Yes--but for what reason?
Because they encourage exceptional men, whose services are essential to society, to develop and use their capacities to "the fullest extent possible"; and this is merely another way of saying that, without the motive provided by the possibility of accumulation and bequest, the exceptional faculties would not be developed or used at all.

Moreover, the amounts which may be accumulated and bequeathed, although they will be strictly limited, must, "X" says, be considerable.

He suggests that incomes should be allowed up to L8,000, and bequeathable property up to L200,000.

And here we come to a question which is still more pertinent than the preceding.

Why must the permissible amounts of income and of bequeathable property be of proportions such as those which he contemplates?
Why does he not take his bill and write down quickly L200 of income instead of L8,000, and limit bequeathable property to L2,000 instead of L200,000?
Because he evidently recognises that the men whose possible services to society are "immensely and incalculably greater" than those of the majority of their fellow citizens would not be tempted by a reward which, reduced to its smallest proportions, would not be very largely in excess of what was attainable by more ordinary exertions.