president's address and discussion. 103 



planting should be encouraged in every sort of way. The 

 question of costs, even if prices of timber are going to be 

 better in the future, which we feel sure they will be, is the 

 main consideration, the first cost especially, because it is 

 cumulative at compound interest. There is no doubt that on 

 large estates planting is done more cheaply and more efficiently 

 than there is any possibility of it being done under a new State 

 scheme involving fresh ground. At present there is a very heavy 

 burden of taxation on woodlands. The valuation of woodlands 

 in many cases has been reduced, but the taxation on that 

 valuation is exceedingly high. The present income tax is 5s., 

 and the owners of many large estates have to pay super-tax 

 of 3s. 6d. as well, not only as owner, but as occupier. At the 

 present moment any one who has to pay 5s. income tax and 

 3s. 6d. super-tax is paying about i6s. in the £, on the valuation 

 in income tax and super-tax alone, and if you add to that the 

 owner's and occupier's county and parish rates, and a pro- 

 portionate share of minister's stipend in the heritors' assess- 

 ment, and the land tax, I could produce to you actual 

 figures showing that by adding all these burdens together, 

 some owners are paying something like 21s., 22s., or 23s. 

 in the jT^ on the valuation of existing woodlands. Now, 

 even if your valuation is very low, even supposing it is 

 IS. per acre, that means that that ground under sheep would 

 be worth is. per acre, and if you let it for that purpose 

 you merely pay owner's rates and taxes. If you plant it you 

 more than double at once the burden of rates and taxes, quite 

 apart from the outlay which you expend upon it. I think that is 

 a point, as it affects the larger estates particularly (and the 

 largest must be the ones that you must look at), that does call 

 for some remedy. 



" I do not think any owners of land, large or small, ask to 

 escape their proper share of the burden of taxation, but I do 

 not think any one will say that 20s. per ^ and over is a 

 fair or reasonable share of taxation if these individuals 

 are to be expected to plant, and to plant extensively. By a 

 section of last year's Finance Act, any one who replants 

 after July last can claim that the replanted area is a 

 separate estate for the purpose of income tax. Such 

 plantations escape all taxation or income tax until they are 

 producing a profit. When they do produce profit they require 



