230 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
In the areas studied, the average taxes per acre on forests range 
from $0.06 to $1.08, while the average taxes on other rural real estate 
range from $0.06 to $6.91 per acre (table 87). In each of the units 
studied, except 1 township of Minnesota and 4 counties of Oregon, the 
taxes per acre on forests are less than those on other rural real estate. 
This is to be expected, since ordinarily forests are less valuable than 
most other rural real estate. The exceptions mentioned above merely 
prove the rule; the merchantable timber present in these areas places 
the forests among the most valuable classes of the rural real estate. 
Of course, the amount of the average tax per acre gives no adequate 
picture of the tax burden, because of the differences in actual average 
value of different property classes. 
Within a given political unit forests may be subject to higher or 
lower tax rates (ratios of taxes to assessed value) than is other rural 
real estate. This is due to the superimposition on a common political 
unit of minor taxing districts, such as school, road, or drainage dis- 
tricts, which may exclude most of the forests and include most of the 
other rural real estate, or vice versa. ‘These differences are not 
generally present except in certain regions where forests are segre- 
gated into relatively large and compact zones. Where forests are 
more or less scattered among other types of rural real estate, there 
would be no material difference in tax rates. A comparison of tax 
rates between forests and other rural real estate in the same political 
unit points out these unequal distributions of minor taxing districts. 
While tax rates are useful to indicate differences in costs of govern- 
ment, they are not a good measure of tax burden, because of the almost 
universal departure of assessed value from actual value. The best 
measure of tax burden is the ratio of taxes to estimated value. A 
comparison of this ratio between forests and other rural real estate 
shows the different treatment that these categories receive in the 
assessment. The ratios of taxes to estimated value also show the 
differences in tax burden between the various political units. 
For the purpose of comparing tax burdens it was necessary to 
determine an average ratio of taxes to estimated value for the political 
units studied. It was found that this ratio averages 2 percent for 
forests and 1.5 percent for other rural real estate. In the following 
comparisons these ratios are used as standards. 
These averages were derived in the following manner: 
The taxes and estimated values of the forests and of other rural real estate in 
the selected areas (table 87) were added, respectively, for each State represented. 
The ratio of taxes to estimated value so derived for each State is thus a weighted 
average. 
ine cenied averages of these ratios are 2.4 percent for forests and 1.4 percent 
for other rural real estate. In computing a more representative average, how- 
ever, the Minnesota data were eliminated. The tax conditions in the areas 
studied in that State, especially as regards forest taxes, are exceptional and 
probably not permanent. With Minnesota eliminated the ratio of taxes to 
estimated value is 2 percent for forests and 1.5 percent for other rural real estate. 
FORESTS AND OTHER RURAL REAL ESTATE IN SELECTED LOCALITIES 
MAINE 
Comparisons of the tax burden on forests and on other rural real 
estate will now be made among the various political subdivisions 
studied. The data for these comparisons will all be found in the 
last four columns of table 87. The average ratio of taxes to estimated 
