Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/445

 BELATNG TO eompirison of the incidence of tarn in htd/s end in the United Kingdom. Ham the per capita income is taken .at Rs. 85 in 1918-14 although on pe 158 it is estimated st B,s. in 1915-16, equivalent to e,n incframe of nearly 80 per cent in two years. In our opinion Its. 415 is s low figure for 1915-16, end we would refuse to accept any figure lower than  42 for 1918-14, or more accurately for the average per captim income of the throe.year period 191!1-18 to 1914-15, s three or four years ave being necessary on account of the great vsriftbility of the harvests. On this basis the national income of British Xndia was 1050 ereres, and the taxation 95.8 ereres in 1918-14, which is ap.proximstely 9.1 per eemt, instead of the figure 10.5 per cent given by the author. The simit ratio for the United Kingdom for the same yr the sather gives  11 per cent. As the standard of living and thus tlo inten. sity of wants is much lower in India than. in England, it is difficult to say whether 9 or 10 per cent in India represents a greater nerifiee than 11 per cent in the United Kingdom. We agree'with the author that it depends on efficiency of the expenditure of the public revenues. We think it naeesmu*y to express our dissent with the author when a little further on (p. 47) he confuses land revenue with ifleome-, and objects to the poor rayat who cultivates an nnoeonomie holding revenue at the same rate per 8zre part of larger holding Oalble of cause to meet his total ppo ting,, hi su r m, expenditure, including the being taxed in land as if his fields were be- !and revenue, he must find come industrial or other employment for part of his time. The rayat may even have to borrow to pay his hind revenue. The author regards this as "a serious defect o! a general property tax," and would prefer that persons earning small incomes by cultivation be totally exempted from land -revenue as they are from income tax. He does not inquire whether this would be reasonable, nor what the effects would be. It is not necessary to consider wh. other land revenue is s rent or s tax. It is resson- sMe under present conditions to call it s land tax, as the author does. But, as s land tax it is clearly s tax on the economic personal like rent of land; income tax, but customs duty does to in other words it is not artashes to the land, just the goods. Hence whoever