116 PRACTICAL FORESTRY IN 



actually penalized, for he must assume that its expectation value will 

 be taxed annually, perhaps on an exorbitant basis, as soon as it 

 becomes apparent. 



If only the value added each year, $2.80 in our illustration, were 

 taxed annually, there would be no injustice. The tax would then, in 

 the case cited, be 9 cents 1he first year and 17 cents every year there- 

 after. But this cannot be calculated with sufficient accuracy upon 

 our present knowledge of forest growth and under conditions varying 

 with every trace or acre. Our example, with its several arbitrary 

 factors of growth, tax rate, interest rate, and future stumpage price, 

 was merely for the purpose of illustration. Furthermore, such a 

 solution would still be illegal under our present laws. 



REQUIREMENTS REFORM MUST MEET 



These facts are recognized by all students of forestry and taxation. 

 In all countries where forests are grown the general property tax has 

 been abandoned. Disinterested authorities of every class, approach- 

 ing the subject only from the public's point of view ;md holding no 

 brief for the timberland owner, unite in saying emphatically that 

 its application to growing forests will retard or prevent forestry in 

 our country. These authorities include statesmen like Roosevelt and 

 our most prominent governors and senators; expert authorities on 

 taxation generally, like state, national, and international tax confer- 

 ences and professors of oconomics in the leading universities; forestry 

 authorities like Graves, Pinchot and State foresters; and all the many 

 associations and congresses devoted to such subjects. 



These authorities all agree that the forest crop should not be taxed 

 till harvested, but differ somewhat as to the degree to which tho 

 public need of reforestation warrants deferring part or all of the 

 land tax also. This Association, after careful study of the subject, 

 including European methods, the experiments made by several of our 

 States, and the plans proposed by many others, believes the follow- 

 ing objects should be sought: 



1. Greater permanent revenue to state and country than is possible 

 under the present system of destroying the taxable source. 



2. Sustention of present revenue to the highest degree compatible 

 with permanence. 



3. Assurance that the owner will do his fair part to make the land 

 productive. 



4. Assurance to the owner in return that future action by the 

 community will not confiscate all profit resulting from his effort. 



5. Division of risk, so both owner and community will seek highest 

 production and safety from fire. 



6. Demonstrable justice to all concerned, rather than subsidy which, 



