466 APPENDIX. 



stock (see p. 201) which represents usually 75 to 85 per cent of 

 the total forest value, he is by so much richer than the farmer 

 on similar soil, drawing interest not only on the soil value but 

 also on this accumulated wood property. In Bavaria only the 

 soil rent furnishes the basis for taxation, so that the largest 

 source of income, the wood stock, is untaxed; other states 

 recognize this principle, hence the forest pays more tax 

 than the farm on soil of the same value and size. Formerly 

 this was not done, and the forest owner was the favored tax- 

 payer. In Prussia and Hesse the intention is to tax the soil 

 rent only, but by peculiar method of calculation really a larger 

 amount is taxed. 



In Saxony and some other states a most just, elastic, pro- 

 gressive income tax for intermittent forest management is in 

 vogue, which is collected only when the owner receives an in- 

 come, and remains unpaid in years without an income from the 

 forest. No regard is here paid as to what part of the forest 

 property is responsible for the income, in other words, the 

 separation of wood stock and soil is not considered. In 

 Prussia, on the other hand, the income from a decimation of 

 the wood stock is not considered as liable to tax, because it is 

 merely a change in form of capital. 



Of the whole forest value in Germany only \ to |- is charge- 

 able to soil, soil values for forest purposes rarely exceeding 

 $200 and mostly not $100 per acre (see p. 126). 



In general terms the tax value of all the German forests 

 figured at 3 per cent with a net income of $63,000,000 assum- 

 ing results equal to state forests, represents $2,100,000,000 

 ($700,000,000 for state forests, $350,000,000 for corporations, 

 $1,050,000,000 for private forests), or $60 per acre — one-third 

 the value figured on p. 50. (The Saxon state forests, which 

 produce the highest net income, are figured as between $115 

 and $233.) Allowing ^ for the soil, the wood capital repre- 

 sents $50 per acre, or the total $1,750,000,000. Allowing a 

 similar division of earnings, namely, | to be credited to soil 

 and 4 to stock of wood, the soil rent at 3 per cent figures 



