A tax upon retail dealers and peddlers is frequently advocated, as tending to prevent the increase of unnecessary middlemen and wasteful competition. Yet this, too, bears heavily upon the poor, since it crowds out also those who are satisfied with small profits and deal in small sales. Even a tax upon pawnbrokers, whose profits are supposed to be extraordinary, gives occasion for a sharper grinding of the poor. A study of all these devices will lead one to the conclusion that a tax upon property only, based upon a fair valuation and paid by the controller of the property, is fairest to the whole community and leads to truest conceptions of the relation of property to public expenditure. It is certainly best for rural welfare. _A single land tax._—A brief consideration must be given to a proposed system of taxation, commonly known as the single land tax. The proposition is to tax all lands, including building sites, to such an extent as may be necessary to meet all public expenditures. The lands are to be valued for this purpose at the rent they will bring, independent of all improvements. The supposition is that such an income is due entirely to the effect of crowding population, and therefore belongs to society as a whole rather than to the individual possessing it. In fact, if the state were to consume the entire economic rent, it would take only, it is said, what already belongs to the community. Other supposed advantages of the single tax system are the reduced expense of assessment and collection, together with incidental effects in promoting production by removing burdens from capital, in preventing the holding of land unproductive, possibly in equalizing wealth and diminishing greed for landed property, while the poorer, cheaper agricultural lands, having no rent value, would be relieved of all burden. These are essentially the views maintained by the followers of Henry George, the leading champion of such taxation. It is claimed, further, that the poor in crowded cities would be better housed, since buildings would bear no taxation, and holders of city lots would make them productive through construction of buildings without adding to their burden of taxation. It is claimed also that such taxation would be finally distributed, and fairly distributed, among all the consumers of products affected by land possession, as well as all even indirectly making use of the land. Since food and shelter are universal, all would contribute, so far as they are self-dependent, according to food consumed and space occupied.