Bill Gates supports "Robin Hood Tax."

[Openmind]

Bill Gates will tell the G20 group of developed and developing countries on Thursday that they could raise an extra $48bn (£30bn) a year to fight global poverty by levying a small tax on share and bond trading.

Despite hostility from Britain and the US, the Microsoft founder will add weight to the growing campaign for a so-called Robin Hood tax when he tells the two-day summit in Cannes that a levy on finance would help hard-pressed rich nations to meet their aid pledges to the poor.

Gates will acknowledge the lack of G20 unanimity for a financial transaction tax when he presents a report – Innovation with Impact – commissioned by Nicolas Sarkozy in a 75-minute session on development on Thursday afternoon.But the study concludes that aid budgets would be boosted by $9bn even were the FTT limited to the larger European economies, such as Germany and France, which back the idea.

Speaking to the Guardian on the eve of the summit, Gates said: "It is very plausible that certain kinds of FTTs could work. I am lending some credibility to that. This money could be well spent and make a difference. An FTT is more possible now than it was a year ago, but it won't be at rates that magically raise gigantic sums of money."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/03/gates-ur...

 

[steveox]

Well I wrote a Letter to him. I asked him give me 30 Million of his dollars if he doesnt know what to do with his money.He never replyed..This story is B.S!!

 

[Pandora]

Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor.
Robin Hood took back the money that was wrongfully over taxed to the people of Nottingham by the sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John.

 

[Pandora]

Liberals Have Robin Hood All Wrong
Editorial
April 2002

by: Andrew E. Busch



Tax day has come and gone again, leaving millions of Americans scratching their heads at the complexity and irrationality of the federal tax code in an annual ritual of frustration. To add to the mix of the absurd, Americans are increasingly hearing calls from congressional Democrats and their political base for a postponement or outright cancellation of the tax cut enacted last year. Democrats have thus re-confirmed that they are now the party of Herbert Hoover’s fiscal policy; a tax cut that passed when the economy seemed stronger is now under fire when the economy is staggering out of a recession, exactly when a tax cut is needed most.

Of course, liberals prefer to see themselves as moral descendents of Robin Hood, rather than intellectual heirs of Hooverism. Democrats are frequently heard making the Robin Hood analogy in reverse, claiming that the Bush administration’s budget, including tax cuts and social spending restraint, would take from the poor and give to the rich. Leaving aside the detail that a tax cut allowing someone to keep more of his earnings is not "giving" him anything that is not already his, the adoption of Robin Hood as the patron saint of liberalism cries out for correction. To the contrary, it is conservatives who should extol Mr. Hood as one of their own. All one has to do is to consult the Disney films’ animated version of Robin Hood—as I did with my two small children last weekend—to find at least four reasons why one would not find Robin Hood voting for Al Gore or John Kerry if his feathered hat depended on it.

As one wag perceptively pointed out some time ago, Robin Hood’s claim to fame was not that he took from the rich to give to the poor, but that he took from the tax collector and gave back to the people their own money. The central issue was overtaxation, and Robin Hood was most emphatically not on the side of the bureaucracy. The ultimate bad guy was Prince John, the very caricature of greedy, arrogant government; the proximate bad guy was the Sheriff of Nottingham, the ruthless enforcer whose audit strategy was even more intimidating than that of the IRS. The victims were the taxpayers whose property was confiscated to feed John’s insatiable lust for higher revenues. As Robin Hood speeds to its exciting conclusion, Friar Tuck adopts as his battle cry, "Praise the Lord and pass the tax rebate!"
Robin Hood was waging a struggle not only against overtaxation but against illegitimate, unconstitutional government. As the characters ridicule "Prince John, the phony king of England," they are staking their fight on the view that John has overstepped his legal and constitutional bounds. He had, in other words, gone beyond the exercise of powers rightfully his. Unimpressed with Prince John’s living constitution, which bore a disturbing resemblance to a regime of raw, unconstrained power, Robin Hood and his merry band seem to prefer a stricter construction.
At the same time, they are emboldened to resist John’s usurpation by a sense that acts of government must be tested not only against the written law but against natural law. John has violated not only the law of England, he has waged war against the law of God. The disrespect held by John and his minions for the law of God—or, to put it another way, their attempt to elevate his rule above any sort of limit, human or divine—is epitomized when the Sheriff of Nottingham robs even Friar Tuck’s church to pad the revenues. The idea of natural law can, of course, be put to a variety of uses, not all of which conservatives find agreeable, but one of the most distinct features of the modern left is a moral nihilism which denies the possibility of higher objective truth, and consequently denies the possibility of inherent limits on the ambitions of the state. To the extent that Robin Hood sought to hold John’s regime to an unwritten standard of limitation and accountability, modern liberals can hardly claim him as one of their own.
Not least, Robin Hood and his band remained loyal to the duly constituted authority, King Richard the Lionhearted. And what was King Richard off doing while John was playing at home? Fighting Saracens in a crusade to save the Christian holy sites in the Middle East from Muslim conquest. Not much one for the aggressive secularism and the multicultural platitudes that serve as the de facto religion of American liberalism, that Richard.

