Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

1% Tax on ALL Financial Transactions
Congressional Record | Oct. 30, 2010

Posted on 10/30/2010 10:28:10 AM PDT by econjack

This topic was posted here once before, but only 10 people commented on it! I can't believe that, since this tax applies to EVERY deposit you make to any financial account. And, it works on money going out of the account, too. So if you write a check to your child in college, you get charged 1% of the amount. Your child, when they deposit the check also gets charged 1%. Only 10 of you find that a bad idea! Come on...this should cause rioting in the streets!

The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter DeFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. It is now in committee and will probably not be brought out until after the Nov. elections.

President Obama's finance team is recommending a transaction tax. His plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, etc.. Any deposit you make, or move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will have a 1% tax charged. If your pay check or your social Security or whatever is direct deposit, 1% tax charged. If you hand carry a check in to deposit, 1% tax charged, If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax charged. This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn.

Some will say: Aw, it's just 1%... remember once the tax is there they can raise it at will.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: balancedbudget; hr4646; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
It would appear that money going out of an account would also be subject to this tax.
1 posted on 10/30/2010 10:28:11 AM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: econjack

Taxes on money going into your account and out of it!


2 posted on 10/30/2010 10:32:02 AM PDT by A. Morgan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack
I say go for it, pass it Congress, it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Things must get worse before they get better, and this huge money grab by Washington would be the final barrier to open revolution against the ruling class.

I'd much rather an ax like this chop into the pile than the constant and never ending splintering of the log that's happening now.

3 posted on 10/30/2010 10:32:31 AM PDT by kingu (Favorite Sticker: Lost hope, and Obama took my change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Luckily, my mattress doesn’t charge tax.


4 posted on 10/30/2010 10:33:56 AM PDT by Leroy S. Mort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu

Lexington....Concorde......shots heard round the world part deux!!!!!!!


5 posted on 10/30/2010 10:35:27 AM PDT by shankbear (Al-Qaeda grew while Monica blew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: econjack

I think they got the idea from Neal Bortz.... and put it on steroids.

It won’t go anywhere.


6 posted on 10/30/2010 10:36:05 AM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

This doesn’t pass the stupid test and should be enough to Baker act its sponsors and keep them from any position in which they may be responsible for anything relevant to financial matters. A check to the Federal government for taxes due would be a financial transaction - would you always have to pay the IRS 101 percent of the amount due?


7 posted on 10/30/2010 10:36:50 AM PDT by vrwconspiracist (The Tax Man cometh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

butt


8 posted on 10/30/2010 10:38:52 AM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack
This bill comes up from time to time and info on it is available at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4646/show

Although the bill does not seem to have any support, it wouldn't hurt to call your Congressmen and let them know how you feel about it.

9 posted on 10/30/2010 10:39:14 AM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

More underground economy headed your way.


10 posted on 10/30/2010 10:40:01 AM PDT by rodguy911 ( Sarah 2012!!! Home of the free because of the brave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack
Some professor in Wisconsin came up with this idea years ago. He determined that if you placed a 0.6% tax on all transactions (0.3% charged to the spender and 0.3% charged to the receiver), that you would raise enough money to fund all government expenses. That's right, ALL government expenses. All other taxes could be done away with. He went on to explain the biggest danger of this. The government would be tempted to increase the amount to 0.7% resulting in an unprecedented windfall of cash. That temptation would be too great to risk.

To see Democrats today calling for a 1.0% transaction tax with no desire whatsoever to eliminate all the other taxes shows that their greed is limitless.

11 posted on 10/30/2010 10:40:06 AM PDT by Hoodat ( .For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Why not just call it a Stamp Tax!! It seemed to have caused a bit of a problem the last time a tyrannical regime (George III) tried it.
Perhaps we could simplify the idea and just tax payments made to lawyers - by say 10%. That would kill many birds with a single stone.


12 posted on 10/30/2010 10:41:12 AM PDT by bjc (Check the data!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

His plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar.

This movement doesn’t stand a chance and something this big couldn’t be sneaked in under the radar when the whole country will be watching this lame duck congress’ every move and every breath into and beyond Jan 2011.

This is why only 10 people responded. Not a chance it’ll go forward.


13 posted on 10/30/2010 10:42:02 AM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Morgan

trying to kill America one transaction at a time. as if things are not bad enough


14 posted on 10/30/2010 10:42:14 AM PDT by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: econjack
This would drive the economy completely underground. Everybody would operate on a cash-only basis. You would be punished for putting your money in the bank, so you'd stuff it in your mattress instead.

I'm all for this thing. All sources of government income would evaporate overnight.

