FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES eres 
TaBLE 47.—Assessment ratios based on appraisals, by property classes, 1928; 
selected towns, New Hampshire ! 
Town and ownership Forest Farm Other All classes 
Fremont: Percent Percent Percent Percent 
FROST GLO TUG cirri a SR UE ee ee ad 70 64 64 
IN(GTN EST Gra Gee ee sek Pe NL ON 51 68 66 56 
Coy eet PS SA SN MA eid A ct Tee Ug ey el 61 65 64 63 
Loudon: 
ER OST ernie NR NS ep eRe Se Lh 100 75 68 75 
INO TOSTCO Ta tee Ee REY oa ae Re 2 91 88 83 88 
CaN) | See Sa RUN eg IS ere Lae 9) a 93 76 73 78 
Richmond: 
1 RYEISH KO (Spa 8 Fetes Ome OO SOM O(a fe FMT a Le A AL VE 82 70 78 76 
INIOMF ESL GOT Gh Nees a AT A 71 83 99 72 
FING eg LBs P e  E BUN  e e G NS TEU nc  co ea 74 72 81 74 
1 Source of data: Refer to table 26. 
INEQUALITY AS SHOWN BY SALES 
WISCONSIN 
A reasonably good sample of assessment ratios as determined by 
sales was possible in Wisconsin by use of the comprehensive collec- 
tion of sales records made by the Wisconsin Tax Commission. The 
counties selected for study included all of the 17 northern or forest 
counties, being those in which less than 40 percent of the land area is 
in farms, and also one intermediate county (Shawano), in which 
neither forest nor farm interests predominate, and one southern 
county (Richland), in which the forest land is largely in farm wood 
lots. In the entire 19 counties, over 6,000 sales were classified in 
accordance with the predominant value, as above indicated. These 
sales had an aggregate value, as measured by considerations, of about 
$9,600,000 and involved an area of more than 300,000 acres. 
The properties sold were classified as farm or forest in accordance 
with the predominant value, and forest properties were subdivided 
into those containing merchantable timber, under the heading 
‘‘timber’’, and those without merchantable timber, under the head- 
ing ‘‘cut over.’’ Certain forest and farm lands, because of location 
on streams or lakes or of other features, derive their principal value 
from recreational possibilities. Properties consisting of such lands 
were separately treated as ‘‘resort.’”’ The term ‘‘residential and 
business’? was applied to those properties which, though outside of 
villages and cities, are chiefly valuable for the purposes indicated. 
Town properties which could not be assigned with a reasonable degree 
ee cortanty to any of the foregoing classes are not represented in 
table 48. 