 

[GenSeneca]

Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor.
Robin Hood took back the money that was wrongfully over taxed to the people of Nottingham by the sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John.

I was going to point out the same thing... You beat me to it.

 

[Gipper]

Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor.
Robin Hood took back the money that was wrongfully over taxed to the people of Nottingham by the sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John.

Well then...the Left HATES Robin Hood....

 

[Pandora]

Well then...the Left HATES Robin Hood....

Well they hate the Real Robin Hood but they love the myth they have made around him. I was just watching the news and a bunch of idiots were dressed like Robin Hood marching around or occupying or what ever it is they do. I bet none of them actually pay federal taxes and clearly none of them know what Robin Hood was actually about.

 

[dogtowner]

Well they hate the Real Robin Hood but they love the myth they have made around him. I was just watching the news and a bunch of idiots were dressed like Robin Hood marching around or occupying or what ever it is they do. I bet none of them actually pay federal taxes and clearly none of them know what Robin Hood was actually about.

they love their myths, so much more interesting than real life. especially how FDR saved the country with the Raw Deal and how Kennedy was NOT moderate.

 

[Dr.Who]

Bill Gates will tell the G20 group of developed and developing countries on Thursday that they could raise an extra $48bn (£30bn) a year to fight global poverty by levying a small tax on share and bond trading.

Robin hood took money illegally from government officials who also took it illegally.

How about we all stop doing things that are illegal and certainly not glorify or misname legislation that would more appropriately just be called another tax which will hurt the whole economy some people slightly more than others.

 

[Openmind]

Robin hood took money illegally from government officials who also took it illegally.

How about we all stop doing things that are illegal and certainly not glorify or misname legislation that would more appropriately just be called another tax which will hurt the whole economy some people slightly more than others.

A quarter of a penny tax on all Wallstreet transactions would not hurt anyone, and especially not the poorand the lower middle class who do not have the income to "play the market."

In fact, it may even bring SOME stability to the market, by making big investors think a little more about jumping all overthe place!

 

[Dr.Who]

A quarter of a penny tax on all Wallstreet transactions would not hurt anyone, and especially not the poorand the lower middle class who do not have the income to "play the market."

In fact, it may even bring SOME stability to the market, by making big investors think a little more about jumping all overthe place!

More of the market consist of the 401k's of average people than of the money of rich people. And since this would be what you would call a regressive tax then by definition it would hurt the middle class more than it would hurt the rich.

But I think you need to make up your mind and decide if this would be a big tax or small. If this is a big tax then it would add income to the state and also hurt whomever is taxed. But if it is a small tax then it would not add any significant income to the state and would not hurt people. What you can't do is have it both ways.

 

[dogtowner]

More of the market consist of the 401k's of average people than of the money of rich people. And since this would be what you would call a regressive tax then by definition it would hurt the middle class more than it would hurt the rich.

But I think you need to make up your mind and decide if this would be a big tax or small. If this is a big tax then it would add income to the state and also hurt whomever is taxed. But if it is a small tax then it would not add any significant income to the state and would not hurt people. What you can't do is have it both ways.

what it is is a camel's nose in the tent and money they do not need.
what DC has is a spending problem.

 

[Dr.Who]

what it is is a camel's nose in the tent and money they do not need.
what DC has is a spending problem.

You are so right. DC has plenty of sources of revenue and they do not need any more. They just need stop spending like drunken soldiers. I have to watch my budget so why shouldn't they - oh wait they don't even have a budget and yet they want more money from us.

 

[dogtowner]

You are so right. DC has plenty of sources of revenue and they do not need any more. They just need stop spending like drunken soldiers. I have to watch my budget so why shouldn't they - oh wait they don't even have a budget and yet they want more money from us.

touche !

you could say that we're taxed enough already...