15 posted on 10/30/2010 10:43:32 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The only stable state is one in which all men are equal before the law." -- Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Hmmm,If this passes the cash economy will get a definite boost.

Hello soviet era black markets....


16 posted on 10/30/2010 10:43:35 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack
correct me if I'm wrong. I thought that Oregon has no taxes.If this is true, then it would make sense for DeFazio to introduce such a bill... in his own, for his own State.

Taxing all banking transactions is 100% thievery.

17 posted on 10/30/2010 10:44:17 AM PDT by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Just wait until they start confiscating our 401K’s and pensions. It has just begun.


18 posted on 10/30/2010 10:45:15 AM PDT by catfish1957 (Hey algore...You'll have to pry the steering wheel of my 317 HP V8 truck from my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack
This is from Snopes.com. FactCheck.org had essentially the same take on this.
,br>
Origins: Some members of Congress have what might be termed "hobby horse" issues: concepts about which they introduce legislation in Congress after Congress, although their bills never come close to passing, or even clear committee to be put to votes in the first place. The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the "Transform America Transaction Fee" and now refers to as the "Debt Free America Act").

In 2004 Rep. Fattah presented a bill calling on Congress to fund a study regarding the replacement of the federal tax code with a transaction fee-based system (H.R. 3759),he introduced a similar bill in 2005 (H.R. 1601), again in 2007 (H.R. 2130), and again in 2009 (H.R. 1703). None of these bills was ever put to a vote, and only one of them had so much as a single co-sponsor.

In 2010, Rep. Fattah moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of a scheme to pay downthe national debt and eliminate federal income tax on individuals by imposing a 1% fee on specified financial transactions: One idea for raising taxes to pay down the debt is the bill introduced this February [2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.).His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction — whether paid by cash, credit card or any form of financial transfer, the only exception being transactions involving the purchase or sale of stock. Theoretically, everyone would pay one cent on the dollar for every such transaction in America every day — whether $3 million on a $300 million business acquisition, $300 on the purchase of a $30,000 car, or $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal. Specifically, the text of the bill states that: The purpose of [the transaction fee] is to establish a fee on most transactions. Such [a] fee: is different than a sales tax in that a sales tax is charged only on sales to the final consumer, [while] the transaction fee would apply to intermediate users as well as end users

is different than a value added tax (VAT), commonly used in European and other countries, in that a VAT is imposed only on a portion of a transaction's value (roughly the difference between an item's selling price and its cost), [while] the transaction fee would apply to the entire amount of the transaction

is intended to raise sufficient revenue to eliminate the national debt, which was $10.6 trillion in January 2009, during a period of 7 years, and to phase out the income tax on individuals.

[This bill would] impose on every specified transaction a fee in an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount of such transaction.

The term 'specified transaction' means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument.

The term 'transaction' includes retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions.

Persons become liable for the fee at the moment the person exercises control over a piece of property or service, regardless of the payment method. (The bill provides for individuals earning $125,000 or less to receive a credit equal to 1% of their income against the tax, and it gives the Treasury Department discretion to exempt certain transactions on which lower-income people disproportionately rely.)

Like Rep. Fattah's other Congressional efforts along these lines, his Debt Free America Act has no sponsors other than himself, has been languishing in committee ever since it was introduced, and has about as much chance of passing as a snowball does of surviving hell. Thus, although e-mailed warnings about a "1% transaction tax" do reference a real piece of proposed legislation, the amount of attention those warnings have garnered vastly, vastly outstrips any real possibility that such legislation will actually be enacted.

Moreover, some of the additional details contained with such e-mailed warnings are erroneous: Neither "President Obama's finance team" nor Nancy Pelosi is "recommending a 1% transaction tax." The proposal for the Debt Free America Act is purely the effort of a single congressman, with no outside support.

Neither Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon nor Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced the Debt Free America Act, co-sponsored it, or has publicly supported it.

The included link that supposedly shows Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedates the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually refer to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio. That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (AlthoughRep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too has since languished in committee without being brought to a vote.)
19 posted on 10/30/2010 10:46:00 AM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shankbear
VOTE LIKE IT'S 1776 FREEDOM & LIBERTY DEPEND ON IT

BOOTS ON THE GROUND

TIME FOR YOU TO GO

WE THE PEOPLE BY RAY STEVENS

WHEN AMERICA IS NOT AMERICA ANY MORE

Dr. David Janda explains rationing (obamacare)

Krauthammer on Omamacare impact on the USA, (you have to put up with the commercial)

The Forgotten Man

American Hero

Marxism in America

Obamacare the Movie ---- By FReeper Freestar

20 posted on 10/30/2010 10:50:54 AM PDT by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, retired Military, disabled & Seniors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joan Kerrey

That’s what was said about Obamacare.


