THE VALUATION MUDDLE.
[TO TKO EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—There is no doubt that a great deal of the support given to the new land clauses is due to sheer misconception of the just and proper valuation system already in existence. One of the most striking instances is the statement made with parrot-like repetition by Socialist-Radical speakers that "a tailor's shop in a certain town is assessed for taxation higher than a neighbouring country seat." Now it only requires a, little thought to see there is nothing unusual in the premises of a prosperous business establishment being more valuable than a neighbouring country seat. Let us suppose this shop was let at a rental of 2800 per annum,—a very ordinary rent for some premises. That would be its rateable value. But suppose the tenant has a fine country residence, built and laid out for his own occupation. The rating surveyors conic along, Budget or no Budget, measure it up, and finding it similar in size and value to others in the locality letting at 2700 per annum, assess it at 2700 also. The fact that the owner occupies it himself does not make the slightest difference. If it were more valuable than the others, they would assess it propor- tionately higher; if less valuable, proportionately lower. And that is the way it is, and has been for many years, throughout the country, whether the property belongs to a Duke or a Radical M.P. So we have, as is seen, the shop rated at £800, while the country seat is rated at 2700, because it is leas valuable than the shop, as has been shown. Both assessments are perfectly fair, based on common-sense, and there is no need for further legislation. "Oh," some one will perhaps say, "there must be something behind all this, or the Socialist Party would not quote it so often." Let it here be understood, there is nothing wha:tever behind it, and no responsible Socialist dare deny the truth of this explanation. The case is brought up for purposes of popular prejudice.—I'
Previous page
