THE VALUATION OF DAIRY FARM PROPERTY 

 FOR LOCAL TAX PURPOSES IN MASSACHUSETTS 



By Alfred A. Brown 

 Professor of Agricultural Economics 



INTRODUCTION 



Taxes today as never before in our time need to be closely scrutinized. The 

 taxing system and process needs to be understood. The tax official needs sj-m- 

 pathy as well as criticism. The tax pa}-er needs knowledge as well as relief. 

 Despite changes in officeholders, one party for another, or "Outs" for "Ins," 

 and their praiseworthy intentions to reduce taxes, the odds are against its being 

 done. 



Current tax levels and taxing practices are the surface product of at least 

 170^ years of living together in this country and there are aspects of financing 

 our community affairs that reach far deeper into the past. Defense against 

 "our" enemies whether they were the tribe over the hill; the band across the 

 inland sea; the legions of Caesar; the foot-weary soldiers of Napoleon before 

 Moscow; the Empire troops of Wilhelm II; or the arrogant wearers of black 

 shirts of a more recent day — defense against their depredations has been ever 

 with us and at an increasingly staggering cost. The final accounting for the 

 last war will not be done for several years; and then onh- by common consent. 

 But we need not wait until then to realize that the amounts involved are so 

 gigantic that from the day we decide to face them, lower ta.xes are impossible. 



During the centuries, as each group in turn has defended itself against an 

 aggressor on an increasing scale, there have been intervals when attention was 

 diverted to the level of living: food, clothes, shelter, health, protection from fire 

 and flood, care of the abnormal, and recreation for all. Just as defense has ad- 

 vanced from a famih' affair 50,000 years ago to a world affair in 1947, so has our 

 attention to levels and ways of living; at a slower pace perhaps, yet still in that 

 direction. In our own lifetime we have seen the community — the community of 

 individuals, i.e., the town; the community of towns, i.e., the state or province; 

 the community of states, i.e., the federal government; the community of federal 

 governments or nations that is the League or the United Nations Organization — • 

 given more opportunities and responsibilities in raising the general level of living 

 for all men. As the responsibility for the higher level of living has been given to 

 the community, the cost in most instances has been transferred to the community 

 and the pa>ment made to the community — the tax. 



Transferring a responsibility to the community alters its relationship to any 

 specific person in the community and the person's relationship to it. Whereas 

 freedom of acceptance or rejection, participation or non-participation, was the 

 individual's privilege prior to the establishment of the community interest, once 

 that interest is legalized each person is concerned whether he wants to be or not. 

 Not only is each person concerned, but the comniunity has been given the re- 

 sponsibility of determining the degree of his concern. Strange as it may seem, 



Mrs. Elaine P. (Miller) Roberson, formerly Research Assistant, collected much of the data on 

 which this report is based. Miss Judith E. Rosenthal, formerly Laboratory Assistant, helped 

 with the tabulations and analysis. 



Without exception, during 1945, when the data were being gathered in the various towns, local 

 officials were most cordial and helpful. 



1 (1776-1946) 



