46 STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY 



tax reform makes this subject of particular importance and is suffi- 

 cient justification for treating it at some length. So far as producing 

 a new crop of timber is concerned, 



"All sound authorities agree that the forest crop should not be taxed 

 until harvested. They disagree somewhat as to the degree to which the 

 land tax also should be deferred in order to insure the desired result, as 

 to the extent to which reform should be based on conditions under which 

 the forest owner contracts certain performance, and as to concessions of 

 theory to expediency generally. A consensus of opinions, however, is that 

 the following objects should be sought: 



1. The perpetuation of forests in private hands by wise use. 



2. Greater permanent revenue to State and county than is possible 

 under the present system of destroying the taxable source. 



3. Assurance that the total burden of taxation will have a fair relation 

 to the income obtained, making the tax burden on forest growing 

 as nearly as possible proportional to the burden borne by other 

 kinds of useful industry. 



4. Assurance that the owner will do his share to make and keep the 

 land productive. 



5. Assurance to the owner that future action by the community will 

 not confiscate any property resulting from his effort. 



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

 production and safety from fire. 



7. Simplicity in adoption and operation.* 



In order to carry out this purpose, probably the best plan would be 

 a combination of a land tax and a yield tax, the land to be assessed 

 for about one-half of the prevailing rate for denuded land, and a 

 yield tax of about 10 per cent, on the net value of the timber when 

 it is cut. This would help to stabilize local revenues, and the yield 

 tax, to be paid in a lump sum, would come at a time when the owner 

 is best able to pay it. The total tax realized would probably be 

 about the same as under the present system, but as a yield tax there 

 would be less hardship to the man who is holding his land for timber 

 production with the revenue long deferred. 



New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Louisana have already 

 enacted laws upon this subject and other States are seriously con- 

 sidering it. Under conditions existing in Maryland this form of 



*Report of Committee on Forest Taxation of the Fifth National Conserva- 

 tion Congress. 



