SIR,--In your issue of December 6, a correspondent, Mr. D.
McDonald, drew attention to an inconsis- tency in Mr. Davenport's argument.
There is another feature of Mr. Davenport's argu- ment (vide his third instalment again) which requires —indeed demands—qualification. He makes the still almost universal mistake of comparing incomes of all sorts, both 'earned', and 'unearned,' in their grossed-up state, whereas common justice, as well as common sense, call for a comparison between let incomes': that is, free of tax.
So long as knowledgeable and intelligent writers inch as Mr. Davenport permit themselves to per- petuate these illogicalities, so long will their writings carry the taint of special pleading.