WHAT IS SPENT . ON BREAD IN POOR FAMILIES. [To THE
EDITOR Or THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—Your correspondent " Ruthinensis " in the Spectator of November 7th calculates the burden of the consumer in twenty-fifths and fiftieths of a penny. May I point out that the retail dealer does not raise the price of his goods by fiftieths, nor by twenty-fifths, nor yet, which is more important, by farthings ? That fact is in itself sufficient to vitiate the calculation by which Mr. Chamberlain sought to show that the agricultural labourer would gain Id. per week. It will be generally admitted, I think, that where the retail dealer must, in his own interest, raise the price by Id., but not necessarily by id., he raises it by id. ; where, on the other hand, he can remit Id. but not id., without loss, he remits nothing at all. May I illustrate this briefly P In Mr. B. S. Rowntree's " Poverty " we find family after family purchasing 1 lb. of tea per week. Strictly, they should gain under the new scheme lid. They will gain not more than ld. We find the mother of one family purchasing 1 oz. of tea for lid. She should gain Id. I will venture to say that she will gain nothing. She also buys 1 lb. beefsteak for 6d. If she pays the whole of the duty, she should pay, strictly speaking, 6M. She will certainly pay 61d. In the same way, whatever article is touched by this new scheme, the consumer will gain less or lose more than appears in such calculations as that of Mr. Chamberlain and " Ruthinensis."
Previous page
