WRONG CONCLUSION

THIS REFERS TO the article, ‘Amir Garib’ (IE, April 27). The writer gives the correct figures but he draws wrong conclusions. One per cent having 39.5 per cent wealth and getting 22.6 per cent income is gross and automatically growing inequality. Gross inequality and poverty of a very large majority, are two sides of the same coin. If you accept one, you have to accept the other. Inheritance tax and wealth tax are two effective ways of reducing such gross inequality. Reducing poverty automatically increases demand for goods and services, and thus creates jobs. Increased employment leads to a further reduction of poverty. Our rulers, whatever the political party, know this. But they are not sovereign enough to make the decision. They are answerable to the rich and, in some cases, are the rich. This explains why both major parties had an instant kneejerk reaction against the imposition of inheritance tax.

Subhash Athale, Kolhapur

THIS REFERS TO the article, ‘Amir Garib’ (IE, April 27). Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s poll speech targeted the Congress over Sam Pitroda’s comment on inheritance tax, saying that people’s hardearned wealth will be taken away by the Congress and given to Muslims. This prompted a debate over the redistribution of private wealth. The retaliation of India’s rich is apparent. The writer also concluded that the expropri ate-and-redistribute model has lost its political viability. Is that so? The government providingfree ration to 80 cr ore poor indians is an example of distributive justice. Moreover, there is deafening silence when this model works the other way round. Tribal lands are taken (expropriated) and given (redistributed) in the name of development projects, without proper rehabilitation of the displaced.

L RM ur mu, New Delhi