I AM sorry that Mr Hunter felt patronised by my letter published on September 18. He clearly recognises that as ''taxes pay for our society'', the formula ''taxes are bad and should be reduced'' is naive, simplistic, and unworthy of a civilised society. Sadly, too many of the remarks I have heard and read over the last days - including those made by Messrs Hague and Portillo today - have not risen to this level of sophistication and have adopted exactly that tone. It was to these that my comments were addressed.

Mr Hunter goes on to make some very valid points. I was particularly interested in his suggestion of taxing fuel by the measure rather than the cost. This may have much to recommend it in terms of predictability of revenue and I hope that the Chancellor considers it.

Mr Hunter's comments on arbitrary taxation are also well made; though it is difficult to see what could be more arbitrary than levying taxation on the basis of whether or not a sector in society can bring the country to a standstill. All indirect taxation is arbitrary to one degree or another. I argued that tax levelled at an item only purchased by people sufficiently able and sufficiently well-off to drive was less arbitrary than more generalised forms of indirect taxation such as VAT; it is clearly arbitrary to a significant extent.

The problem, which Mr Hunter identifies, is that it has become politically unfeasible to propose raising direct taxation of wealth through income tax. It will take courage on the part of politicians and maturity on the part of the electorate if that is to be changed. In the meantime the kind of posturing we've seen from the Conservative Party does little to help.

I take issue with Mr Hunter's closing remarks. My original letter was prompted by an apparent lack of proportion; where desperate levels of poverty went relatively unremarked, but expensive petrol was viewed as privation and injustice worth taking to the streets for. Mr Hunter's closing remarks show a similar tendency.

The Ceausescu regime closed down opposition newspapers, tortured and executed dissidents, and committed dreadful atrocities. During the time of Mao Tzedung and later the Chinese Government systematically slaughtered forces of opposition and perpetrated the bloodbath of Tiananmen Square. In contrast the British Government in ''targeting future protests'' is not considering anything remotely like the levels of oppression applied against trade unions in this country during the 80s.

To equate these things - and I'm not sure I support them - to the works of Ceausescu and Mao is to further muddy waters stirred up by anger and, worse, to belittle and demean the suffering and despair experienced by the victims of those authoritarian regimes.

Andrew A Morton,

19 Sherwood Park, Lockerbie.

September 20.