FOREST YIELD TAXES 39 



differences found within individual States. If forest land makes up 

 about the same part of the tax base in all counties or other taxing- 

 jurisdictions the application of a yield-tax law has about the same 

 effect on all local governmental budgets. But if, within any State, 

 there is one heavily forested area and others devoted largely to farm- 

 ing or industry, the problems of a forest yield-tax are intensified. 



Differences in the constitutional provisions of the various States 

 may also work against uniformity in yield-tax legislation. Legally 

 these differences are not an insurmountable barrier to uniformity, 

 since constitutions can be amended, but in reality they are a barrier. 



Related to the difficulty of amending the State constitutions is the 

 local attitude toward forestry, and differences in attitude may call for 

 different yield-tax laws. The people in one State, recognizing the 

 importance of a healthy forest industry to the welfare of the State, 

 may favor a form of tax treatment for forest land that would be un- 

 palatable to the people of another State whose primary concern may 

 be in obtaining maximum current taxes from all property owners. 

 Differences in assessment practices may reflect these opposing atti- 

 tudes and may call for different provisions in yield-tax laws. The 

 attitude of the people in any State will affect the contents of a yield- 

 tax law. Provisions will have to be adapted to local conditions. So 

 unless a uniformity of attitudes and purposes can be established 

 variation will have to be accepted. 



WHAT A GOOD YIELD-TAX LAW SHOULD DO 



The possibility that much of the dissatisfaction with yield-tax laws 

 in operation may have come from expecting too much from them has 

 already been discussed. This suggests that more careful considera- 

 tion be given to the purpose of yield-tax legislation and to the means 

 by which this purpose may be accomplished. 



There seems to be more dispute about the means of collecting yield- 

 tax than the objective. The end result universally desired is an im- 

 provement in forest practices, greater stability of ownership and 

 management, and greater stability of the industries using products 

 of the forest. The real questions are how these objectives can be 

 achieved, how the yield-tax principle can help to achieve them, and 

 how much can be expected from the yield tax. 



The apparent object of some of the laws has been to require better 

 forestry in return for tax concessions. These concessions may be 

 either in the form of subsidy to forest landowners through lower taxes 

 or aid to the landowners through the postponement of the tax on tim- 

 ber to the time of harvest. The forest practices required vary from 

 reasonable protection from fire or destructive grazing to timber man- 

 agement and improved cutting practices. The general purpose of 

 these laws is the same — promoting better forestry through tax 

 concessions. 



Other laws have apparently recognized that the uncertainty of 

 future tax costs may be as serious a deterrent to forestry as a current 

 high level of taxes, and they have attempted to eliminate one of the 

 uncertainties of forest management by stabilizing this element of 

 cost without offering any reduction in total tax payments. Some 

 States have required improved forest practices on lands classified to 

 take advantage of this certainty of tax payments, but the owners 



