Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1909. DEATH DUTIES.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 4466, 23 September 1909, Page 2

Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1909. DEATH DUTIES.

Wiien the New Zealand Herald gets away from its two pet themes, the Native Land Question and the sins of omission and commission of the Ward Ministry, it gets very mixed up, as may be seen in the following quotation : “ That ‘ Capital ’ owes a duty to the community cannot be doubted — but does it owe a death duty ? If we consider the matter impartially we must see that the duty of * Capital ’ is to increase the strength of the nation and to elevate the condition of the industrious people of the nation.”

The above is taken from a leading article in the Herald of 16th instant, on “ The British Death Duties.” Capital is that part of a man’s

wealth which is used to produce more wealth. Some economists define it as : “ Wealth which yields a revenue.” Not to pursue it further it is clear that Capital alluded to by the Herald has neither body, soul, or mind, and is a material substance utterly incapable of legal or moral responsibility, or obligation involved in duty. Mere material things cannot be held accountable for ethical duty. To write or talk as if they could is ridiculous. Only men and women, or higher intelligences can be strictly said to be accountable for duties, and they may generally be said to owe a duty to themselves, to each other, and to the Supreme Creator.

What the New Zealand Herald should have said was “ Capitalists,” not “ Capital.” It is capitalists who when living owe a duty to the nation —the duty “ to increase the strength of the nation and to elevate the condition of the industrious people of the nation.” It is Capitalists who, on dying, should yield up to the State a fair and reasonable proportion of the wealth which the State protected and enabled them to acquire and save. To intercept at a rich man’s death a fair and necessary portion of his riches before they pass to the new owners, who never miss what they never had, is deemed both convenient and just, and necessary for the support of good Government. If Capitalists had in the past recognised and performed those duties better than they have done, they would not have become so unpopular, and the multitude, led by Socialists, and even non-Socialist Governments, like the present British Govern* ment, would not have become so angrily determined to wrest some of their capital from them by taxation or otherwise. No newspaper in New Zealand has been more backward than the Herald in pointing out to capitalists the duty and wisdom of doing some real Social service “ to elevate the condition of the industrious people of the nation.” Even in the article now criticised, the Herald writes with bated breath.

. We have always held and still hold, that Capitalists and a rich class are a great benefit to any community, so long as they do their duty to themselves, their families and to the community. We claim that their property and capital is sacredly their own, subject to the legitimate claims of their families and the State. It will be seen that we shall never join in the insane and wicked practice of hounding down the rich, or denying them the legitimate rewards of their properly invested capital in industry, com" merce, or agriculture. Those countries, and the working classes especially in those countries, fare best when capitalists get fair play and adequate returns for their investments- Those who penalise and denounce the rich merely because they are rich, and who ruthlessly try to confiscate their capital whether by unnecessary taxation or otherwise, do a moral and political wrong, and they inflict a great injury on the community, because they punish the thrifty and scare capitalists away to a more secure place.

But when the Herald asks as regards capital: “ Does it owe a death-duty ?” we unhesitatingly say of course capitalists do. That is the opinion of eminent economists. Adam Smith points out that “ from the earliest times the collection of a tax on the occasion of the transference of property from the dead to the living has been made for the purpose of raising revenue for the State.” He argues in favour of death duties because they square with hiß four caDons of taxation equality, economy, certainty and convenience Although Adam Smith contended that certain objections might apply to taxes on a too frequent transference of property, John Stuart Mill and Professor Sidgewick dismissed his objections as of no weight, and claimed that legacy duties are just and wise. The House of Commons has again ratified that.

Ever since 1694 death duties have been levied in the United Kingdom. The death duty has gone on increasing and, provided the amount of the duty levied be fair and reasonable and such as is absolutely necessary for good Government and the defence of the National life and property, there can be no reasonable objection to it. But whether all Mr Lloyd George’s new Budget proposals are wise and fair is a question we cannot deal with now.