BY E. M. JOHNSTON, F.L.S. 



house. Thus take the following possible cases : 



21 





Capital Value 



Anmial 



Rent 



of 



The same as affected by 

 Land Tax 



Annual 

 Rent 



of 



In- 

 crease. 



Per 













Cent. 





Land 



House 



House 



Land 



House 



House 









£ 



£ 



£ 



£ 



£ 



£ 



£ 





A 



200 



2,000 



110 



342 



2,000 



117 



7 



6-3 



jB 



200 



1,500 



85 



342 



1,500 



92 



7 



8-2 



<J 



200 



1,200 



70 



342 



1,200 



77 



7 



io- 



i) 



200 



1,000 



60 



342 



1,000 



67 



7 



11-6 





200 



500 



35 



342 



500 



42 



7 



20- 



i!' 



200 



300 



25 



342 



300 



32 



7 



28" 



« 



200 



200 



20 



342 



200 



27 



7 



35- 



Land 40ft. frontage on street same Block. 

 Thus, if the total rental be a fair index to the means of each 

 tenant, the table shows that the effect of the single tax in 

 adding £7 alike to rich and poor, would be only a relative tax 

 to the rich (a) of 6 per cent., while to the poor (g) it would be 

 equal to an increase of 35 per cent. Thus it would appear that 

 the single tax would violate the most valuable canonof taxation, 

 — 8, (Adam Smith.) " The subjects of every State ought to 

 contribute towards the support of the Government as nearly 

 as possible in proportion to their respective abilities." When 

 we consider also that if the farmer is able to add the 

 increased burden of 28-45 per cent, to his products (and if he 

 tails by foreign competition to do this, he can no longer carry 

 on the farming industry in Tasmania), we must also add 

 ^8-45 per cent, to all products of Tasmania which the poor 

 man's family consumes, we perceive at once that the single tax 

 scheme would mainly fall with cruel severity upon the poor man, 

 and thus the scheme instead of a boon would be a curse to him, 

 and perhaps check half or most of our great producing 

 industries. If our principal industries were checked it would 

 operate at once in throwing a great part of the population out 

 of employment. Even if it only curtailed a labourer's 

 employment by 10 per cent, it would have the effect of 

 reducing his wages (at 6s. per day) by 092 pence, nearly a 

 Id. per hour: while if the whole land rental were directly 

 distributed among workmen yearlv it would only have the 

 ettect of raising their wages by : 679d. or only 2-3rds of a 

 penny per hour. 



As regards the supposed effect of decreasing the cost of 

 collecting revenue, and preventing fraud, it would have the 

 opposite effect. Collection by Customs in Tasmania only 

 represents 2-8 per cent, of the total revenue collected, as 

 against a charge of 5 per cent, for collection of Eeal Estate 

 Duties and Police Rate. 



Thus the whole of the canons of taxation cited by Mr. 

 George would be violated by any single tax proposal. 



