26 MARCH 1910, Page 15

THE TAXATION ON A WAGE OF 21 A WEEK.

[To THE EDITOR 01 THR " SPICTLTOR."] SIR,—Mr. A. B. Browne in your last issue calculates that an " artisan " earning 21 a week, supporting a wife and two children, pays nearly 4 per cent. in taxes, and draws the con- clusion, it is to be inferred, that he is heavily taxed. The artisan, or skilled workman, who receives but 21 a week is a somewhat rare phenomenon,—at any rate when he has arrived at sufficient maturity to have a wife and children. But setting that aside, and setting aside also the inclusion of postages as a tax, which seems absurd, why is it that every writer on the subject ignores the Parliamentary Return issued two years ago, which showed that, exclusive of tobacco and drink, the total indirect taxation per head throughout the kingdom was 4s. 7d., or rather over id. a week per person? That rents are high I admit. Who are responsible for that? The Union workmen in the building trade, artisans who have consistently sought to do their work as expensively as possible in their own selfish interests. Four multiplied by 4a. 7d. per annum of taxation on 250 a year is less than 2 per cent., and when we remember that in exchange for this taxation the artisan is relieved by old-age pensions from the burden of contribution to the support of relatives, and that his children receive free education, I do not think that he has much to complain of. That he pays four or five times as much in proportion for rent seems an exaggeration. My own income is not far different from that of your correspondent "Householder," and I pay 2200 a year rent and some £80 in rates, and my share of these rates very greatly lessens the amount leviable on the artisan.—I am,