NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 17, Issue 288, 22 August 1923, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY

The Government is taking an undoubtedly progressive step in asking Parliament to amend the legislation governing the payment of subsidies to county councils. As the law stands, the maximum amount of subsidy that may be paid to any one county is £2500, and this limit has applied to new countries formed by the amalgamation of two or more pre-existing counties. Under the new proposal, counties amalgamating will suffer no loss of subsidy. An, impetus will thus be given to the merging of counties. There is no doubt that in many cases this will make for a more economical and efficient administration of rural affairs. At the meeting of the Counties Conference recently, the president (Mr, Jull) spoke of the impending amalgamation of some of the existing counties as a development that should be encouraged.

There is something to be said for the complaint of members that the so-called Finance Bill introduced yesterday is a hotch-potch of clauses relating in some cases to matters which would be better placed in the “Washing-up” Bill. The only possible excuse for not placing some of tho clauses in separate measures is that by grouping them in the Finance Bill it is likely to save time. Even so it is a bad practice, and leads to confusion. As to the proposals themselves, generally speaking there is little to be against them. It is quite true, as Mr. Wilford and Mr. Hanan pointed out, the borrowing authorisations sought are heavy. In the case of the loans for Advances to Settlers, however, it roust be obvious that the expiry of the moratorium makes this provision urgently necessary. The Leader of the Opposition himself practically suggested that the amount would not meet requirements. The £4,000,000 to be raised for public works is a large sum, and it can only be justified by a careful allocation of the money for purposes which are clearly of a reproductive nature. The claim that particulars of the class of works for which the money is to be used should be given is reasonable, and presumably when the Bill reaches its Committee stage these particulars will be given. Most people now agree that our Public Debt has reached such large dimensions that future borrowing should be limited to meet only urgent needs. Tho difficulty is to determine the degree of urgency. Judging by the claims for expenditure by members of Parliament themselves, even those who preach economy and self-reliance are not over-ready to practise these virtues where the public purse is concerned.

A CLAUSE in the Finance Act provides that any gift in aid of a charitable trust shall be exempt from estate duty even should the donor die within three years after having made the gift. Under the existing law any such gift made within three years of the death of, the donor would be included for taxation purposes as part of his ’ estate The amendment represents a concession which, in the public interest, might well be broadened very considerably. Bequests of a public character are still subject to estate duty, and on more than one ground—assuming always, of course, that they actually benefit the public—ought to bo exempted. The impost as it stands is definitely a check and penalty on the generosity of those who may contemplate the endowment of some institution or other object of public utility. Where such bequests are made on a liberal scale, the existing condition with regard to estate duty not infrequently bears with serious hardship on! those who inherit the residue of the estate. Instances have occurred in which a very considerable part of this residue has been absorbed in the payment of duty on the bequest. A modification of the present grasping policy to the extent of exempting approved bequests, as well as gifts, to the public would satisfy considerations of equity. Probably, also, in these conditions the amount and volume of bequests Eo the public would increase.