10: Taxes on Rent

It is suggested that "a tax on rent would affect rent only," that the whole sum of it would be fall upon landlords and "could not be shifted to any class of consumers." It is further suggested that the landlord could not increase rent because it would "leave unaltered the difference between the produce obtained from the least productive land in cultivation and that obtained from land of every other quality."

Ricardo distinguishes between rent of land that is used for productive and nonproductive purchases: land may be rented to a farmer for the purpose of growing crops, or it may be rented to any individual whose use of the land does not produce goods (they may live in a house on the land, but grow no crops there). It's suggested that the latter is not rent, because it doesn't pertain to the use of the land, and should instead be considered a fee paid for the use of stock. It's further suggested that if a tax were laid on the rent of land, landlords would seek to distinguish between the profit of stock and the rent of land.

Ricardo concludes that a tax on rent "would never fall for any length of time on the landlord, but on the consumers" - he would pass the increase along to a tenant who would, in turn, seek to cover the expense by increasing the price of his product to consumers.

(EN: This is a "chapter" of three paragraphs, and I'm left with the feeling I didn't quite get it. The last paragraph seems to contradict the first and the bit in the middle seems like a red herring. I read it a couple of times and came to no better conclusion, so there it is.)