So came the decree from King John. All peasants would now tithe a portion of their yield to the Crown. 
     This did not sit well with Robin of the 'hood, for he envisioned a greater portion be his, all of it. 
     Upon this point he made a vow. "No king or his men shall from me take that which I have rightfully earned in order to live in lavish castles, surround themselves with shapely courtesans, engage in further enriching trade, and finance wars with France and other faraway places"
       Unfortunately for Robin, the king and his men ruled the fields and villages, where crops could be planted and families raised. Robin of the 'hood had to take to the forest. 
     But only temporarily, for he did not think he'd last long. His aim was he would live it up while he could. His exploits there were not the first, but just another example of guerrilla warfare. 
      He, from his lair, raided the king's stores and distributed the goods therein, and gleefully so, to other peasants, who certainly could have used a little bit more. 
     This did not sit well with the king. He commanded his men to enter the forest, seek out Robin, and bring him to 'justice'. 
But the king's men were not the best paid and so some of them took up Robin's cause, which exacerbated the king's conflict with Robin and threatened to turn it into an all out war that might threaten the throne itself. The king's position was not yet dominant throughout his realm and he could ill stand to have his men uselessly searching for bandits in the forests when he had enough trouble keeping the peace in the villages and towns. 
      Enter a common sense guy, perhaps the laid back ‘cuz of the mercurial and driven Sheriff Of Nottingham. He reasoned with the Sheriff to negotiate with Robin but the Sheriff would not budge. 'Twas the Sheriff's mistake. 
       Robin became celebrated and legendary, the Sheriff (and King John) his frustrated foils, and that's kind of how the story ends for even back then there was huge income inequality. 

       Fast-forwarding to this day, this time, this year, we can see that income inequality is not so much changed from the days of olde. We have, while not lords and ladies, personages holding vast sums of treasure which could be used to 'alleviate the suffering of the masses' but instead, those at the top of the heap, if you want to call it that (it has to be called something) have directly or indirectly, through their efforts at gain, actually enriched the masses beyond the wildest dreams of any peasant tilling the soil around Sherwood Forest. 

It is said that at one time chocolate and oranges were delicacies reserved for royalty. Imagine that. 
We have more stuff, more food choices, and far better living conditions than the kings of times past, yet that stubborn income gap remains. 
  It's all relative, though, isn't it? So what if LeBron has 140 million laying around in his crib? I've got Netflix, oranges, and chocolate, and I can binge watch shows that hordes of actors, writers, producers, and directors have created for my viewing pleasure, 
  I've got internet that can give me the street view of some random town in the U.S., and some countries in the world, with more countries to come,
And I can travel. For godsakes, how many lifetimes did I spend stuck in some town or country with no knowledge of the outside world?
    Yet the income gap remains. The 'peasants' are not yet free. 
     And until that gap is closed, until the classes meet, there will always be discord, wanting, and aching desire, because those 'peasants' aren't dumb animals, they’re people that dream.. True, their dreams may be dulled by the conditions that they are subjected to, have been subjected to, but.....they're humans. You can't deny that. 
    The powers that be treat this as a condition of life, a situation out of their control, a problem unable to be solved, a goal to aspire to, a task yet undone, an accomplishment for those in the future, and still, the income gap remains. 
    Never a hot topic, this one. Let's shelve it until next year, next session. Business has to be attended to. Forever. 
    Ok. Perhaps we set a standard of living then, one that is mandated for the populace? This is being tried out in some countries right now. The bone of contention with this concept is that if people don't have to work, they won’t. Is this true? A certain percentage of people seem to instantly go on the dole like they've just arrived in heaven but the others want to contribute somehow, someway, but not in the way they used to. This groundbreaking idea will take further thought, further tweaking, but it appears to be workable. 
    If people are given a set standard of living, one where not just survival needs (welfare) are met but where they are 'comfortable' (that level being agreed upon not by politicians but by The People living under those conditions) and it then becomes their choice to go for more, would that be an okay solution to an ages olde problem? If Joe over here is happy with his lot, whatever that may be, and Jane over there is the same, they could hardly be said to care much about what else goes on in the world. I guess that would be called living in peace.

I saw this on my travels. Most people are happy when they are left alone to do what they want, and what they want is pretty simple and satisfying stuff. Friends, family, some money but not a lot, enjoyable work. That is what seems to be universally important. 
    So, Income Inequality can still be and those that want wealth can have it, but no more guerrilla wars or anything like that to bring the peasants past the place of yearning. 
    Is this do-able? Now? It's already done for a fair percentage of the population. No king could ever imagine loading a package of Chicken Cordon Bleu into his microwave at home that he just bought at Costco and we don't have to have the troubled and ambitious staff at Downton Abbey setting our fireplaces and arranging flowers on the damn dining table in time for the master of the house's dinner- 
-but we also can't push the bottom percentile under the rug like we could back in the day and just forget about 'em. That's unconscionable anymore. 
Just sayin'.