[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sta,—I crave the indulgence
of your columns to expose what I think will be universally considered to constitute an act of despicable double dealing on the part of the Treasury against the ratepayers of London. It will be remembered that when the Income Tax demand notes were issued at the end of last year, the recipients were astonished and alarmed to find that they had been assessed on the gross value of their assessments ; And not on the amount that they actually paid in rates. The indignation and protests immediately aroused by such an act of gross unfairness were, however, allayed by the Treasury officials giving, through the medium of the Press, the specious explanation that the taxpayer's uneasiness was quite un- founded, as the gross amount was only inserted to discover what the full assessed value of the ratepayer's property actually was.
This I have no hesitation in asserting was no less than deliberate lying. For " Londoners " have been assessed on the full gross assessments. That is to say that the Govern- Ment, in order to reduce as far as possible its deficit, occasioned entirely by its own ineptitude and its astounding lack of
business capacity, decided to penalize one section of the taxpayers alone, because they lacked the backbone to act fairly and to distribute equally the burden, by raising the Income Tax to cover their own obstinate extravagance.
By thus artificially raising the amount of the assessment and so artificially raising the income of the taxpayer, they have in effect penalized the ratepayers of London in this abominable way.
In my case, ma-;± of my tenants being under the Rents
Restriction Act, it works out as follows : I get back from my tenants under the increase of rent for rates clause, the sum of about £2 10s.—the actual difference between the old and the new quinquennial assessment of last year. The assessed amount of my rates is on 2116. The gross amount is £174. Therefore, I receive £2 10s., and pay away (at my rate of taxation, 2s. in the £) £13 Os. In addition I pay the increased water rate (which should be recoverable, as also the increased Income Tax, from the tenant) at the rate of 61, per cent., say another £1 3s. On my other house I am in still worse case, as I made no profit on it, for various reasons one of which I described in your columns in January ; and here I am asked to pay another £16 16s. This means that an income which is only subject to 2s. in the. £ has to pay more than 3s. 6d. owing to this juggling of figures ! Taking advantage of this the ground landlords are putting the screw on leaseholders like myself and sending in fantastic lists of repairs, in order to squeeze the leaseholders out, and regain their property by pretending it has deteriorated. In one case I am told of, the superior landlords made £3,000 in five months by these means, out of small property in Shepherd's Bush ! I have been served with a notice to do over 2400 of repairs ! Surely, common sense and common justice requires that if the leaseholder's rights in his property are restricted by an arbitrary law (which in my case has let my tenants let my property to their relations, without my consent !) the superior landlord should be equally limited
in his !—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
