Poll: Stealing from the rich to give to the poor.

[loppopoo]

Robin Hood was under a tyrant king who became rich by unnecessarily taxing everyone. In that instance, it's okay, which is what I think the point of Robin Hood was.

 

[blaqknoise]

Stealing is always wrong. You worked for the money, it's yours, you keep it.

 

[sephiroth1991]

Depends how poor the people are, if a city is in poverty but the leaders are rich i would steal and give to the poor.

 

[Chunko]

Depends on the context; when people are born into their money like in Robin Hood it's a different situation altogether, all the same I still think it's wrong even in aforementioned context.

 

[AMMO Kid]

the rich people should be nice enough to give some of their money to poor people

 

[EeveeElectro]

It depends if you mean idiots like Paris Hilton who are famous off their dads back. They don't deserve money.
It's not right to steal from hard working people who have earned, not rich by fluke.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

This reminded me of an interview I read about Michael Caine, bashing the welfare state, saying effectively that he shouldn't have to pay tax on the millions he earns from making movies at the age of 76, and in fact he spent eight years out of the country to avoid paying tax, when the tax money goes to 'workshy layabouts'.

My thoughts are - either stop working then, you're 76, a multi millionaire, and quite capable of letting some other actors earn some money, or shut up and take 50% of £10 million instead of 100%, and realise you're paying for more than just the minority that are ripping off the system.

It seems so many of the rich use their riches to avoid paying taxes or immorally use their money to get even richer, and in that case, screw em, let's be taking a good chunk of their money to spread around.

It amazes me how mad people get at some scummy family that's claiming a few hundred a week, when bankers and MPs are carting off thousands or millions.

Here's my viewpoint, in a world where Simon Cowell and Piers Morgan can be rich and famous, I'm suddenly all for communism. I'd much rather be doing just about ok and not be a c*** than be rich and spiritually and morally vacant.

 

[SturmDolch]

I say no, because I think the rich earned it (usually).[footnote]But secretly I think it's awesome and Robin Hood is one of my favourite characters.[/footnote] I wouldn't mind if the government seized all assets of rich criminals and used that to help the poor. But taxing those that worked hard to get to the top more than those that couldn't make it? Not cool.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Not all rich people had to work hard for their money and got it all from their parents, but some poor people were given chances in life and they didn't take them.

It really depends.

 

[AngryMongoose]

Well, in the case of Robin Hood, he was stealing from those who stole their wealth, and giving to those who are poor because they were stolen from. In this case it is clearly right. Bonus points for burning down said rich.
These days, with a legal system, it is wrong. We should just increase the power of the welfare system instead

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Depends on the rich people to be honest. There's certain people who I'd say were valid targets.

However, who should be the ones to judge that?

 

[Heeman89]

I voted no here but I'm still kinda on edge about it, I was raised that stealing is WRONG no matter what the cost and I've been at the bottom where I didn't know where the next meal would come from or who would pay for it and I thought that thievery would be the way to go but I realized that I was the one who put myself in that situation, why should someone else pay for my stupidity? So I worked, I did jobs I didn't particularity like flip burgers and clean up cow crap at a dairy and other jobs that were not high on my list of things I wanted to be doing that day and I got out of that hole. But as many have pointed out, there are people who have what they have and got it through unjust means, is it right to perform an unjust act to someone who gets things through unjust means? Does two wrongs make a right? I struggle with that in situation like these, knowing that guy didn't work like I had to so he could get where he is at.

 

[Beastialman]

What if a poor person stole to become rich, what if someone stole from them and gave it to the poor?

 

[Dr.Sean]

It's not, and if everyone who thinks it is is a communist.

And what exactly is it you have that makes your statement become the only truth there is?^^
Try at least give some reason for your point of view please.

Have you heard of a redistribution of wealth? That's essentially what stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is.

 

[capin Rob]

I guess its right, but the thief is a thief regardless, if he wants to give to the poor he should use his own money.

 

[Anachronism]

Assuming you can justify stealing from the rich to begin with, considering the fact that they've probably earned that money: steal from the rich, give to the deserving.

If they're poor as a result of circumstance, work hard to earn the money they have, and ought to have more money considering how hard they work, by all means give them money. If, however, they are merely lazy and cannot be bothered to work, I see no reason why they should be given free money. Just because you need something does not give you the right to have it.

 

[ultrachicken]

Depends on what the rich are doing with their money, or how they obtained it. Are they using it for charity, to hire people into decently-paying jobs? Or are they squandering it for their own selfish purposes?
Did they obtain it through scams, honest work, or what?
Not all rich are the same, so you can't really make a conclusion as simple as yes or no.

 

[Dyme]

Of course it's wrong. But necessary.