118 PRACTICAL FORESTRY IN 



it means added cost of holding with no possibility of profit. Since 

 the owner cannot be compelled to grow timber to be taxed at his net 

 loss, no timber tax at all will be received by the community and its 

 annual land tax will be confined to land worth holding without timber 

 for purposes other than timber growing. Under the proposed system, 

 the latter class would pay the same annual tax, the annual tax revenue 

 from strictly forest land would be greater, and in addition to both 

 would be the future yield tax upon the crop. 



AN OBJECTION MET 



A possible superficial criticism may be that, leaving the land out of 

 consideration, the proposed yield tax at a personal property valuation 

 of the crop means that but one year's tax is to be paid upon the 

 timber. The fallacy of this, however, will be seen when it is remem- 

 bered that it is a crop, having been produced from nothing by the 

 owner, since his acquisition of the land and while he was paying 

 taxes upon his laud upon its value for productive purposes throughout 

 the entire period just as any other crop grower does. It is not 

 unearned speculative increment. To tax it annually is exactly 

 equivalent to taxing an agricultural crop 50 times during its growing 

 period. The proposed plan does tax the annual production fully, 

 although not until the crop is produced, for taxing its full value 

 when grown is the same as taxing each year the increment added 

 since the preceding year. If it is worth $150 an acre, after 50 years 

 from seed, a 3 per cent yield tax would be $4.50. Each year since the 

 first must have produced a fiftieth of the ultimate value, or $3, and 

 had this been taxed at 3 per cent, or 9 cents, the same aggregate 

 revenue of $4.50 would have resulted. To also tax annually the 

 value of preceding years' production, like taxing a wheat crop twice 

 a week, is exactly the confiscatory prohibition of forest growing 

 which we should seek to avoid. 



When the essential difference of the two systems is grasped that 

 the crop is distinct from the land and the latter is still fully taxed 

 it will be seen that but one tax upon the crop, at the rate other 

 property pays, is all that is just and all that can possibly be paid in 

 a competitive commercial business. The case is not analogous with 

 our present system of taxing mature timber, in which land and timber 

 together are assumed to constitute inseparable realty, stationary in 

 production and increasing only speculatively in value, therefore the 

 comparison with one year's taxation under our present system has 

 no weight. 



FROM THE OWNER'S STANDPOINT 



Nor does the proposed system by any means either subsidize the 

 forest grower or assure him a profit. It merely puts on a basis 



