198 History of Local Rates 
“onerous” expenditure higher than other sources of 
income when it is possible to avoid it. The effect of 
taxing one particular form of property more than 
another is fo restrict investment in that form until 
the restriction makes it more valuable, so that it 
becomes once more as profitable as other forms, and 
there appears to be no reason for specially discourag- 
ing investment in the creation of immovable property, 
whether it be building or road-making and sewering, 
or agricultural improvement. But immovable pro- 
perty is such a large proportion of all property, and is 
80 generally necessary for the production of other kinds, 
that the displacement of industry and resources caused 
by its being somewhat overtaxed may be regarded as 
negligible, or at all events certainly insufficient to 
over-balance the enormous advantage arising from the 
cheapness and efficiency of the taxation of immovable 
property when the taxation is unequal as between 
place and place. If it is considered necessary- to 
relieve immovable property from this general burden, 
it could easily be done by taking off, in exchange, some 
of the national taxes, such as Schedule A of the income 
tax, and the transfer duties which are at present levied 
in respect of immovable property. But in order to 
do this we should have either to reduce expenses or 
find other sources of taxation—which might easily be 
worse. 
The second fault, unjustifiable inequality of rates 
as between different localities, is more serious. 
The inequality cannot, it is true, be properly con- 
demned so far as it is merely the result of a given 
quantity and quality of the service provided costing 
more in one place than another, whether owing to