Robin's Hood

A few weeks ago Glenn Beck talked about taxing the rich to give to the poor. You know Robin Hood stuff. Now, I'm not rich, but I can surely see how bad an idea this is. Of course choosing a level at which you become "rich" is absurd.

Obama defined it in his interview with Rev Rick Warren:

IF YOU ARE MAKING $150 THOUSAND A YEAR OR LESS AS A FAMILY, THEN ARE YOU MIDDLE CLASS OR YOU MAY BE POOR. BUT $150 DOWN, YOU ARE BASICALLY MIDDLE CLASS. OBVIOUSLY IT DEPENDS ON REGION WHERE YOU ARE LIVING. I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF YOU ARE MAKING MORE THAN $250,000 THEN ARE YOU IN THE TOP 3, 4 PERCENT OF THIS COUNTRY. YOU DOING WELL. NOW THESE THINGS ARE ALL RELATIVE AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT EVERYBODY THAT IS MAKING OVER $250,000 IS LIVING ON EASY STREET, BUT THE QUESTION THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES IS IF WE BELIEVE IN GOOD SCHOOLS, IF WE BELIEVE IN GOOD ROADS, IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT KIDS CAN GO TO COLLEGE, IF WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE A MOUNTAIN OF DEBT FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, THEN WE'VE GOT TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS. THEY DON'T COME FOR FREE. AND IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE, I BELIEVE IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE INTER GENERATIONALLY FOR US TO INVEST OR FOR US TO SPEND $10 BILLION A MONTH ON A WAR AND NOT HAVING A WAY TO PAY FOR IT. THAT I THINK IS UNACCEPTABLE.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS UNDER THE APPROACH THAT I'M TAKING IF YOU MAKE 150 THOUSAND OR LESS YOU WILL SEE A TAX CUT. IF YOU ARE MAKING $250,000 OR MORE YOU WILL SEE A MODEST INCREASE. WHAT I'M TRYINGTO DO IS CREATE A SENSE OF BALANCE AND FAIRNESS IN OUR TAX CODE. ONE THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON IT SHOULD BE SIMPLER SO YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THESE LOOPHOLES AND BIG STACKS OF STUFF THAT YOU'VE GOT TO COME THROUGH WHICH WASTE A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND ALLOWS SPECIAL INTEREST TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THINGS THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.(empasis added)

I like the candor in which he explains things. He makes no apology for taxing those over the $250K mark. My question is is that "balanced" or "Fair"? When you increase taxes on the rich there is a decrease in incentive to work hard to become rich. I'm not talking about those that make $20 million each year, or those that don't have to work due to their amount of wealth, but those on the cusp of that $250k. Is it worth going to 8 years of college knowing that if I am successful I will have to pay my country rather than saving my money to put my kids through college. But apparently Obama says that is where my money will be going anyways. so the question is: who is better at spending my money? Me? Government?

Glenn Beck counter points Obama:

'The rich should be willing to pay more' 'As Barack Obama said, If you believe in good schools, good roads, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college and if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation, then...we've got to pay for these things' 'You conservative-Christians claim to be so into the Bible, why don't you read it sometime! We're supposed to take care of the poor'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments

1. Why? Why should anyone be willing to have their hard-earned money taken from them by force, and then wasted by an out-of-control government?
2. So, the only way to have good schools is to spend more money? Then why are some of the worst schools in America, scholastically speaking, in Washington DC, where we spend the most money per student? New York spends the most per student at $14,119 yet ranks 44th in SAT scores. DC ranks 3rd in spending-nearly $13,000 per student, yet ranks 51st, yes dead last. As for leaving a "mountain of debt for the next generation", here's a concept…CUT SPENDING!
3. We sure are. And if you can show me even ONE verse in the King James version of the Bible where it says that governments should tax their citizens more to help the poor, I'll swallow the Bible whole, join the democrat party right now, donate 50% of my income to the federal government, and do bake sale fundraisers for Barack Obama.
INDIVIDUALS have the responsibility to take care of the poor NOT governments…each person is responsible for himself and his family, then if he can't make it, his other family members should step in, then friends, then church organizations. If none of those can help then, as a last resort, the government is there. If we had these values, there would be no need to forcefully take obscene percentages of successful people's income from them.(emphasis added)