14 



MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 448 



Table U. — Valuations on Bulls. 



\'aluation Number Number 



per Bull of Farms of Bulls 



Valuation 

 per Bull 



Number 

 of Farms 



Number 

 of Bulls 



Total 



256 



29 different valuations used for assessing bulls, but of these only five were gen- 

 erally applied (Table 11) and they accounted for valuations on 75 percent of all 

 farms with listed bulls. Fifty dollars was the most common valuation; applied 

 as it was to 73 or 28.8 percent of the animals. 



Among the 388 herds with mixed or grade stock, 133 or 33 percent had no 

 bulls listed and 48 or 12.4 percent had more than one. Except in three instances 

 uniform valuations were set on all bulls on a given farm. 



The valuation of a bull relative to that of the cows in a herd may be of more 

 interest to livestock men than to assessors; especially to those who have been 

 trying to foster better sire programs. Only 27 percent of the bulls were in herds 

 in which the bulls were valued at more than the average valuation of cows in the 

 herd. Thirty percent of the bulls carried the same valuation as the average of 

 that for the cows; 43 percent had valuations below that of the cows in the herd. 

 It is interesting to observe that in most of the instances where bull valuations 

 were lower than the a%'erage for cows, the bulls were valued at $50 or below. Uni- 

 form valuation was most common in the $51-$75 bull valuation bracket. Above 

 the $75 level, bull valuations equaled or exceeded that of cows except in three 

 instances. 



CONCLUSIONS 



The tax system in one detail or another is seldom free from attention Peri- 

 odically individuals or groups make suggestions for its "improvement." Re- 

 vision comes slowly, however, and it may be well that it does so long as inertia, 

 stubbornness, or indifference are not mistaken for deliberateness. 



The valuation record on the dairy farms in the current study indicates that 

 there 's still room for improvement. Within the limitations noted this is as it 

 should be, particularly in a dynamic community. The tax system is an inherited 

 device originally designed, but since altered and alterable, by men and should 

 bear some relationship to the times and existent state of knowledge. No one 

 should expect that the fit will be perfect. Characteristically a tax system will 

 always be behind the times. It is a stable mechanism, moving seldom more than 

 twice a year — at the time of annual appropriations, and when valuations are set — 

 serving the business needs of the community. And these needs are no less subject 

 to general economic conditions than are those of any other business. 



Currently the objectives in valuation are not being approached. The dififi- 

 culties and shortcomings of determining, let alone using market prices in a once- 

 a-year appraisal are very real. Three hundred communities individually valuing 

 property present a challenge to the rule of uniformity. The test of fairness, itself 

 a matter of relativity and subject to personal bias, is difficult to apply. 



Failure in attainment is to some extent the fault of the system. Well-qualified 

 boards of assessors can overcome some of their handicaps but their effectiveness 

 is restricted to their own towns. Supervisors from the Office of the Commissioner 



