FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 569 
TABLE 153.—Esiimated initial gain or loss in tax revenue by substitution of a yield 
tax for the property tax on wmber,! selected States 
Prop- be ree y Aver- SOO Cine Oi ess vislaitas 
eLGy, |ncollec=s|fammwall| laces | merecn camel ima | ce whieh 
taxes | tions cut prop- : yield tax 
State on State subject | erty Ratio to pers and prop- 
tim- and to tax | Rate | Amount} Amount| taxes on collec- | erty, tax 
ber | local, | yield | rate timber Hone receipts 
1929 tax are equal 
1,000 | 1,000 1,000 | Per- | Per- | 1,000 1,000 
dollars} dollars | dollars | cent | cent | dollars | dollars | Percent | Percent | Percent 
New Hampshire - 758 | 26,360 | 4,120} 2.13 |} 21.3 878 120 15.8 0.5 18. 4 
Wisconsin_-_____-- 1, 510 |175, 147 7. 740 22, BV || FBS, 7 1, 800 290 19. 2 2 19.5 
Tennessee-__-_---- 521 | 66, 490 7, 530 1.08 | 10.8 813 292 56. 0 4 6.9 
North Carolina__} 1, 180 | 97, 299 | 11, 500 1. 20 | 12.0 1, 380 200 16.9 we 10.3 
Louisiana-_____--_- 1,670 | 75,520 | 19,400 | 1.77 | 17.7 3, 430 1, 760 105. 0 253 8.6 
Oregon_____---_-- 4,690 | 65, 466 | 12,400] 1.67 ; 16.7 2,070 | —2,620 | —55.9 —4.0 37.8 
Washington__---- 5, 720 | 95, 319 | 24,500} 1.90 | 19.0 4,660 | —1,060 | —18.5 —1.1 23. 3 
1 Sources of data: Column 2, estimated assessed values of timber times average tax rates. Estimated 
assessed values of timber computed by applying ratios of assessed to actual value to rough estimates of 
the actual value of privately owned timber, and checked by State tax commission reports where possible. 
These ratios are figures of the U. S. Bureau of the Census (2/3, p. 5) except in New Hampshire and Wis- 
consin, where they were derived from local studies. Average tax rates computed from State tax com- 
mission reports eliminating wherever possible urban and nontimbered counties. Column 3 (8, p. 80). 
Column 4, average timber cut times unit values. Timber cut based on estimates of total saw timber cut 
covering the period 1925 to 1929, less national-forest timber cut. Unit values based on stumpage prices 
reported to the Forest Service, averaged for the same period. Column 5, average property tax rates com- 
puted from State tax commission reports were converted to the actual value basis by applying ratios of 
assessed to actual value, both rates and ratios calculated as for column 2. Column 6, yield tax rate =10r, 
where 7 is the average property tax rate. Column 7, by applying yield tax rates, column 6, to stumpage 
values, column 4. Columns 8, 9, 10, and 11 by computation. 
In table 154 corresponding data are given for typical forest counties 
in five selected States. From the facts here presented, it would appear 
that the application of a yield tax at a rate based on 10 times the 
property-tax rate for the forest regions would usually result in a loss 
compared with the property tax. However in a normal year the 
deficiencies on a county-wide basis would apparently not be serious 
in most of the counties represented in the table, always on the assump- 
tion of the rates indicated. 
TABLE 154.—Estimaied initial gain or loss in tax revenue by substitution of a yield 
tax for the property tax on timber,! selected counties 
Hae Gain or loss 
sumed SST Gee Bete of 
leld tax 
Total | Proper- Bale walue Yield 4 which 
State, year, and property | ty taxes |", a attal. | ieee Yield Ratio to| yield tax 
county taxes {levied on otis Oil Gite |) ED tax total | and prop- 
levied timber Saale Carell Amount | proper- | erty tax 
* | stump- ty tax | receipts 
age levied | are equal 
value 
1,000 Per- 
Minnesota, 1926: 2 Dollars | Dollars | dollars |Percent| cent | Dollars | Dollars | Percent | Percent 
Cookvte22 2 84 223, 239 | 134,803 | 5, 408 8 | 26.2 | 118,000 | —22, 000 —9.9 31 
Koochiching-_-_____ 748,077 | 182,309 | 8, 484 8 | 26.2 | 178,000] —4, 000 —.5 27 
Wakes 2 eos 408,321 | 94,981 | 5,012 8 | 26.2 | 105, 000 10, 600 2.5 24 
North Carolina, 1928: 
Beaufort____--___- 562, 526 | 36,960) 2, 458 6 | 12.0} 17,700 | —19, 300 —3.4 25 
Chatham_-____-__- 300, 242 25, 114 1, 864 3 | 12.0 6,710 | —18, 400 —6.1 45 
IMaconss=2 ssa 166, 137 | 30,093 | 2, 466 5 | 12.0} 14,800 | —15, 300 —9. 2 24 
Oregon, 1928: 2 
Clatsop) aaa 1, 630, 329 | 541, 275 | 29, 250 8 | 16.7 | 391, 000 |—150, 000 —9.2 23 
Coos see eee 1, 304, 042 | 254, 509 | 21, 000 5 | 16.7 | 175, 000 | —80, 000 —6. 24 
Tillamook-__------ 1, 073, 497 | 507, 399 | 42, 500 3 | 16.7 | 213, 0CO |—294,000 | —27. 4 40 
1 Sources of data: Column 2 from State tax commission reports, except North Carolina where the figures 
were computed by applying district tax rates to assessed values as shown by county records; columns 3 
and 4 are estimates based on all the available information in State tax commission reports, in county records, 
and from field observations; column 5 by arbitrary assumptions in Minnesota and Wisconsin, elsewhere 
based on rough estimates of the value of the average annual cut in the years immediately prior to 1928; 
column 6, yield-tax rate=107, where r is the State average property-tax rate; columns 7 to 10 by compu- 
tation. 
2 Exclusive of money and credits. 