21 posted on 10/30/2010 10:50:56 AM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kingu

See you at the barracades!!


22 posted on 10/30/2010 10:51:30 AM PDT by stockpirate ("......When the government fears the people you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: econjack

another sinister plot by leftist thieves


23 posted on 10/30/2010 10:52:33 AM PDT by EverOnward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

another sinister plot by leftist thieves


24 posted on 10/30/2010 10:53:16 AM PDT by EverOnward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black; ExTexasRedhead; null and void; rabscuttle385; SunkenCiv

OFF TOPIC PNG


25 posted on 10/30/2010 10:53:15 AM PDT by stockpirate ("......When the government fears the people you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leroy S. Mort
Luckily, my mattress doesn’t charge tax.

I hope you have a fire extinguisher in good working order, in your bedroom. :>)
26 posted on 10/30/2010 10:58:31 AM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Nice. they want to steal from peoples checking accounts.


27 posted on 10/30/2010 11:00:50 AM PDT by jd777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

and the government reaches ever deeper into our pockets.


28 posted on 10/30/2010 11:07:13 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

These dimwits, don’t seem to think that no-one would use banks again. Then cash would rule. It would be the end of credit cards, checking, savings, or any other “account”. Death of Mastercard Visa, AMEX, and even revolving balance store cards.

It would also be the end of direct deposit. Take the check to the bank and present it and take the cash. It would be a back door income tax on every payroll deposit.


29 posted on 10/30/2010 11:08:11 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (Democrats...the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy, and Sedition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Insanity. The Treasury Department couldn’t print paper money fast enough to keep up the demand. Of course, it’s not like the financial sector is on its knees or anything. Banks got lotsa money. Let’s make them lend it to poor folks to buy houses that they can’t afford under normal underwriting rules. What could go wrong? What could possibly go wrong?

Some people never learn. No sentient adult thinks this tax is a good idea. Unfortunately, Paul Krugman, Barak Obama, and Bwaney Fwank are, by this definition, excluded from the class, “sentient adults”.


30 posted on 10/30/2010 11:10:08 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (If not Boston, then Texas. Go Rangers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joan Kerrey

“This is why only 10 people responded. Not a chance it’ll go forward.”

Like Obamacare? When over half of the country was against it?
Don’t bet the farm that it won’t pass. Remember, a bunch of Dems are on the way out. What better, final F*ck You!?


31 posted on 10/30/2010 11:13:11 AM PDT by rickb308 (Nothing good ever came from someone yelling "Allah Snackbar")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Leroy S. Mort

[Luckily, my mattress doesn’t charge tax.]

Such a tax could literally break the banks. There would suddenly be a premium on cash. Since each dollar gets turned over multiple times during a year, 1% is actually a usury level rate.


32 posted on 10/30/2010 11:14:18 AM PDT by DaxtonBrown (HARRY: Money Mob & Influence (See my Expose on Reid on amazon.com written by me!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: econjack
This is the modern equivalent of the Stamp Act, which I posted before, and we desperately need Congress to pass this.

Why?...... Because, just like last time, the government would not survive.

33 posted on 10/30/2010 11:16:41 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu

This “camel” is carrying an awful lot of “straw” at this point and has yet to make any real protest about it.


34 posted on 10/30/2010 11:36:41 AM PDT by My hearts in London - Everett (You will try to nudge commies toward the truth, while they try to nudge you toward the cattle cars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: econjack

A 1% tax would never fly. BUT if they started at .01% ($100 /$1 million) that might go, and then they could increase it from there. (Same approach used with the stinking income tax.)


35 posted on 10/30/2010 11:38:46 AM PDT by The Truth Will Make You Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

We’d have black markets that rivaled the old USSR.

Years ago I read that 30% of Italy’s economy was underground due to taxes and regulations.

Ideas like this “transaction tax” are pure communism. And the USA is so far gone that no one will even admit that out loud.


36 posted on 10/30/2010 11:39:27 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s ( If you can remember the 60s....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Not gonna happen after an aroused public throws out 70 House dems.


37 posted on 10/30/2010 11:48:40 AM PDT by Zman (Liberals: denying reality since Day One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Sometimes, when the opposition gets really quiet, that’s a really bad sign. People have gone from talking to doing.

Such a tax would devastate the banks as people pull their funds and go cash-only.


38 posted on 10/30/2010 11:49:49 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
Actually, it was originally the idea of James Tobin of Yale (another...cough...Nobel prize-winning economist). I had an enormous row over this lunatic idea with the smug little bastard in 1977.

