Hide Articles List

17 articles on this Page

BREACH OF PROMISE— £ 2,000…

AN UNSUCCESSFUL MISSION.

OUR COTTON SUPPLY.

A PORTRAIT OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN.\

AN PORTANT DISCOVERY.

A SEA-SICK MILLIONAIRE.

TEA v. MALT.

News
Cite
Share

TEA v. MALT. The following excellent statement of the relative incidence of t ixation upou Tea aud upon Malt appears in the Lane Express:â Mr. Everitt affirms, point-blank, that tbe duty on malt is 70 per cent."a statement wbich I have no hesitation whatever in pronouncing to be wholly in- correct and absolutely untrue. That the amount of tbe duty, in relation to the value of barley, happens this year, owing to its comparatively low price, to about 70 per cent. is true, but that is neither the ques- tion at issue, nor is it moreover the statement ot -air Everitt, who affirms distinctly that the duty on malt is 70 per cent., and not only so, but that, as camparea with the duty on tea. at 33A per cent., it is 70 per cent. Now, the duty on tea is found to be 23.^ per cent. In the following manner :-The price of tea, ranging from 2s. to 4s. par lb., the average is taken at 33., and the duty being ls. or cue-third of the average retail price of the article, the percentage of duty is, of course, 33i. On the same principle the present value of n,a t ranges, according to quality, from 7s. P' ⢠P and, taking the average of 7«. 6d.,t^ /1 2..9d., the percentage of dutv is t/ 37 instead of 70, as stated by Mr. ^ver\ i e "a monstrous misrepresentation an ? y unfair statement of the case, then I But this is not all. The question which Mr Gibson applied himself to determine was the relative per- centage of the duty on malt, as compared with tea, coffee, &e., in its bearing on t J' or> in other words, what is the reJa §Tr -p, P^ssure of the malt and tea taxes. Jeritt has himself called attention to the difference between the "raw material" and the "manufactured article of con- sumption;" but, strange to say, has himself con- founded the two things, asserting that tea and coffee are ra materials;" while malt is the manufactured article of consumption whereas the exact reverse is the fact. Tea and coffee.are certainly not raw mate- rials, and equally as certainly are they manufactured articles of consumption, 'no further process of manu- facture being required for tbeir consumption whereas, before malt can be consumed it has to undergo the further and somewhat tedious, and more or less expensive, process called brewing. Mult, therefore, is neither more nor less than the." raw material" from which the "manufactured article of consumption" called "beer" is made, and through which said beer the consumer lnys the malt-tax. But while it would be perfectly correct to say that the duty on malt amounts at the present time to 37 percent. of us value, this does not in any way invalidate the esti- mates of Mr. Gibson as to the relatl ve percentage of the duties on tea and malt in their bearing on the con- sumer; for although beer can be brewed at home for about half the cost of the brewers article, yet I suppose it will be readily granted thaU, taking the vast mass of the population, not only throughout the entire mining and manufacturing districts, but also in every town throughout the kingdom, at least 80 per cent. of the entire body of beer drinkers (and where, I ask, or among what class are these not to be found ?) do not, ftnd canuot brew at home. However cheaply then the roh t ,minority (be it 10, 20, or even 30 per cent, of the ,'fe'm.ay.be able to brew their beer at home, the ? majority must of necessity buy their beer of the rewer and inasmuch as this article varies in price Od. per quart, no fairer basis of calculation could possibly be taken than that Mr, Gibson tookâ viz., 4d., as representing the average cost^f a «n*rf of beer. Now, as a bushel of malt, the duty on which is 2'3. 9d., whether brewed by a brewer or at home by th", consumer, will make 18 gallons of good beer, which la" 72 quarts, and as 2i. 9 J. is 66 halfpence, it will be seen itnce the malt-tax amounts to not quite one halfpenny per quart, and which on beer at 4d. per pot is exactly 12| per cent. as stated by Mr. Gibson but as good home-brewed beer can be made at 8d. per ⢠1??' or .Per P0* relative percentage of duty 111 tms case will be 25 instead of 12J per cent. ? fe?*» "plaintruth," then, fairly and correctly stated, ia that the tea duty is 33A per cent., and the malt duty on home-brewed beer 25 per cent., and on Of6 i,,rewe.rs beer 12J per cent. or, in other words :â Of If. paid by the consumer for tea, 6*. 8d. is duty of p. p Aid for homebrewed beer;5g. is duty and of Il. paid for brewers' beer, 2s. 6d. is duty. So much, then, for the 70 per cent. duty on malt! One word on the general subject. On this, as on all other questions, there will necessarily be a variety of opinion. For myself, I look upon the malt-tax as one of the very best and least burdensome of all our taxes. it i!?De which touches every class, and almost every individual, aud, among others, that class who pay jittle else to the taxes, probably, besides. It yields a if"' cer';a^D' and permanent revenue, and is easily collected, and neither the present, nor any future Chancellor of the Exchequer, until he has lost his senses or parted with his wits, will ever, I believe, propose the repeal of the malt duty, and to reduce it would be simply throwing away so much revenue without a particle of benefit to any class whatever.

AN ENCOUNTER WITH A TIGER.

HOW A SECRET WAS OBTAINED.

PARLIAMENT SKETCHED.

AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

HINTS TO WORKING MEN.

THE LAW OF GIFTS!

CHARQUI.

STOCK EXCHANGE SLANG.

[No title]

THE MARKETS.