of 4 per cent. will have to be paid for debenture capital now raised by the best industrial companies.  For those who have money to lend, the burden of tax may thus be practically met by an increased income, but for those whose money is locked up in permanent investments there will be no indirect relief in higher rates of interest.  Income tax, house duty, and rates will absorb so much that the margin for voluntary expenditure will be small even out of incomes that are nominally high.

The death duties, especially where a deceased person leaves a large family, already cause much hardship.  A general increase in the existing rates of estate duty cannot be made without discouraging thrift.  It is a hardship if it is made impossible for parents to make reasonable provision for children some of whom may from various causes be unable to earn for themselves.  On the contrary, where there are no children and no widow to be provided for, death duties might be much increased without causing hardship.  A very much higher legacy duty might be charged in the case of large sums passing on death to persons other than the widow, direct descendants, or other near relatives of a deceased person.  On small legacies the present rates should suffice, but there is no moral claim for distant relatives to be allowed to take large sums.  Would there be any real hardship in imposing a heavy duty of, say, 25 per cent. on gifts over, say, L1,000 to collateral relations not dependent on the testator or to strangers?  Or there might be a graded scale according to the remoteness of the relationship.  In case of intestacy it would be often a real advantage to take the whole property for the State, if there were no relations within the third or fourth degree, i.e., uncles and aunts, and nephews and nieces being in the third degree, first cousins in the fourth.  Economists for the last hundred years—­Bentham, Mill, and others—­have advocated such a change.  Nearly every judge or officer of the Courts who has to do with the administration of estates would support a change which would do away with much wasteful litigation and disappoint no reasonable expectations.  No source of revenue should be neglected if it can truly be said that by imposing the additional taxation proposed there will be (i) no dislocation of trade or hampering of industry or commerce; (ii) no discouragement of thrift; (iii) no real hardship; (iv) no great expense incurred in collection in proportion to the amount raised.  It is only sheer stupidity that refuses to adopt a means of raising even a small amount when the method proposed for doing so would have positively beneficial results in other ways.

The land increment duty should be a warning as regards cost of collection.  That cost relatively to the amount produced has been enormous.  But actual cost of collection as returned, represents only a small part of the expenditure really caused by the tax.  The time taken up in making returns and filling up forms and obtaining the necessary advice in doing so is a burden on those who own even the smallest landed property and causes real hardship and injury.  It discourages people from acquiring small properties.