His (and THEIR, generally) problem is that they simply will not understand that most people will unfailingly change their behaviour in response to increased taxation, particularly of something SO ubiquitous as "financial transactions", however defined. Those posters on this thread who have predicted a rise in the "underground economy" are utterly and absolutely spot-on. Said rise will exceed anything one can imagine, too.

39 posted on 10/30/2010 11:49:49 AM PDT by SAJ (Zerobama -- a phony and a prick, therefore a dildo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
Actually, it was originally the idea of James Tobin of Yale (another...cough...Nobel prize-winning economist). I had an enormous row over this lunatic idea with the smug little bastard in 1977.

His (and THEIR, generally) problem is that they simply will not understand that most people will unfailingly change their behaviour in response to increased taxation, particularly of something SO ubiquitous as "financial transactions", however defined. Those posters on this thread who have predicted a rise in the "underground economy" are utterly and absolutely spot-on. Said rise will exceed anything one can imagine, too.

40 posted on 10/30/2010 11:52:45 AM PDT by SAJ (Zerobama -- a phony and a prick, therefore a dildo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat; SAJ

Apologies for the doubled post (sigh...).


41 posted on 10/30/2010 11:53:37 AM PDT by SAJ (Zerobama -- a phony and a prick, therefore a dildo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: econjack

My husband is having hissy fits about this.. We need to think..what is 1% of your pay check automatic deposit? How about the checks you write ?

Will the banks raise fees to cover the “extra” work?

Lets hope it dies a quick death


42 posted on 10/30/2010 11:57:10 AM PDT by RnMomof7 (Some call me harpy..God calls me His)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

This Rake is Rape.


43 posted on 10/30/2010 12:08:05 PM PDT by Surrounded_too (Robot machine guns and the Dirty Dozen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
You would be punished for putting your money in the bank, so you'd stuff it in your mattress instead.

Stuffing a paycheck into a mattress doesn't help much. You have to cash the thing. After that, though, you can operate on a cash basis.

You can't buy things on the Internet on a cash basis. That would put quite a crimp in my buying.

44 posted on 10/30/2010 12:17:38 PM PDT by JoeFromSidney ( New book, RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY. More @ www.book-resistancetotyranny.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Truth Will Make You Free

Peter: “That virus you’re always talking about, right? The one that could, uh, rip off the company for a bunch of money.”
Michael: “Yeah, what about it?”
Peter: “Well, how does it work?”
Michael: “It’s pretty brilliant. What it does is, every time there’s a bank transaction where interest is competed, you know, thousands a day, the computer ends up with these fractions of acent, which it usually rounds off. What this does is, it takes those little remainders and puts it into an account.”
Peter: “This sounds familiar.”
Michael: “Yeah, they did it in Superman III.”
Peter: “Right.”
Michael: “Yeah. Underrated movie, actually. And then there were a bunch of hackers, did it in the ‘70s as well. One of them got busted.”
Peter: “Well, so they check for this now.”
Michael: “No, here’s the thing. Initech’s so backed up with all the software we’re updating for the year 2000, they’d never notice.”
Peter: “You’re right. And even if they wanted to, they couldn’t check all that code.”


45 posted on 10/30/2010 12:22:21 PM PDT by dfwgator (Texas Rangers - Oh well it was a nice season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: econjack
This topic was posted here once before, but only 10 people commented on it!

It was too stupid to comment on.

It's also too stupid to get more than 10 votes in Congress.

46 posted on 10/30/2010 12:33:30 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

These posts never have links to the proposed legislation.

Ever wonder why not?


47 posted on 10/30/2010 12:45:11 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("Nobody tell Barack Obama what number comes after a trillion" --S.P.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack
Hairbrained schemes like this are making me seriously consider offshoring any funds I currently have in US banking facilities, whether it passes or not.

Call it a loss of confidence in our government.

48 posted on 10/30/2010 12:50:43 PM PDT by Sarajevo (You're jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack
Add to this the provisions in ZERO-care (AKA o-bummerCare) that allow gov’t access to all bank accounts and adds 1600 new IRS agents to enforce the new health laws and it seems plain enough. He is sticking it to the middle class on purpose, because to him and his "czars", we are as he recently put it, "the enemy".

The attack on America from within continues!

49 posted on 10/30/2010 1:03:12 PM PDT by Spitzensparkin1 (Arrest and deport all illegal aliens. Illegal is not a race - it is a crime. WhooRaah! Arizona!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

All you have to do is Google HR-4646.


50 posted on 10/30/2010 2:16:40 PM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson