It is a standard economic insistence that business rates are actually paid by landlords. It is a standard political insistence that business rates are paid by retailers. The economists are right here.

This should - but does not - feed through into politics.

Business rates are pushing squeezed companies over the edge

Commercial property owners who were over-geared for current market conditions, perhaps so, yes. But that’s their lookout, no one else’s.

Machin calculates that retailers pay “25pc of all business rates despite being 5pc of the economy”.

Retailers don’t pay rates, landlords do. There are some retailers who are their own landlords, true, but it’s as landlords that they pay rates, not retailers.

If Hunt can only cut one tax, it should be this one. Business rates are crippling the real economy and the scars could be long-lasting.

Which brings us to that headline question. Why do we want to cut taxes on landlords? Until that’s answered there is no argument in favour of cutting business rates, is there?

Do note that there isn’t any argument within economics about this. Sure, there are quibbles and mitherings about how long the adjustments take and all that, the interaction of the base facts with upwards only rent reviews ‘n’ all. But those base facts aren’t at issue. Business rates are, like other repeated taxations of real property, paid by landlords. We’ve an entire school of economics built upon this insight and while the Georgists can become somewhat over-enthusiastic about the issue they are right on the basics of land value taxation.

So, to repeat: But, but, *why* do we want to reduce taxes on landlords?