242 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
of which are efficient administration and protection. Since these 
costs are taken care of in the item for miscellaneous expenses, which 
are assumed to be $0.10 per acre as previously explained, the cost of 
regeneration under these systems may be considered as zero. The 
Maximum and minimum tax rates are assumed to be the same as for 
the New Hampshire example. The typical tax rate used is 1.5 per- 
cent. This is the average ratio of taxes to actual value as given above 
for the three selected counties of North Carolina. 
The financial rotations, initial forest values, and tax ratios are 
shown in table 95. This table indicates that under the present 
assumptions as to yields and costs, and under the existing tax system 
at a typical rate, the growing of loblolly pine inNorth Carolina under 
natural regeneration would yield 3 percent on the investment if good, 
medium, and poor sites could be purchased for not more than $27, 
$15, and $6, respectively. Planting at $6 per acre would yield 3 
percent on good and medium sites if the land could be bought for not 
over $19 and $8, respectively. On account of the lower typical tax 
rate and the shorter rotations, the tax ratios in North Carolina are 
lower than in New Hampshire. The tax ratios for naturally regen- 
erated stands in North Carolina are 51 percent for good sites, 53 
percent for medium sites, and 59 percent for poor sites. For planted 
stands the tax ratios are the same or slightly greater. 
TaBLeE 95.—Financial rotation, initial forest value, and tax ratio under the property 
tax for loblolly pine in North Carolina } 
GOOD SITE 
Planting Natural regeneration 
Tax rate : .1| Initial for- . ;,]| Initial for- 
Piven est value | Taxratio een est value | Taxratio 
per acre per acre 
Years Dollars Percent Years Dollars Percent 
NS DCLCOMN Ge ese ee See ee ee 36 31.70 40 35 33. 70 39 
Ae percent sece ea ae een 34 25. 20 51 33 26. 90 51 
Sipercent! 222-25 2a oe ee ee 31 13. 80 72 29 15. 00 71 
MEDIUM SITE 
TpeRCeNn tee ae wane ee ee 40 17. 80 42 39 19. 40 42 
1ebipercentss-s2e=— 22 Passes aes 39 13. 80 55 37 15. 20 53 
ZiPerGent-sssase sense Nee lo See 35 6. 90 76 | 33 7.90 74 
POOR SITE 
IG percent esas esses eee naan eae eae 47 6. 20 48 44 7. 40 46 
1e5j\ percentsssese 2 222i Se ol ee eek ae 46 4. 50 62 42 5. 50 59 
Sipercent= 23 225 se bs Slee eee ee 42 1.70 85 39 2. 30 82 
1 Assumptions and method of computation are described in the text. Interest rate used, 3 percent. 
A further analysis was made in North Carolina. Sample properties 
were selected in Beaufort, Chatham, and Macon Counties, and the 
necessary data were obtained to make a prediction as to the growth 
during the succeeding 20 years. Probable taxes were also computed 
by means of curves showing trends in assessed value as the volume of 
timber per acre increases. ‘The present tax rate was applied to these 
