View report page

42
that in suburban districts, such as Wimbledon, houses are
purposely erected at such a cost as to let at £19 per annum
in order to evade the House Duty, at a sacrifice of certain
essentials in house-building, but whether this is so or not the
Vestry are not in a position to state.
It has more than once been suggested that the Inhabited
House Duty should be transferred to the Local Authorities in
aid of local rates. Such a proposal, however, seems to show
how little the incidence of the Duty is understood. In all cases
the House Duty is borne by the same class of persons as pay
the local rates, and the transfer of the Duty to the Local
Authorities in aid of rates would have one of two results
either the ratepayers would, owing to the anomalies referred
to, be unequally assessed to local burdens, or, if the anomalies
referred to were removed, they would pay precisely the same as
at present, plus the cost of collecting a second rate. It is difficult
to see, therefore, what advantage would be gained by
tranferring the House Duty to the Local Authorities. Here,
again, the amount at issue is not trifling, for large blocks of
buildings in various parts of the metropolis, worth thousands
of pounds a year, are altogether exempt from House Duty,
not being used for residential purposes, although liable to local
rates. This class of building would, it is true, gain by the
transfer of the House Duty, on its present basis, to the Local
Authorities, because the local rates would be lower by the
amount of the Duty raised in that particular locality; this
gain, however, would clearly be obtained at the expense of the
other ratepayers. It is therefore apparent that so far from
increasing the area of local taxation, the transfer of the
Inhabited House Duty to the Local Authorities would really
restrict it, for while all who are assessed to the House Duty
are liable also to local rates, many ratepayers are exempt from