Taxation as affecting the Agricultural Interest. 419 = 155 
The mode in which this incidence affects these owners is, how- IVculiaiities of 
ver, exceptional. These rates are no payment by them out of ''ite-incidence. 
net income already received. They are deductions from revenue 
i\ hich, but for the rates, would be receivable by the owners, so 
hat the accurate measure of their pressure is a slightly lower 
percentage than would appear if it were calculated on the net 
rental which reaches the landlord's pocket. 
From the total of the rates, officially returned as such, I believe 
it is also necessary, when we come to discriminate thus closely 
nto the question of relative burden, to eliminate, as not posses- 
iing a thoroughly fiscal character, such rates on land as those 
equired for drainage and embankment, and such rates on houses 
»s are mere payments for commodities, like gas or water, or 
.vhich are avowedly investments for the private or peculiar 
jenefit of rated properties. 
Reducing, therefore, the gross percentage by both of the two 
ast considerations, a careful analysis of the items of what I have 
ailed owner's rates will show that the percentage by which they 
educe the landlord's agricultural income is 8 per cent., that on 
he house-owner's income it is 6^ per cent., and that on the 
iverage holders of railway and other specially-rated incomes it 
s 3j per cent. Adopting, therefore, the ratios thus slightly Relative total 
•educed, I will try roughly to present in a tabular form * a closer t ix^'tion of 
uialysis of the relative fiscal position of agricultural incomes 
■ L 1 r 1 r 1 1 • 1-1 1 incomes, 
.vitn those oi each oi the several sections into which upper- and 
niddle-class revenues may be divided. 
Since, however, it is desired not only to show the probable 
charges borne by both partners on the collective revenues of the 
gricultural firm, but to discriminate between the apparent shares 
il the land-owner and the land-occupier in all these burdens, I 
attempt also to supply separate estimates of their relative taxes. 
t is often argued that, whatever may be the case in regard to 
muses, and the partial incidence of the town-rates on their 
)ccupiers, political economy forbids us to regard a rate on land 
IS ultimately incident elsewhere than on the owner of the soil. 
V regard, however, to the primary pressure inseparable from 
he modern increment of rates, a remembrance of the friction 
ind frequent absence of exhaustively rigid bargaining between 
andlord and tenaht, as well as the undoubted difficulty which 
he farmer, whose capital is attached ever so lightly to the soil, 
nust feel in removing it, with every 'change of local burden, 
lave all led me to follow in this matter the opinions which have 
Jeen repeatedly given on good authority, and which credit an 
iverage of one-fourth of the rates on land to the occupier, and 
" See p. 155. 
I 
