Comments on: Love and Taxes

By: Jessica

Jessica — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:35:53 +0000

YES! SOMEONE ELSE HAD THIS FIGHT TOO! YES! YES! YES!

By: Greg Bright

Greg Bright — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:50:19 +0000

Hey Jaime and Chris. I was checking out your site today. . . its great. Seems like good fun. I did have to comment on this topic though. . . why not a flat percentage? Everyone pays the same percentage. It doesn’t benefit or hinder the poor or the rich as it is the same part of their income. A flat percentage with no April filing and no changes to the income as you make more or less. What do ya think?

By the way. . . it was great meeting you Chris and seeing you Jaime.

By: jaime

jaime — Sun, 03 May 2009 14:53:38 +0000

Aditi- What I told Chris was not *quite* as simple as he presented it- I don’t believe that working hard equates more money in all cases. My viewpoint is strictly based on living in San Francisco, where a small portion of the population chooses not to work at all and instead live off of everyone else’s hard work. Nothing angers me more than walking down Haight Street and seeing groups of people in their early 20s smoking cigarettes and asking strangers for money. Help from the government (and the public in general) should be reserved for those who need it.

By: aditi

aditi — Sun, 03 May 2009 03:20:07 +0000

if i may just add, tho i realize i’m a bit late to the debate - i have to comment on the whole idea that if you work harder, you make more money. in my experience this just isn’t true. i think the custodians in my building probably work harder than me sometimes, but they’re certainly making less than me. and any time i compare the amount of time and effort architects are expected to put in (in school, in internship time spent to achieve licensure, and at work) to the money they make, to others with professional degrees (lawyers and biz folks, even planners), i come up quite short.

so for these reasons also heartily side with the non-flat taxers.

By: Jaime

Jaime — Sat, 02 May 2009 05:15:46 +0000

Damn. He is a good cook!

By: matt

matt — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:39:59 +0000

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

– Noted left-winger Adam Smith

TL;DR version: the poor actually need their money more than the rich, so to maximize overall well-being, taxes should fall mostly on the rich.

By: jaime

jaime — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:53:55 +0000

Oh no, Chris. That wasn’t an editorial decision. You really did write “puppies vs. puppies.” I thought it was just another one of your super dry jokes, so I left it in there. HA!

By: chris

chris — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:14:27 +0000

That originally said “puppies vs. kittens.” I think Jaime made an executive editor decision that we should get a dog.

By: kg

kg — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:07:14 +0000

Puppies vs. puppies? That sounds like some sort of cruel fight club.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:01:41 +0000

I’m with Chris on this one as far as tax policy goes… although I do think it is a slippery slope these days to go from being middle class to poor (all it takes is one layoff and no family to fall back on). And having to deal with rich people on a daily basis through work, I can attest that they are not all smart and/or hard workers.