562 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
ment. On the other hand there are objections—both theoretical and 
practical—to the entire exemption of forest-land values from the prop- 
erty tax which compel attention to the alternative modified yield tax. 
In the first place, the retention of the property tax on land seems 
to be the best way of taxing certain elements of value that occur in 
many forest properties which are managed only in part for the produc- 
tion of forest products. Forest lands may be subject to other uses 
compatible with timber growing, such as grazing, recreation, and 
production of game and fish. Benefits from these and other sources 
would be difficult to evaluate in cash for the purpose of levying a 
yield tax. Forest lands may also be managed for wood production 
while held speculatively for an eventual use that is incompatible 
with continued forestry, as for agriculture or residence sites. The 
added value arising from these other prospective uses would escape 
taxation under a pure yield tax, for as soon as the time were ripe for 
the conversion to the more profitable use, the property would fall 
out of the forest-land category. In the meantime the speculative 
holders would have been unduly favored, unless an ‘‘unearned 
increment” tax were imposed on the increase in value for the higher 
use. It is preferable to leave whatever value the land has for all 
uses, present and prospective, subject to taxation in the same manner 
as real estate in general. Otherwise it would be necessary either to 
attempt segregation of that part of the value of the land in excess of 
the value which it would have were forestry the most profitable use and 
tax this excess value under the property tax, which in practice would 
be very difficult, or to exclude entirely forest properties with recognized 
land values based on prospective uses other than forestry, which ‘would 
greatly narrow the application of the plan and reduce its benefits. 
Another reason for leaving the land subject to annual taxation is 
to relieve in some degree the local revenue situation in counties where 
forest land predominates. Obviously this relief is relatively small in 
counties with a substantial quantity of valuable timber in the tax base. 
In cut-over communities, on the other hand, it permits the application 
of the yield-tax plan with very little change in current revenues. 
Finally the proposal to exempt forest land entirely from the 
property tax would run counter to the most fundamental tradition of 
property taxation. Of the entire property tax structure, the tax on 
land is the heart and center. Historically, land was the foundation of 
the first property taxes—they were indeed scarcely more than land 
taxes. In the evolution of the property tax throughout the world, 
various other classes of property were added from time to time. As 
experience taught the difficulties of taxing personal property, most 
classes of such property were gradually eliminated, so that among 
modern countries generally (outside of the United States) the property 
tax has pretty much gone back to its original state—a tax on real 
estate. While the United States has been reluctant to go thus far in 
giving up the taxation of personal property, it is scarcely conceivable 
that this country will ever consent to the exemption from property 
taxation of any considerable part of its land resources. Moreover the 
general case—economic, political, and social—against such exemption 
would appear to be conclusive. 
The land tax may be an unmodified property tax on the assessed 
value of land apart from timber, or it may be limited. The limitation 
may be made in one of three ways: (1) by fixing either a constant or a 
Maximum assessment, (2) by imposing a specific annual tax per acre, 
