570 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
TaBLE 154.—Estimated initial gain or loss in tax revenue by substitution of a yield 
tax for the property tax on timber, selected counties—Continued 
Ratio Gain or loss 
ee ae 
ield tax 
Total | Proper-|_lotal | value Be which 
State, year and property | ty taxes | 
county taxes j|ievied on) 
levied finer value of| cut to | rate 
|timber| total 
tax 
age ae aS Ratio to | yield tax 
total |and prop- 
Amount | proper- | erty tax 
ty tax | receipts 
stump- : 
age levied | are equal 
value 
1,000 Per- 
Washington, 1927: Dollars | Dollars | dollars |Percent| cent | Dollars | Dollars | Percent | Percent 
Clallame sess 896, 384 | 333, 145 | 28, 350 5 | 19.0 | 269,000 | —64, 000 —7.1 | 24 
Grays Harbor---_-_}2, 375, 751 ; 488, 018 | 33, 750 10 | 19.0 | 641, 000 153, 000 6.4 14 
ewiste es 22s 1, 619, 448 | 363, 884 | 38, 250 3 | 19.0 | 218,000 |—146, 000 —9.0 32 
Wisconsin, 1929: 3 
Ashland Sse 222" 686, 074 34, 440 | 2, 519 Silecsee 46, 800 12, 400 1.8 17 
Rorests ete 2 a 489,606 | 147,974 | 10,128 8 | 23.2 | 188, 000 40, 000 8.2 18 
WincolneS: 22.254 854, 182 | 114, 824 9, 861 8 | 23.2 | 183, 000 68, 000 8.0 15 
Oneldaise Sia 725, 316 | 32, 059 | 1,756 8 | 23.2 32, 600 5 a 23 
Raylone2 eet 571, 703 | 17, 048 | 992 8 23.2 18, 400 1, 400 A 21 
! I 
3 All city and village taxes included. 41925. 
The reader is again reminded of the roughness of the estimates 
upon which the above calculations (tables 152, 153, and 154) are 
based and is warned that the conclusions drawn from them are subject 
to a wide margin of error. However, these figures may serve to give 
a useful factual basis for the discussion of the revenue problems 
involved in the yield tax. 
It is to be noted, first of all, that the revenue dislocation that 
would be caused by introduction of the yield tax is local, affecting 
particular counties and towns. Average figures for a whole State 
(as in tables 152 and 153) throw little light on this local situation. 
To say, for example, that the State of Wisconsin might substitute 
the yield tax for the property tax on timber without apparent loss 
of revenue is not getting very close to the real problem. Since the 
functions supported by the existing property tax are chiefly local, 
attention must be given to the counties where forest property is a sub- 
stantial part of the tax base. Here fiscal equilibrium can be main- 
tained only if the State either (1) relieves the counties of responsibility 
for those functions now supported by the property tax or (2) distrib- 
utes the yield-tax revenues to the counties in proportion to their 
respective losses of property-tax income. The difficulties of the first 
course—relieving some counties of responsibility for governmental 
functions which must continue to be borne by the other counties—are 
obvious and very serious. The second course presents difficulties 
scarcely less serious, as already pointed out. In short, data such 
as those presented in tables 152 and 153 go no further than to show 
whether the respective States would be likely in an average year to 
receive enough revenue from the yield tax, with rates as assumed, 
to make good the losses from exempting timber from property tax- 
ation. The vital problem of how local revenues are to be harmo- 
nized with local needs would still remain. 
The data by counties in table 154 go further but are still of limited 
significance. They show what may be presumed to be the approxi- 
mate results in certain counties of a yield tax imposed at a uniform 
