Dennis Mayer, “Internet Sales Should Be Taxed, Romney Says,” [Boston University] The Daily Free Press, 4/25/03)

Romney’s Republican Predecessors Both Opposed Internet Sales Tax.

“Former Gov. Paul Cellucci and former acting Gov. Jane Swift both opposed Internet sales taxes. Swift last year vetoed the same bill Romney just signed.” (Steve LeBlanc, “New Law Could Pave Way For Internet Sales Taxes In Massachusetts,” The Associated Press, 3/16/03)

Fox News has reported that Members of Congress investigating the TAXPAYER-FINANCED $535 million loan guarantee that the Obama administration gave to now-bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra are considering suing the White House to obtain access to documents relating to the scandal!


“For close to a year, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has been probing the circumstances surrounding the loan and its subsequent restructuring, which subordinated taxpayers to private investors in the recovery of the company’s assets. Solyndra’s chief investor, billionaire George Kaiser, is a prominent Obama supporter whom records show visited the White House 17 times…

…lawmakers on the panel are considering holding hearings — first at the subcommittee level, then for the full committee — to vote on a contempt citation against the White House. Experts said that if such an event were to come to pass, the full House, which is controlled by the Republicans, would have to vote on the citation. If that in turn were to happen, the House would officially refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia forenforcement against the White House.”

One of the first of the new taxes meant to pay for ObamaCare was the 10% “surcharge” on tanning sessions. Yes, if you want to get a sun tan, and don’t want to lay out in the sun, the salon must charge you an additional 10% that they forward on to the Federal Government.

Okay, fair enough, exposure to ultra-violet radiation can cause health problems. But, one has to stop and think, only fair-skinned people go tanning. Dark-skinned people do not.

Therefore, is Obama’s Tanning Salon Tax racist?

If you’re leaning to no, then imagine a tax that was only charged to people with dark skin. Would that be racist? How can one be racist, and the other not racist?

Tax his land, tax his wage,
Tax his bed in which he lays.
Tax his tractor, tax his mule,
Teach him taxes is the rule.

Tax his cow, tax his goat,
Tax his pants, tax his coat.
Tax his ties, tax his shirts,
Tax his work, tax his dirt.

Tax his chew, tax his smoke,
Teach him taxes are no joke.
Tax his car, tax his grass,
Tax the roads he must pass.

Tax his food, tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his sodas, tax his beers,
If he cries, tax his tears.

Tax his bills, tax his gas,
Tax his notes, tax his cash.
Tax him good and let him know
That after taxes, he has no dough.

If he hollers, tax him more,
Tax him until he’s good and sore.
Tax his coffin, tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he lays.

Put these words upon his tomb,
“Taxes drove me to my doom!”
And when he’s gone, we won’t relax,
We’ll still be after the inheritance tax.

Author: Unknown

Shared by: http://godfatherpolitics.com/942/47-different-taxes-we-pay/#IDComment193332885