COMMENT ON FOREST TAXATION 927 



Elsewhere he says that there is perfect accord on the principle that 

 "taxation for revenue purposes should be based on the ability of the 

 individual to pay." If this is the sole accepted basis for taxation we 

 have little use, it would seem, for tax rates or assessments. It is merely 

 a case of "How much have you got? Well, then, give me so much 

 of it." If, on the other hand, Mr. Hastings would emphasize the 

 ability to pay "because he possesses that particular piece of property" 

 we would seem to come back at once to the valuation of the property 

 as the basis of taxation. 



The author mentions classes of soil in forests as being not more than 

 five in Europe and suggests three as probably enough for any one 

 State in this country. I presume he is referring to "quality of site," 

 as the silviculturists term it, and if so he seems to have overlooked the 

 fact that this is purely a relative term within a definite forest type and 

 that there may be great differences in productivity between sites of 

 Quality I in two distinct forest types. 



A harvest tax is simple in actual application in that, whenever any 

 timber is cut, the tax is assessed upon it. It seems just that the man 

 who reaps the harvest should pay the tax when he gets his return from 

 the crop. And it would avoid placing an unreasonable burden upon a 

 timber owner at any time to force his timber upon the market before 

 he was ready to cut it for whatever purpose he might wish. Calling a 

 harvest tax hard names, "fallacious, inquisitive, provocative," is not 

 very strong argument against or condemnation of a system that is just, 

 reasonable, and simple in application. 



Yours very truly, 



Gordon Parker. 



