Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19530, 13 July 1925, Page 10

DEATH DUTIES. TO THE EDITOR, Sib, —Mr G. M. Fowlds and your correspondent “Experience” do not seem happy about the death duties, but there are two points of view that they may possibly have overlooked. Just as an illustration, let us suppose that they are both 60 years of age, and that for that time they have lived in New Zealand and have been partners in “New Zealand, Unlimited.” They through their representatives have supported all the loans raised for the Maori, Boer, and Great wars, for roads and bridges, and other purposes of which they have had the benefit, and their share of this expenditure is, eay, £155. They aro also responsible for the large amount raised by City, Borough, and County Councils, by Harbour and Hospital Boards, etc. Now a time comes when they have, whether willingly or otherwise, to go out of the partnership. Daring their lifetime they have received all the benefits of the partnership, and have been enabled to accumulate certain profits. Is it not fair and just that, on going out of the partnership, they should pay their fair share of the liabilities? Of course there are some members of the partnership who have accumulated no profits, and the liability should be distributed therefore in proportion to the benefits received, and I submit that the amount of a man's possessions is a fair indication of such benefits. Most people provide in their wills for the payment of their just debts, and this is one of them. The second point that these gentlemen have overlooked is that in the United States about 12 multi-millionaires have accumulated so much money that they control the banks, the insurance and trust companies, the railways, the telephona, and othei public services, the meat, oil, coal, iron, steel and 100 other trades; they own the newspapers and editors and give the public what news they think fit; they control the universities and what is to be taught in them, the legislatures, the ' Government, and the public bodies. They bleed the people and grow fatter in the process. Now can it be suggested that this is a wholesome state of matters in the interests of the community? These 12 multi-millionaires have, as a result of their partnership, accumulated enormous assets and power. When, therefore, their partnership in "United States Unlimited” is ended is it not a good time to have a thorough square-up and readjustment? What do they owe to the State? Would Mr Fowlds and your correspondent “Experience” be in favour of their wealth and power being handed on to their sons or relatives ? There is little doubt that the wealth that any man should bo allowed to leave to his family or relations should be strictly limited in the interests of the State and the heirs themselves. Wealth easily got i« usually a curse to those who receive it. I would go so far as to say that the amount that any man should be free to will should not exceed a sum of, say, £50,000. And that the rest should go to the State. Mr Fowld’s contention that the receipts from death duties should go in liquidation of the public debt is an excellent one and the only proper one.— I am, etc., W. 'J. Tekkent. Eoslyn.