We knew that Elizabeth Lesley Stevens' weekend column would provoke some lively discussion. Elizabeth used the story of San Francisco's Robert Kendrick, heir to the Shlage Lock Co. fortune, as an example of why our tax structure needs to change to make the rich pay more.

We have posted a couple of formal letters to our letters page, you can read them here. There are also some comments posted on the story, and comments on our Facebook page. And then there are the various emails sent directly to Elizabeth and to some of the editors here. Since they were not necessarily intended for publication, I'll offer some quotes without attribition.

Before we get to that, though, I'd note that we are not alone in focusing on taxes for the rich this week. An Associated Press story this morning, appearing in the San Jose Mercury News, notes that: Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically. And the Huffington Post is featuring an analysis entitled The Top Ten Tax Breaks -- And How They Help The Wealthy The Most .

The objections to Elizabeth's column fell into a couple of camps. Some thought we were heartless for singling out Mr. Kendrick: "What a sanctimonious, ugly, editorialized piece of reporting," wrote one reader. "Who are you, and why do you think it's okay to publicly humiliate and eviscerate a man whose "crime" is enjoying the fruits of his inheritance, and using the legal system to pursue the killers of his cat and the thieves who burgled his house...You must just be a very vengeful human being..."

Others find the very principle of taxation to be dubious, on the grounds that ones hard-earned money belongs to the earner, not the government: "You have displayed the extreme of consummate gall to determine how I should distribute my wealth. I started in 1955 earning $250.00 per month and opened a savings account with that very first paycheck. That $250 was before taxes. My net retention was significantly less. I worked hard, being in the office from 6:30AM until 9:00PM. I saved and invested --- always paying my taxes. No gimmicks and no tax shelters. Now at 78 you want to share my wealth. Kindly make love to yourself."

Of course, some people thought we were simply pointing out the elephant in room on all the current fiscal policy debates: "Did you witness the poop bomb being tossed into Kendrick's Mercedes? His parking "employment" was a wonderful hook for the story, a great illustration of the life of leisure of a ridiculously wealthy heir. I loved the piece and agreed with both the commenters that it was "brave" but also hardly shocking. As you said why is something so obvious -- as an issue of tax fairness -- so controversial?"

Let us know your thoughts!