upon them would fall altogether upon the proprietor, who would thus be taxed for a subject which afforded him neither convenience nor revenue. Houses inhabited by the proprietor ought to be rated, not according to the expense which they might have cost in building, but according to the rent which an equitable arbitration might judge them likely to bring, if leased to a tenant. If rated according to the expense which they may have cost in building, a tax of three or four shillings in the pound, joined with other taxes, would ruin almost all the rich and great families of this, and, I believe, of every other civilized country. Whoever will examine, with attention, the different town and country houses of some of the richest and greatest families in this country, will find that, at the rate of only six and a half or seven per cent upon the original expense of building, their house rent is nearly equal to the whole net rent of their estates. It is the accumulated expense of several successive generations laid out upon objects of great beauty and magnificence, indeed; but, in proportion to what they cost, of very small exchangeable value.[1]
Ground rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the
- ↑ Since the first publication of this book a tax nearly upon the above-mentioned principles has been imposed.
