THE RADICAL PLAN OF RATING.
TO the general view on rating which was expressed, arid in form carried, by the Radical majority of Monday, the Spectator has no opposition to offer. We have maintained, for a period we hardly care to consider, that the rating of the United Kingdom ought to be reformed in the thorough way in which taxation has been reformed, and that the reform should, in the main, follow the lines upon which opinion is at last slowly becoming concrete. We have argued, that is to say, that all rates should, in the first instance, be divided between owners and occupiers, property owing to the people the -poor-rate, and being-either improved or protseted.-by rates such as those for drainage, police, or education. It has, for instance, always seemed to us an oppression that a lease- holder should pay the whole of a new drainage-rate, of which the freeholder will reap the largest share of ultimate benefit, or that a tenant should be liable for the whole of a poor-rate originally intended to fall on property exclusively. That the -tenant may, in- the long- run, be compelled to repay the money to the freeholder, though true in great part, has little to do with the question, which ifynot who is to pay, but 'who is to have the option of adjusting his means to his expenditure. New rates are un- adjustable ; but a man-need not agree to pay more rent than he can afford. We have, moreover, always maintained that -a portion of the new rates—that is, of all rates-bat the-poor-rate —should be borne by personalty. We see no fairness whatever in taxing the fundhokler to pay for the soldiers, and partly exempting him from the charge for the police, one of whose burdensome duties it is to protect the fundholder's plate. Mr. Chamberlain's .frieird, who possessed a million and lived in a £30 house, obtained the full benefit of the police, of the highways, of the Lunacy Laws, and of State education, in what -would but-for the law have been an unjust, if not a fraudulent,-manner. His-neigh- bours were taxed higher because he chose, out of -whim or avarice, to exempt himself. He ought to have paid £age on his wealth for the benefit of the rates, nor do we believe- it would be difficult to have made him do it. A local Income-tax is impossible, because half Schedule D is-paid by London alone ; but a general addition to the Income-tax, to be distributed under warrants from the Local' Government Board, is neither impossible nor• difficult, and.wouldhe- incom- parably the best way of providing for expenditures-on-objects which, like the making of roads and the oare of lunatics, are- really incurred on behalf of the general as- well as the local weal, and offer little temptation to local extravagance. And finally, we think it nearly certain that the great houses of England are unfairly underrated. It is a question for evidence ; and we quite admit that to tax Chatsworth as. we tax a farm- house, or even a squire's grange, is practically impossible, no taxation-being wise which destroys the taxable product ; but still, a-reasonable compromise is possible, and when •Blenheim is left, if it is left, nearly unrated because nobody in- his senses would hire Blenheim, the reasonable compromise is not attained.
So far, we are with Mr. T. Rogers, as interpreted and modi- fied by Mr. Chamberlain, and we should not•be disinclined to go a step further, and tax all.property whatever, as Americans do, for municipal purposes. It might be difficult to commence such a system, and it would be inquisitorial ; but we do- already do it successfully for Probate-duty, and a duty-to-be assessed every five years in the same way as the Probateeinty, does not strike us as either immoral or impassible. But we-want to warn the advocates of reform in rating-that they injure their- own case by their occasional extravagance of -language. They speak every now and then as if they were animated by -a desire to do justice to all men except 'the-rich, -as if they. were actuated by the Continental spitefulness against-mere possessions. They do not want to smash -black hats, es tbe roughs do, but they want toter them. Accumulation is a benefit, not an injury, to society, and the value accorded toworks-of art tends to advance, not to return, civilisation. An-old-park ix a grand gain to the community, andlo tax it as if it were meadow- land or a stock of wood, is to diminish the amenity of the whole country. Nobody will grow those big trees if they are rated as mere timber, and modern man, who does not live by bread alone any more than ancient -Syrians did, wants the big trees• to• be preserved. To tax Chatsworth at its cost, as several Members proposed, is to compel the Duke of Devonshire to pull down Chatsworth,—that is, to injure the history, the stateliness, and the enjoyableness of an entire -section of the island. English pockets may not be the richer for Chatsworth, but English minds are, by an incalculable sum. No mortal would, when John Stuart Mill was a boy, have paid a" fair " rating on Ford Abbey ; but his life amidst that beautiful architecture and those soft gardens humanised Mill, whose books, whatever their other merits or demerits, have probably saved the nation millions. Nor ought mere selling value to be the sole test of the rate- able value even of a house ; for if it were, the rates would be heavier on a house built on a hill-side than on a house-situated in a plain, and the owner would be fined for his good taste and respect for sanitary laws. There are houses in England whose selling value is tripled by their history. Are their owners to be taxed for that 'To tax the • palaces as if they were nuisances is, for the nation, false economy • and the -ease in favour of works- of art is at least as strong. Mr. Rogers, if we understand him, would value a picture as he would a bond, and then tax itfor rates ; but that is only to fine, not the owner, but the artist for his skill in production. Take one of the •meat familiar of illustrations. An admirer of religious art-is-willing to give Mr. Holman Hunt, say, £5,000 for the "-Finding of Christ in the Temple." But under Mr. Rogeres plan, if . he lives in a parish rated at 4s. in the pound, he will have to give that and a rating of £40 for ever, or at least for-so long as the picture hangs upon his-walls. Naturally, he will deduct the capital value of that annuity from his price, and'Mr. -Holman Hunt, not he, will be taxed for the rates of Westminster, to the grave discouragement of art. There was a man the-other day, living in PortlandPlace who had collected magnificent or rare prints to the value of X110,000, all of which he watched-over in a single room. It was immensely to- the advantage not only of art, but of the nation, that he shuald-buy those prints, because otherwise many of them would have been destroyed, and more exported ; but under Mr.litegers's scheme, he -would have been held to inhabit a -house with an additional rental of £4,400 a year, and would have been fined £800 a year for preserving these prints. .Even as regards plate, always denounced as a mere luxury, such a tax-would operate-injuriously, for its effect would be this. If the-silver were coarse, and-worth, therefore, say, 7-s. an ounce, the tax would be less than if it were artistic, and worth a guinea, that is, either- owner or artist,would be heavily taxed for possessing taste -and genius. As to the suggestion to tax libraries, it is- simply monstrous. Itwonlet be better and more
profitable to tax education at once, and to decree that if a man understood the rule of three, he should pay 10 per cent.
additional on his rates ; while if he understood political economy, or the differential calculus, he should pay double. Such suggestions only create an impression, which we are -sure is.false, that at heart the New Radicals hate civilisation, and wanld gladly seethe last orchid-grower strangled by the last librarian, and would force.the refined and the able to suspect,
and therefore-to resist, all democratic finance. There is no true justice in thesesuggestions for the works-of art' not only yield-no-interest, as the bond does, but decay with time, as-the bond does not ; and no true-democratic feeling, for the rich who support art are relieving the democracy of a heavy burden. We do not-want a state -of society in which *great arehiteot, or painter, or worker in metal-must either be unrewarded or paid.out of the- taxpayer's scanty-margin. We hope most heartily that the-ratepaying-system will be reformed, and.refermed as Mr. Chamberlain, in his most sensible-speech, appears • to wish ; bat
the-advocates -of reform should separate themselves-from-the
enemies-of civilisation. -Tole% a manforbuying—that is, for helping-to create—a great picture, or for forming a splendid library, is not democracy but Vandalism,' worthy only of - the nomad chiefs who advised Tcheugis Khan to tarn China into a pasture-that their horses might grow. fat.
Previous page
