The likely effects of a proposed reform to the British domestic rating system are examined. Data for Derby suggest that using capital values to determine rates would correct the anomalies in rateable values which at present exist between individual properties in different areas of a town. It would also result in rate burdens shifting from newer to older, from smaller to larger, and from cheaper to more expensive properties. In addition, burdens would shift away from less desirable districts of a town. That capital values are so influenced by such speculative social factors poses problems in changing to a capital basis for evaluating rates.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DoE and WO, 1977Local Government FinanceDepartment of the Environment and Welsh Office, Cmnd 6813 (HMSO, London)
2.
EvansA A, 1976, “Commentary on the effect of changing the basis of rating domestic properties from rateable values to capital values, based on data from a 20% sample survey, of sales of dwellings reported to the Inland Revenue in Layfield Committee” in Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance, Appendix 10 (microfiche) Chairman Frank Layfield (QC), Cmnd 6453 (HMSO, London)
3.
FordR GBrownC J, 1978, “Rating reform and urban structure”Area10(1) 8–14
4.
FosterC DJackmanR APerlmanM, 1980Local Government Finance in a Unitary State (George Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, Herts)
5.
General Rate Act, 1967Public General Acts, Elizabeth II, 1967, Chapter 9. General Rate Act (HMSO, London)
6.
Layfield Committee, 1976aReport of the Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance Chairman Frank Layfield (QC), Cmnd 6453 (HMSO, London)
7.
Layfield Committee, 1976bReport of the Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance, Appendix 9. Rating: Evidence and Commissioned Work Chairman Frank Layfield (QC), Cmnd 6453 (HMSO, London)
8.
OldmanOAaronH, 1965, “Assessment-sales ratios under the Boston property tax”National Tax Journal1836–49
9.
Secretary of State for the Environment, 1981, “Alternatives to domestic rates” Cmnd 8449 (HMSO, London)
10.
ThrallG I, 1979, “Spatial inequities in tax assessment: A case study of Hamilton, Ontario”Economic Geography55(2) 125–134
