WHAT IS A BASIS FOR YIELD TAX? 889 



In applying the yield tax, then, the range of values should be between 

 6 and 8.4 per cent, on the assumption that the forest pay an equivalent 

 of a property tax of 12 per mill on full assessment. If the forest share 

 with the farm and assessment at two-thirds value, and thus pay a prop- 

 erty tax of about 8 per mill, then the yield tax should range from 4.0 

 to 5.6 per cent, according to the per cent of expenses allowed. Since 

 in all estimates for purposes of taxation the custom calls for conserva- 

 tive work, it would seem fair to allow 40 per cent for expenses and put 

 the yield tax at round 5 per cent unwersally. 



That the addition of a land tax is not fair is self-evident. Just how 

 to handle this phase is optional. Pennsylvania pays this tax as a State ; 

 in the other States the owner pays, either at a limited rate (Connecti- 

 cut) or on flat assessment (Massachusetts). A flat rate of about 3 

 per mill on actual sale value of the land seems better than to confuse 

 assessments by assuming a uniform price or value of the land. 



That it is not possible ever to have a yield tax which would be mathe- 

 matically accurate and just for all cases, is evident ; there is no method 

 which furnishes such standards. It is also to be expected that in for- 

 estry, as in farming, certain methods and costs must be agreed upon. 

 In farming the income which the farm actually makes and the income 

 which the assessor believes can and should be made do not always 

 agree, but the fairness of the method of land assessment remains ac- 

 cepted by the people. 



In applying the yield tax in practice the rotation which is too short 

 to furnish an income fairly commensurate to expense and investment 

 will be penalized. The method of silviculture fares better, for penury 

 in silviculture may seriously reduce the income ; but it is apt to reduce 

 the expenses even more, and thus enable the payment of a yield tax as 

 high as is possible under better methods. 



In the final development of forestry the yield tax must probably give 

 way to better methods, for it is irksome ; in small properties, such as 

 woodlots, it has no real place. 



But for a beginning, in our wild woods it may help matters a great 

 deal, and such a law as that of Connecticut evidently appeals to forest 

 owners. 



With the above basis assumed as correct, however, the Connecticut 

 law demands far more taxes from the forest than it gets from the farm, 

 and it might well be revised and the following values substituted : 



