SPENDERS AND SAVERS.
(To me EDITOR or Ins "SescTITO ."1 Sra,—Your correspondent Mr. Pethick Lawrence, in his attempt to refute Mr. Bell's argument against a levy on capital, makes a most unwarrantable assumption. Speaking of those who live mainly on wealth accumulated in the past, he says these include "those who through the accident of age or ocenpation have escaped personal service in the war, and have been enabled during it to add greatly to their fortunes." I should like to know in what way persons of fixed income, derived from inherited wealth, have had opportunity to "add greatly to their fortanee " during this war. Have they not, on the contrary, had to struggle to make both ends meet owing to a greatly diminished income, and have they not seen their capital enormously depreciated in value? On what pos- sible grounds of justice does he propose to exempt wealth made by industry to-day " and to levy taxation on wealth thriftily accumulated in the past) He alludes to "the startling fact that the total of private fortunes has actually increaaed during the war by several thousand millions," and it Is on this "increased accumulation of private wealth rather than upon industry and exertion " that he would make a levy. Can he possibly be unaware that this "Increase of private for- tunes" is mainly due to the savings of munition workers and employers invested in War Loans ? And does he, or does he not propose that such investments should be included in his levy
on capital P—I am, Sir, &a., Paveam Tuammus Sandybrook Hall, Ashbourne.
Previous page
