DECEASED PERSONS’ ESTATES.

Evening Star, Issue 13090, 24 October 1908, Page 5

DECEASED PERSONS’ ESTATES.

TO THE EDITOE. Sir, —For the first time in my lif© I have been called upon to act as a trust©© under the will of a dead friend. -My lawyer, who had for many years been a dear friend to the deceased, has given me great attention and much advice, which (having , been paid for out of the estate) I have L found most profitable. He has directed I my attention to the duties payable on the . final balance of the estate of deceased per- ' eons. These axe os follows: 1. Not exceeding £IOO ... No duty. 2. Upon any amount exceeding £IOO, but not exceeding £I,OO0 — On he first £IOO ... No data. And on the remainder £2£ per cent. 3. Upon any amount exceeding £i,ooo. but not exceeding £5,000 ... £3£ per cent. 4. Upon any amount excelling £5,000, and up to £20,000 £7 per cent. 5. Upon £20,000 and any amount over that sum ... £lO per cent. Strangers in blood, excepting adopted children £3 per cent. additional. Surely, if it he fair to charge per cent, up to £5,000, it is unfair to charge £7 per cent, from £5,000 up to £20,000. If you do not agree with that proposition, it may be that you will concede the unfairness of only charging £lO per cent, on any amount over £20,000, If it be true, as apparently is the case, that wealth can only be acquired at the cost of ibc community, then surely the greater the wealth, accumulated the Larger the proportion which ought to be deducted by the Stale for the benefit of the State. I hare noticed New Zealand estates certified at £250,000, £500,000, and, indeed, ood readied nearly three-quarters of a million. It seems to me absurd to suggest that these large fortunes, or, indeed, much smaller accumulations, could have been achieved but for the assistance of the Slate, which provides protection and police, law and order. It may bo objected that the man with the purse pays taxes during bis lifetime in proportion to bis wealth. A little consideration will, however, explain that fallacy. For instance, the duty on tea and sugar is, no doubt, the some whether the man who uses it is a milionairo or a wage-earner, hut obviously a very much larger proportion of his wages are expended in tea and sugar. It ought to be a truism that every man should be compelled to contribute to the common fund in proportion to his means. However modest a man may be in Ids disclosures to the tax gatherer, there are ways and means which make it somewhat perilous to his executor or administrator to follow his example. My kind legal friend tolls me that he has known one or two cases of reticence which have not stood the test of inquiry, but that upon the whole he thinks that death duties are usually accurately gauged W the officers of the State. If that bo so, it seems to follow that the State has already provided machinery whereby a much larger and more equitable percentage than 10 per cent, on any amount over toe sum of £20,000 con easily and accurately bo collected. The elections are attracting much attention at present. Candidates might bo asked to pledge themselves to insist upon legislation that will ensure equitable progressive taxation on deceased persons* estates. This 'would lighten, instead of in-‘ creasing, the burdens of too vast majority of electors, and his pledge would doubtless greatly increase the popularity of the candidate.—l am, etc., JnsnTiA. , October 24.