They seem to feel that, so long as they are taking money away from some and giving it to others (less a substantial handling fee for themselves), they are so virtuous as to be above such a concept.

The issue for them is whether those blatantly wronged form an electorally significant percentage. Whether fairness for a minority matters depends upon its size. That is the difference between political thinking and principled thinking.

Last year's reform of inheritance tax was arguably a case of too much, too late. It doubled the tax allowance on some estates and not others, depending upon a difference of a day or so either way in the date of the holder's death.

What had been needed was a remedy to save testators requiring clairvoyance. If an inheritance goes to someone who turns out not to need it, then it should be passed on again with no greater tax liability than if it had gone directly to the next beneficiary.

This could be achieved by allowing the first will to be rewritten several years later or by passing on the tax allowance along with the money. What was actually done was to pass on the tax allowance even where there is no money.

Bizarrely, a wealthy single person could now reduce the eventual tax liability on their estate by well over £100,000 simply by marrying a terminally ill pauper. Tax injustice needs to be resolved within the same total tax yield. (There are perhaps greater injustices in the combination of tax and spend, but that is a separate issue). The demand of those who fall just short of privileged couple status should not be "me too". Sharing the privilege means reducing it.

A couple can now be anyone not barred by the incest laws from claiming a sexual relationship. Is there really a need to promote coupling, and if so, do we imagine the state is any more capable of this than it is of promoting healthy eating?

Inheritance tax was intended as a measure against the transmission of concentrations of wealth intact across generations. It was natural for transfer between partners to be exempt because they are usually of the same generation. We could drop the "couple" concept and have instead a sliding scale of tax rate depending upon the age difference between testator and beneficiary. The relatively free passage of money to survivors within the same age group would be similar to the basis on which pension funds work.


Forget rationing, just think before you drive


From: Alan Yearsley, Hopedale Road, Frecheville, Sheffield.

REGARDING your item on car rationing (Yorkshire Post, April 23). If the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly is looking at rationing the use of cars, they should bring in a system whereby at least one old car must be deregistered for every new car registered.

That would halt the growth in the number of cars on our roads, which we will have to do if we are to tackle CO2 emissions.

It would also make it more difficult for youngsters to get their own cars as soon as they are old enough and make existing motorists think twice about buying a second car or getting a new one when their existing vehicle is still perfectly good and meets their needs.


Climate change can't be blamed for shortages


From: Malcolm Rainforth, Castle Mills, Waterside, Knaresborough.

IT would now seem that any problem that occurs in the country, it is "climate change" to blame. It seems that climate change is to blame for the current food shortages.

Nothing of the sort, the food shortages were caused by meddling politicians both in England and the unelected ones in Brussels, namely the EU.

We had a bit of a grain mountain and a milk lake a few years ago and the cost, it was said, was too great, so we got milk quotas and set aside. Thousands of acres growing rubbish that should have been growing food.

Now we have land growing diesel instead of food, so what do you expect? If farmers (I am a retired one) were allowed to farm and grow food, which is their profession, and not be ruled and hindered by the likes of MPs and civil servants, who don't know a bullock from a crop of wheat, this country and others would be in a better position with regards to food.

It seems money is no object for bullets and bombs, so why not a few quid for storing a bit of surplus grain and a drop of spare milk for a rainy day?