FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 553 
administration. Before discussing specific plans of forest taxation, 
attention will be directed to some general questions which arise in 
connection with such plans. 
UNIFORM FIXED ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC TAXES 
It has been shown that the adverse effects of the property tax are 
in part the consequences of the impossibility of predicting even re- 
motely what its future burden will be. So far as this fault comes 
from uncertainty regarding the assessment or the tax rate, it could 
be removed, in whole or in part, (1) by a fixed assessment, 1. e., by 
fixing the assessed value at so many dollars per acre in the tax law, or 
(2) by a fixed tax rate in the statute, or (3) by a specific tax per acre 
determined by law. This last method would remove the uncertainty 
both of assessment and of tax rate. Legislation definitely prescribing 
a fixed tax rate for forest property has been attempted only once; in 
1927 by Minnesota, where it was superseded by a specific tax 2 years 
later. The idea of fixed assessment or specific tax has received no 
little favorable consideration. Among the more conspicuous examples 
are the recent laws of Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington, 
which are described in part 9. 
The two chief arguments in favor of a uniform fixed assessment or 
a specific tax are (1) that tax administration is simplified and (2) that 
the uncertainty of the tax burden is largely or entirely removed. That 
tax administration would thus tend to be simplified is obvious. This 
tendency 1s, however, counteracted to the extent that the fixed assess- 
ment or the specific "tax requires land classification or too greatly 
complicates the assessment machinery by setting off certain property 
in a compartment of its own, upon which the assessor must take care 
not to intrude. 
The argument that the uncertainty of the tax burden is largely re- 
moved is valid to a certain extent. But here also there is a counter- 
acting tendency in 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 hazardous risk. 
If the price level of forest products should drop, for instance, the owner 
might quite reasonably anticipate that the costs of producing forest 
products would also drop. If the tax is specific, however, this very 
important cost cannot drop. If the assessment is fixed, the tax cost 
cannot drop as rapidly as it otherwise might; only a lower tax rate 
can bring about a reduction in tax cost under a fixed assessment. Of 
course it is always possible to make adjustments by legislation amend- 
ing the law as to the fixed assessment or the amount of the specific 
tax. But if such amendments are to be counted upon, the essential 
character of fixity is lost. Frequent determination of assessed values 
or of taxes per acre by act of legislature would generally present hazards 
even greater than those which inhere in the ordinary operation of the 
property tax. 
Under a system of uniform fixed assessment of, or a specific tax on, 
forest land, the less valuable land suffers a heavier burden in propor- 
tion to its value than does the more valuable land. Forest land varies 
in value all the way from almost nothing up to $10 an acre or even 
more on certain very favorable sites. An annual tax of $0.05 or $0.10 
per acre at the lower extreme imposes a severe burden, while at the 
other extreme the same tax requires only a very light ‘contribution. 
