The Popular Sheriff of Nottingham

There is a point in the movie Robin Hood (the only good one, with the fox and bear that came out in 1973) where the whole town is basically in jail or so poor that nothing can be afforded because Prince John has told the Sheriff of Nottingham to “squeeze every last drop out of those insolent, musical peasants.” In a great act of charity, the Mother Church Mouse donates her last farthing into the poor box at the church. In marches the honorable Sheriff who opens the poor box, takes the farthing, and declares that he will take it for “poor Prince John. Every little bit helps, and his majesty also blesses you too little sister.” This scene serves as the final act to force the confrontation between Robin Hood and the greedy government. Even though it came out in 1973, it appears that we still have much to learn from this film, based on all the Colorado 2024 ballot measures requesting more money for our “poor” state and local governments.  At a time where inflation and the cost of living are at their highest points in decades, the people are asked to pay more and instead of rebelling against these requests, the Sheriff of Nottingham is giving popular reasons to cheer for his collection of taxes.

Under the Colorado Taxpayers Bill of Rights Constitutional amendment, we vote to allow governmental entities to tax us up to a certain limit. Let us consider a way the government will try to convince you to willingly give them more money. In this example, several years after a tax was approved by voters, government collected more taxes (or revenue as they call it) above the limit. Instead of lowering the tax rate so as to not exceed the limit, government now goes to we the people to ask us to “allow” them to retain that additional revenue instead of returning it to the companies that paid the tax. How do governmental entities get away with such an obvious tax increase? They count on us having an implicit bias against the action of companies being taxed (in this case sports betting) and give us a big carrot on how the funds will be used for “our good” (state water projects). Notice how quickly people will disagree with the premise but then agree that this might be a good tax when you bring up funding water projects. See why the Sheriff of Nottingham is a popular figure now? If only he had told the people of Nottingham that the tax increase was to help fund projects for their benefit, maybe they would not have despised him as deeply as they did in the movie.

Which brings us to the second example: directly raising taxes to fund “charity” and the poor. The irony in this example is that the tax will apply to rich and poor alike because it is for a sales tax increase- everyone pays. Obviously, the best way to help the poor and those who are having difficulty affording houses is to make their cost of living just a little bit higher! Instead of the city scrapping programs that don’t work (there are always such programs in a large bureaucracy), the city would prefer asking the citizens to give government the right to take from the citizens for such “charitable” acts.  If the hand hasn’t already been tipped, this example is referring to the affordable housing sales tax increase Denver is proposing.  Instead of referring charitable citizens to donate their money to non-profit organizations like Mercy Housing or United Way (top two that popped up on a 3 second Google search), the government does not believe that one of the most charitable countries on the planet will take care of a need that they believe to be of utmost importance. The Sheriff is most popular in this city and state when he declares that the tax is for the poor, not when he leaves the money in the poor box at church…oh wait…

But a 0.5% tax is nothing, why are you against raising the taxes in such a small way when it could have such a big impact? The popular Sheriff has used this “small increase” line so effectively the past 6 years that the city of Denver has increased its sales taxes by about 30% to become one of the most expensive sales tax cities in the land. The Sheriff has never been more popular than when he advocates for mental health, food for kids, homelessness, or the wonderful specter of climate change. All of these have non-profits that receive donations, but the Sheriff cannot pass up an opportunity to appear compassionate and caring. When the Sheriff became synonymous with doing good, he turned his reputation around and now the people are delighted to give him more money.

When we are first introduced to the Sheriff in the movie, he notices Friar Tuck sneaking around and quips, “Friar Tuck, the ole do-gooder, he is out doing good again.” Sure enough, Friar Tuck was trying to give money to a peasant who was injured and behind on his taxes. In bursts the Sheriff to take every cent of that charity away. The perception of our government and tax collectors has swiveled on a dime when the government realized it could preach its good intention to the people and the people gave away their self-reliance for the safety of those intentions. Instead of relying on the generosity and charity of private organizations and fellow Americans, we have forced that “charity” into the hands of government. The narrator laments at one point that Prince John taxed “the heart and soul out of the poor people of Nottingham” and it would appear that we have indeed done the same. Except instead of the taxes being forced on us from above, we have instead taxed the heart out of each other and decided to unfortunately trust in the government more than we trust our fellow neighbors.

All this naturally leads to the question of how to keep the enticing and sweet whispers of the Sheriff out of your reasons for voting for more taxes. One of the easiest ways to see whether the government is trying to sweet talk you out of your money is to search for non-profit organizations and see if they are already providing that service. If so, donate and promote those organizations and use the free market to incentivize answers instead of relying on ever-increasing government bureaucracies and programs that achieve little to none of their intended purpose. The second way is to ask yourself, “Just because I do not like this business/cause/individual, would I still be for this tax if it were on something I like?” If you are ok taxing firearms or ammunition but would be against a tofu tax, consider that the same mechanisms and force are involved in both and perhaps the wise and reasoned individual would be against any and all improper encroachments by the government. Lastly, if the issue is unknown to you and you are unsure if you should be against a tax or not, the default answer should be against. Ignorance should not convince you to vote for something, no matter how enticing or moral the arguments the Sheriff tries to convince you with. It is never moral to take from somebody to feed the egos and values of another. If we learned anything from Robin Hood, it should be that the force of government should not take from any class. Do not succumb to the tyranny of the majority and tax the poor to feed the intentions, morals, and ego of the government.