Nov. 12.
A Home writer, who manages to be witty even on financial subjects, has made the remark that Mr. Lloyd George's success as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the early days of the war was due to the fact that he knew nothing about finance, knew that he knew nothing, and'so accepted the advice of those competent to give it. The suggestion seems to be implied that the present Chancellor knows so much that he is not prepared to be guided by the leading financiers in the City. However this may be, it is certain to-day that the opposition to abnormal forms of taxation like the excess profits duty is such as will give the Government seriously to think as to its further continuance after the present financial year. We have, of course, seen strenuous opposition to other forms of taxation, which seemed to make the well-to-do a special target for rapacious Exchequer officials. There was loud outery against the unearned increment tax, for instance. But the opposition then.could not prevail against the trend of modern opinion. The case of the excess profits duty, however, seems very different, and the opposition is by no means confined to the United Kingdom. It is as strong in the United States, where it is taking an even more tangible form in protests to Government by bankers and businessmen. The fact that these objections are so widespread suggests that we are dealing with a form of taxation which is too artificial to justify itself.
The excess profits duty in its present form was the Government's alternative to a levy on capital, whether on capital generally or on war wealth. The case for a levy on capital was exhaus-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.