To the Biitor of the "Nowen-Ciiwa Daur. New Sit,—The reason why I have not written to you about the taxation: question, since the letter you Kind-published on November 17 is that 1 did not swish to contribute towards the inevitable fiasco SOM. C. loan. At the pi ket rate for previous S. M, C. loans the new one is not attractive; feet anybody could have told ussr ruguat city fathers at the time me witstion to. subscribe was Issued. Why then invite the public to aibscribe? About half' year ago, the SIN. C, notified the public about the increase. in Muticipal rate, from 11 to 16 por ents ata time when nub agitation against the S'S C. was going on in Chinese circles and whan Tt looked as a dee literate challenge to them.
Might not our august city fathers fuave™ anticipated that that mea stite would meet with strenuous op-Position? And what are the facts About. the present situation?
(1) The increase from 14 to 16 per cent, in vote was not at all Recessary. The. total assessed rental for 192%, even at the S.M.C's absurdly low figure, was is, 424 millions, which, ab the average (between 14 per cent. for the frst and 16 per cent. for the second half of 1927) 18 per cent. is Tis, 420,000 (in round figures) and therefore the old tale of 14 per cent. should bring Tie, 5,900,000. Instead of that, the now' rate will bring in only Ts, 6,000,000, "For want of any other explanation, it seems that this result is solely due to inficient collection, which costs 08, at It per cent, neaely one milieu taels annually and at 18 per cent. has cost us Tls. 1,325,000 for
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.