They’re frustratingly wrong.   It is probably one of the most commonly mistaken uses of analogy by the left-wing moonbats.  And now the “Robin Hood” mantra has been adopted by the Occupy Wall Street crews around the nation.   The cries for ‘Robin Hood’ taxes are supposed to mean ‘tax the rich’, but Robin Hood had nothing to do with taking from the rich.   Perhaps everyone should revisit the Robin Hood historical story.

Robin Hood was a serf, a farmer, a Bowman.    The story of Robin Hood must be understood against the backdrop of  The Catholic Church.   Bishops, Monks, and Friars were the representatives of the Church.   The church was the source of power  and government within England including Sherwood, Nottingham, and Yorkshire where Robin Hood lived.   The time was 1190’s around the time when Richard The lion-hearted and King John were monarchs on the throne.
As the central government the bishops were corrupt, and they demanded the serfs provide them food (potatoes).   There were several years of famine where the harvests were horrible and there were not enough potatoes for the serfs to provide for themselves and their families, let alone the Bishops.
Friar Tuck took care of the Bishops within the church and acted as the central go-between between the Bishops and the Serfs.  Think of Friar Tuck like the House of Representatives.   The Sheriff of Nottingham was charged with being the compliance officer in levying the taxation and insuring the serfs gave the appropriate amount of their crops to feed the Bishops and let the Bishops determine who received any leftovers.  The Sheriff of Nottingham was the IRS.
Robin Hood stole back the potatoes from the Sheriff to give back to the hungry farmers and their families.    He was NOT stealing from the rich, as in taking noble wealth to redistribute it, he was taking back the taxation from the Sheriff.
Robin Hood was stopping the tax collector (Sheriff of Nottingham) from removing the wealth (harvest) of the farmers and giving it to the Bishops (government).    So a modern analogy would be for a Robin Hood type person to take taxes back from the government to give back to the tax payer.
Robin Hood did not care what the Lords, Ladies, Earls, Dukes, Dutchesses and Nobles had in their houses and possessions.   He was not robbing them to take their wealth, he was trying to stop the unaffordable taxation for the Bishops.

Heck, Robin Hood was a Tea-Partier not an Occupier.
If there was a farmer, a serf, or an Occupier, sitting on his/her ass not doing anything but demanding someone else to take care of him/her, or complaining that the Earls and Nobles needed to come out of their castles and provide for his/her family, that farmer would have been laughed at, mocked, and might end up in stocks or pillory in the middle of town square being ridiculed and pelted with Horse and Cow manure.

He/She would most certainly have a big embarrassing sign on them for being able-bodied and unwilling to work.    This certainly does not describe a recipient of Robin Hood’s confiscated or returned tax revenue.   Not one bit.
Why would Robin Hood return taxes to an Occupier that did not contribute to tax collection.   That does not make sense?   It didn’t make sense 800 years ago, and it still does not make sense today…..