FIFTH NATIONAL CONSERVATION CONGRESS l4l 



lands would have reduced the tax in 1913 from $52,417.16 to $18,331.33 assuming 

 a full value assessment. In other words approximately $34,000 or over 70% 

 could be cut from the total taxes on forest lands by the exemption of timber at 

 the present time. If timber were now being assessed at its real value in Wis- 

 consin, the result would be still more startling. 



The point made above with respect to varying proportions saved to tax- 

 payers is illustrated by two extreme cases. The town of Crandon contains 9.64% 

 in the valuation of forest lands and the town of Alvin 63.77% in such valuations. 

 In Alvin the saving to the forest land owners in taxes is 56%, in Crandon 82%. 



"SINGLE TAX" A DANGER TO FORESTRY 



FORESTERS and others interested in forest taxation reform are, of neces- 

 sity, obliged to give considerable attention .to taxation proposals not 

 primarily based upon forestry problems, but affecting them indirectly. 

 It was accordingly suggested that the report of the sub-committee on forest 

 taxation to the Forestry Committee of the Fifth Conservation Congress should 

 include a discussion of new tax theories dangerous to forestry, and such a dis- 

 cussion was included in the report as originally approved by a large majority of 

 the sub-committee and the entire Forestry Committee. In view of some objection 

 in the former, however, it was thought best to omit it from the report and 

 present it to the forestry section of the Congress for determination as to its 

 value and inclusion in Ae printed proceedings. It was overwhelmingly approved 

 in full by the forestry section of the Congress as follows: 



We have discussed desirable changes in tax systems and possible improve- 

 ments under old systems. There remains a contingency little considered but 

 fraught with great danger to consumer as well as producer of American forests — 

 the adoption of new systems framed without forestry in mind. A growing social 

 unrest with a tendency to feel that in taxation hes the remedy for part of the 

 unsatisfactory distribution of wealth, is giving rise to many proposals of which 

 the diametrically opposed income tax and "single" tax are but conspicuous ex- 

 amples. It is possible that somewhat revolutionary experiments will be made in 

 many communities. 



While without quarrel with any of these insofar as they are attempts to 

 improve social conditions, foresters are responsible for informing the public when 

 measures advocated by those ignorant of or indifferent to forestry threatens the 

 pertetuation of forest resources. An example of such is single tax. We may 

 leave to political economists to advise whether or not it is just to regard land as 

 the only means by which capital exploits labor or seizes the unearned increment, 

 or whether single tax would prove a panacea for many social ills. But it is clearly 

 a matter of moment to us when, having learned unmistakably by experience at 

 home and abroad that adequate forest crops will not be grown without deferring 

 most of the tax thereon until maturity, we are confronted with a proposal actually 

 to penalize good management by making the annual burden much heavier than 

 it is already. It is a complete reversal of the principle adopted by forest-growing 



