The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 141)

غرض

عنوان

The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 141)

المحتوى

125
mitigated for the Jewish farmer. Moreover,
We have estimated that his gross income which largely determines
the present amount of his taxation is double that of the Arab farmer
of a similar holding. His cost of living, which represents his net
income, is more than double that of the Arab farmer. It follows that
the burden of taxation upon the Jewish farmer on relation to his net
income is less than the burden upon the Arab farmer in relation to
his. This view is confirmed by the attitude of settlers who gave the
committee to understand that taxation was relatively an unimportant
item in their expenditure.”
The differential impact of taxation on urban and rural areas can be seen by
a comparison of the taxes paid relative to the rental value of property. Although
urban incomes were, of course, higher than rural ones, the Urban Property Tax
represented 10 percent of the rental value of the property, while the combined
tithe, werko, and aghnam represented 34 percent of the rental value of rural
property.*’ There was no income tax in urban areas comparable to the tithe paid
by the peasant until 1940-1941.°’ Finally, the heavy burden of taxation was one
of the major factors contributing to the indebtedness of the Arab peasant, the topic
of the next section.
3.2 Debt, or the Intensification of the
“Scissors Crisis”
During the Mandate period, and especially up to the beginning of WWII,
peasant indebtedness increasingly became one of the marked features of Palestinian
Tbid.
*Tbid., 43.
1Survey II, 545.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

هو جزء من

The Dispossession of the Peasantry

تاريخ

٢٠٠٦

المنشئ

Riyad Mousa

مجموعات العناصر

Generated Pages Set

Theses رسائل ماجستير ودكتوراه