564 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
TaBLE 151.— Average yield-itax rates} 
Yield-tax rates based on a property tax rate of— 
Rotation 
0.5 1 Le 2 PAs 3 
percent percent percent percent percent percent 
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 
SON Cars ess nee ee ee 6 11 15 19 23 26 
40 VCATS = anes coe eater ane a 13 18 23 27 31 
SOF eCarseathWes ess fae eS 8 15 21 26 31 35 
GOV CATS 2 ee eee ee 9 17 23 29 34 38 
SOSV Cars! eee Eee ee ee 11 20 7 33 38 42 
1This table is based on managed second-growth forests where the income cycle is equal to 4 and 
smaller fractions of the rotation forests with more than one age class). Formula 23, pt. 3, was used in com- 
puting the rates represented by the above averages. 
It is evident that under the conditions represented in tables 150 and 
151 there are two factors which would have prenounced influence on 
the determination of the yield-tax rate; namely, the property-tax 
rate and the rotation. If cases where the income cycle is the same as 
the rotation (even-aged forests) are eliminated from consideration, the 
mniuenee of all other factors that would affect the yield-tax rate is 
shent. 
Attention is directed to the wide variations in yield-tax rates corre- 
sponding to the conditions represented in table 151. For example, if 
the rotation is 50 years, a change in the property-tax rate from 1 to 2.5 
percent raises the yield-tax rate from 15 to 31 percent. If the prop- 
erty-tax rate is constant at 1.5 percent, there is a range of variation 
in yleld-tax rates from 15 to 27 percent as the rotation is increased 
from 30 to 80 years. 
Since the formulas for yield-tax rates applicable to second growth 
give such different results under different conditions, and since these 
conditions are far from uniform within States and their subdivisions, 
these formulas could be applied directly to determine uniform yield- 
tax rates applicable to States or counties only by ignoring the differ- 
ences between individual properties. Ifa uniform constant property- 
tax rate and a single rotation could be ascribed to the second-growth 
forests of the State or county for which a uniform yield-tax rate were 
desired, a close approximation to the correct rate could be read from 
table 151, provided that even-aged forest properties were sufficiently 
exceptional so that they could be disregraded for practical purposes. 
In practice, property-tax rates may vary widely, both among differ- 
ent local taxing districts in the same year, and within a single district 
from year to year. It is impracticable to adjust yield-tax rates to 
current local property-tax rates. Methods by which property-tax 
rates might be averaged for the determination of uniform State or 
local yield-tax rates will be mentioned at a later point. 
There is, of course, no uniform rotation within a State, county, or 
town. The only way to meet this difficulty would be to determine an 
average or typical rotation as the basis for the yield-tax rate, in which 
case properties managed on a shorter rotation than this average would 
be overburdened, and those managed on a longer rotation would be 
favored. Suppose, for example, that in the State or district concerned 
it was found that rotations of 30 to 50 years were the rule. The 
average or typical rotation might then be considered to be 40 years. 
From table 151 the yield-tax rate could be determined according to 
