View report page

46
the area of taxation by a single penny. At most it would
only apportion the burden, in some fashion or other, between
the freeholder and occupier.
2.—Assuming that it is thought desirable to apportion the rates
between the owner and the occupier, it may well be asked
in what respect does a ground rent differ from other forms
of interest or annuity, such as those derived from mortgages,
stocks, shares, and other securities? For instance.
A, B, and C, have each saved £1,000. A buy ground rents
which return him 4 per cent. on the outlay. B buys railway
stock, which pay the same percentage. C invests his
£1.000 in a first mortgage at 4½ per cent. interest. Why
should A's investment of the result of his thrift, alone be
held liable to local rates? When A bought his ground
rents, he did not calculate upon having to contribute to the
local rates in respect of such ground rents any more than B
and C expected to pay rates upon the interest of their
investment. If he had, he would not have given so much
for them.
3.—If we were starting as a community ab initio something
might be said for apportioning the rates between owner
and occupier, but the difficulties attending any such alteration
now in the incidence of local taxation are forcibly
illustrated in the Report of the Local Government and
Taxation Committee of the London County Council, dated
the 26th June, 1891 (see, for example, paragraphs 9, 29, 34,
and 35, &c.. &c.) Is it clear, moreover, that the owner would
not recoup himself by an increased rent ?
4.—One instance of the rating of ground rents is given in paragraph
62 of the Report. Let us take Sir George Trevelyan's
house, which has been referred to in the newspapers in
connection with this question, for the purpose of illustration.
He is said to pay a ground rent of £25, and the house (of
course including the site) to be assessed to local rates at
£425. Assuming the rates in 1870, or at whatever date the
taxation of the ground rents is to date from, were 3s. in the
pound, and in 1893 are 5s. in the pound, the following
would be the result:—