402 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
CRITICISM OF CERTAIN FEATURES 
The mathematical principles underlying the yield-tax and exemp- 
tion laws have been discussed in part 3. At this point it is appropriate 
to consider certain features which seem to limit the usefulness of 
the existing legislation of this kind. The first to be considered 
arises from the use of the fixed or limited assessment or the specific 
tax on the land. 
It has been shown that if the land element of a forest property is 
taxed under the unmodified property tax, it is in danger both of 
relatively high assessment and of high local tax rates. The realization 
of this danger has led to a demand for special treatment of classified 
forest lands in addition to the provisions affecting the timber. Such 
special treatment has appeared to offer an easier way than following 
the hard road of reforming the administration of the property tax, 
particularly of assessment practice. The restrictions on the taxation 
of land, as shown, have usually taken the form of fixed assessments 
or specific taxes. A degree of certainty appears to be introduced 
into this part of the tax burden by these devices. The fact is usually 
overlooked that prospective changes in the general price level of all 
commodities or in the special price level of forest products may make 
a fixed assessment or a specific tax a highly uncertain burden. In 
case of a long-continued drop in the price level of forest products, the 
owner might quite reasonably anticipate that there would also be a 
drop in the value of his forest lands which would, under the normal 
operation of the property tax, result in lower assessment and lower 
taxes. If the tax were specific it could not drop at all; if the assess- 
ment were fixed the tax cost could not drop as rapidly as it otherwise 
might. If an attempt be made to adjust for such changes by legisla- 
tion amending the law as to the fixed assessment or the amount of 
the specific tax, the element of certainty claimed for these devices 
would be destroyed in another way. 
Under a system of fixed assessment or specific tax on forest land, 
the less valuable land suffers a heavier burden in proportion to its 
value than does the more valuable land. Forest land varies materi- 
ally in price per acre. A fixed annual tax may impose a severe bur- 
den on low-priced land, and a very light burden on high-priced land. 
The same situation holds in the case of a fixed assessment. A fixed 
assessment is far more burdensome on low-priced than on high-priced 
forest land. The specific tax is not related in any way to govern- 
mental needs, so that the effect of variation on those needs on property 
not subject to this tax is unduly intensified. The fixed assessment 
or the specific tax is inherently arbitrary and inelastic and not propor- 
tioned either to ability to pay or to benefit received, and the specific 
tax is not adjustable to public-revenue requirements. 
The hope of obtaining certainty as to the future burden of taxes on 
forest property has also been responsible for the contract feature which 
has been included in a number of existing laws. The contracts 
provided for in these laws usually attempt to prevent future legis- 
latures from changing the tax status of specified forest properties by 
setting up a contractual relationship between the owner of the forest 
property and the State. The owner is seldom required to assume 
any real and unavoidable responsibilities in consideration of this 
protection. Such one-sided contracts are of doubtful validity in 
