Explains why he thinks capital a more suitable measure for a special tax than income.
—————
Transcript
21st. June, 1939.
Dear Nash,
It was a great pleasure to see you at dinner the other night but I was sorry not to have had the opportunity of explaining to you the little point regarding which you asked my view, namely, why I think that capital rather than income is a suitable measure for a special tax. My answer is twofold.
First, I think in general that both capital and income are measures of a man’s capacity to pay. Apart from death duties which only operate after a man’s death, all the burden is laid on income and to such an extent that the most elaborate devices are resorted to to enable a man to avoid taxation. I doubt whether very much steeper income taxation can be adopted successfully without finding some new principle to prevent evasions in future. A tax on capital avoids some of these difficulties.
Secondly, for the purpose of the emergency it is the capital position about which I am most concerned. We shall of course all agree (as I said in my speech on the Budget Proposals) that you cannot make shells out of the title deeds of wealth and you must depend on the margin of income over expenditure for the purpose. But this margin will be spread over the community in various proportions according to accidental circumstances. Whereas the people who ought ultimately to pay are the people of great wealth. This is reinforced by the fact that, in the case of the very rich, income tax, surtax (even without any allowance for insuring against death duties) already take a very large slice of income and it would not be physically possible to take much more. Whereas if the tax is regarded specifically as a tax on capital there is no reason whatever why in this emergency they should not be called upon to hand over part of their title deeds of wealth and so prevent a serious increase in the national debt.
Yours sincerely,
[blank]
The Hon,† Walter Nash,
Savoy Hotel,
Strand,
London, W.C.2.
—————
† Sic.
11 Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London, W.C.2.—11 Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London, W.C.2.—Sets out his view of the present state of the Labour Party (see 3/6), and extracts part of a recent article in which he urged the party to deal with particular issues rather than debate the merits of its left and right wings.
—————
Transcript
11, Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London, W.C.2. 23rd. June 1955.
Dear Nash,
Thank you very much for your cordial air letter of the 13th inst.,† I am not quite clear what it is precisely that you want me to tell you about the Labour Party, but I will give you my candid and confidential opinion. I think the Labour Party failed at the General Election to rouse enough enthusiasm for its policy to bring doubtful voters to the poll to support its candidates, also the admitted differences between leading figures sowed a certain amount of confusion.
I have just written an article for the July issue of the Contemporary Review in the course of which I say
“. . . . Some people may take the view that it should go more “left” and others that it should go more “right”. I agree with neither. In my view both wings of a progressive party are needed if it is to go forward successfully. What I regard as essential is that it should drop its shibboleths and face up realistically to the problems of modern life. It must be prepared to deal positively with such things as the rent muddle and house dilapidation, the wage structure and the question of differentials, the free-enterprise sector of the national economy and the profit motive, education and the so-called public schools, restrictive practices in industry both by masters and men. If it is prepared to tackle all these and similar problems boldly and effectively it will earn the respect of the thinking minds in all classes of society. . . . .”
With regard to the personal differences in the Party I gather that Attlee is now acceptable to all concerned and that the divergence is between Bevan, on the one hand, and Morrison and Gaitskell on the other. This divergence is partly political and partly a struggle for pre-eminence after Attlee goes.
I doubt whether this fully answers your question in the way you want, but if you desire more detailed information and will explain to me exactly what you want, I will endeavour to supply it.
With all good wishes,
I remain,
[blank]
—————
† Sic.
Savoy Hotel, Strand, London, W.C.2.—Comments on Pethick-Lawrence’s broadcast proposing an emergency tax on wealth to help finance defence (see 3/9). He looks forward to hearing the subject discussed when they meet.
Savoy Hotel, Strand, London, W.C.2.—Thanks him for amplifying his views on taxation (see 3/10). It was a pleasure to meet him and his colleagues.
Office of the Leader of the Opposition, House of Representatives, Wellington, New Zealand.—Expresses sympathy, on behalf of his party and himself, on the death of Lady Pethick-Lawrence.
Office of the Leader of the Opposition, House of Representatives, Wellington, New Zealand.—Thanks him for his letter, and praises the address he gave at Lady Pethick-Lawrence's cremation.
Office of the Leader of the Opposition, House of Representatives, Wellington, New Zealand.—Commends Pethick-Lawrence’s book Fate Has Been Kind, and asks about the present state of the British Labour movement.
—————
Transcript
Office of the Leader of the Opposition,
House of Representatives,
Wellington, N.Z.
13 June 1955
The Right Hon. Lord Pethick-Lawrence, P.C.,
House of Lords,
London,
ENGLAND.
Dear Pethick-Lawrence,
May I send this note to say that whilst many years have passed since you wrote the book “Fate Has Been Kind”, two of the readers have been good enough to send to me a copy of the book with instructions that I should specially examine your reference to finance on page 123 {1}, but for myself I have read the whole of the text and enjoyed the historical references, the description of the splendid fight that you and your late wife and the Pankhursts put up to enable womankind to exercise the franchise.
Unfortunately the memory of the public is very short and it is generally dulled with prosperity, else you with your colleagues in Britain would still be in the Government. Despite the set-back of the recent election {2}, I am hoping that the work of the Labour movement will be continued by some of our younger people with the same fervour and determination as characterized yourself and others in the earlier years. Personally, I believe from a material point of view the last half century has shown a greater proportionate progress than any other similar period about which I have been privileged to read in history.
I am anxious to obtain as full a description as I can of the present position in our own movement in Britain and if you could refer me to any source that would enable me to know the position regarding Bevan, Gaitskell, Clem Attlee, Herbert Morrison and any other personalities on whose judgment we could place reliance, I would be happy.
Again, congratulations on the delightful text of your book, and with kind personal regards,
I am,
Yours sincerely
W Nash
—————
{1} The passage in question concerns Pethick-Lawrence’s examination before a Parliamentary Select Committee on Finance in April 1920, when he expressed his support for a capital levy.
{2} The election of 26 May 1955 was won by the Conservative Party.
Office of the Leader of the Opposition, House of Representatives, Wellington.—Hopes that Attlee will continue to lead the Labour Party (in Britain; see 3/11), and agrees that it is more important to deal positively with actual circumstances than to debate abstract questions of ‘left’ or ‘right’.
House of Representatives, Wellington, New Zealand.—Sends good wishes on his marriage.
Looks forward to meeting him at Lord Strabolgi’s dinner. Sends a copy of a broadcast he made last night (proposing an emergency tax; see 3/2).