252 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
TaBLE 107.—Trend in tares, 1900-1929; forest taxes on selected areas compared 
with State and local tax collections in the United States, and with certain other 
taxes } 
Ratio of taxes at end of period to|} Rate of 
: those at beginning increase 
relative 
Type of taxes and location of selected properties to total 
1900-| 1905-) 1910-] 1915-| 1920-| 1925- Slate aud 
1905 | 10 | 15 | 20 29 | local tax 
collections 
Forest taxes per thousand board feet: ae |) Date Teed Jetee, |) Seeh|| Jeten 
Oregon, west-side counties_________-_-__---__------- 260 | 230; 140 SOR 210) | Saas 1.3 
Ores Oman GWA Da iit Sb 0 rae a | ee | eel | eee 80} 230 |_----- .9 
PASVCFAGO TOTAL OVS LAL CS eset ee a eee ey eee | er | rea 120 | 130} 150! 140 1.0 - 
Forest taxes per acre: : 
Maine: 
Corporation pac sto tee ie a he | 190 | 100} 100; 170] 150 1.1 
Corporation’ Bs: sae 3 6 ie eee ee 150 | 150 90 90 | 220} 180 ileal 
Corporationi@ -2te fos See ee reine 470 450 100 100 180 160 1.5 
Corporation Hewes kee Cae aN Soa eee 160 190 120 110 20 ee 11 
New Hampshire: Corporation D_______--_____---_-|_----- 80} 110/ 110; 150] 140 .9 
INC wa ork:( Corporation ys ee eee 130 | 120 80 90} 170} 150 .9 
Vermont: 
Corporation 22s ee Se ge en eo RE ean Tea ed 120 | 120; 120] 120} 150}; 140 1.0 
Corporation LD) Se 22) oe See ale oe eye 220 100 100 140 130 1.0 
Washington) Conporation hee re a een (soi! 9840) |. 120, | algo) oi | eee 1.6 
All taxes per acre, Michigan: 
Lower Peninsula forest counties____________________ 120 | 100); 160 80))|| 160) | a= .9 
Upper Peninsula forest counties ___-____._--___--_--_- 130! 100); 150 SOs COR sae .v 
MALLsforestiCounties|o82 2s a eee ee eee 120 | 100) 140 900) 1607 | 2s .9 
Mineralicounties ~ 2225-222 ye hens 120} 100; 100; 100} 200 |____-_- .9 
Marm COUNTIES. 2me sae es ae as ea ee a 1200|) OON 100851000)" 2200) ees .9 
Harm-urbanicountieses == seas s see ae se eens Seen NOOR Ns 100/150-2007 100K 250) See est 
Urbanicountiestesrsrieee os Seta ee ie enn eaeeees 100 | 120} 200; 100] 200 |_____- Vat 
A SCouTtiESs ee SN ne eee 2 See Ee es een 100 100 200 100 2507 | Sena sigal 
Farm taxes per acre, average for 26 States_______________|_--___]_-_-__|_----- 90; 160; 110 8 
Total State and local tax collections in the United 
POE Sj ee al ae eR Ie I a ws Se Se ee i 120 120 110 140 160 140 1.0 
1 Sources of data: Values read from figures 7, 8, and 9, and ratios computed. All taxes based on 1926 
purchasing power. 
In order to make a rough comparison between tax trends, the 
last column of table 107 was computed. This column represents the 
rate of increase, for comparable periods, of the average ratios for the 
category in question relative to the average ratios for the State and 
local tax collections. For example, to compare the trend in forest 
taxes per thousand board feet in the west-side counties of Oregon 
(first item in table 107) for the period 1900-1925 with the trend in 
State and local tax collections in the United States (last item in table 
107) during the same period, the ratios of each category were averaged 
separately. The average (geometric) of 260, 230, 140, 90, and 210 
is 170. The average (geometric) of 120, 120, 110, 140, and 160 is 
130. The ratio of 170 to 130 is 1.38. Thus, a rate in the last column 
greater than 1 indicates that taxes for the category in question have 
increased faster than the State and local tax collections. 
Compared with the increase in total State and local tax collections 
in the United States, taxes per acre in the forest, mineral, and farm 
counties of Michigan have increased at a slower rate. In the farm- 
urban and urban counties and in the aggregate of all counties the taxes 
have increased at a faster rate. The upward trend of taxes in the 
forest counties has probably been somewhat retarded by the shrinkage 
of the tax base due to the cutting of timber. 
Farm taxes per acre averaged for 26 States have increased at a 
slower rate than total State and local tax collections in the United 
States. 
