FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES o71 
rate for the whole State but with each county receiving the proceeds 
of the tax on the timber cut within its own borders. Such a plan 
would produce great inequalities among the counties, helping some 
and injuring others, and it would tend to cause extreme irregularity 
of revenue from year to year in each county, unless modified by some 
plan of equalization through a revolving fund administered by the 
State, as has been suggested in a previous section of this part. 
Finally it will be observed that the relations between yield-tax 
revenues and property-tax losses as discussed in the foregoing analysis 
(based on tables 152, 153, and 154) rest upon yield-tax rates which 
are generally far higher than those which are to be found in existing 
yield-tax laws (which, as has been shown, have seldom led to any 
actual collection of yield taxes) and probably far higher than would 
be accepted without strong resistance by owners who would have to 
pay them under a general nonoptional tax. As shown in part 9, the 
forest yield-tax rates now in effect vary from 5 to 12% percent. Only 
three States have rates in excess of 10 percent. In current yield-tax 
discussion rates above 12% percent are seldom considered, and any 
such rate is looked upon as a serious burden by any owner who 
contemplates cutting in the near future. 
Yet the rates of yield tax that would apparently be required to 
equalize revenues, according to the foregoing analysis, are in many 
States far higher than this. Of the seven selected States for which 
such rates have been calculated (table 153) the two lowest rates are 
6.9 percent, in Tennessee, and 8.6 percent, in Louisiana. The 
highest rate is 37.8 percent, in Oregon. The rates shown for the 
other States are: North Carolina, 10.3 percent; New Hampshire, 
18.4 percent; Wisconsin, 19.5 percent; and Washington, 23.3 percent. 
If the yield tax is not to cause serious shortage of revenue on a State- 
wide basis, it would appear that the owners must be prepared to face 
rates that may exact as much as a fifth of the yield and that in any 
event will probably be far heavier than any that are to be found in 
existing laws or that are being seriously considered in current 
discussion. 
It should be remembered that results of the calculations that have 
been employed in this analysis relate to an average year. Even 
though the probability of an adequate yield might be shown for nor- 
mal years, serious revenue dangers would threaten in times of business 
depression, when there would be a falling off both in quantity of tim- 
ber cut and in current stumpage values, thus causing a heavy decrease 
in the base to which the yield-tax rates would apply. Some plan of 
equalizing revenues would seem essential. An important reason 
why the State-wide rather than the county-wide basis for collection 
and distribution of the yield tax is essential is that State governments 
are better equipped than county governments to set up and adminis- 
ter reserves for the lean years from taxes collected in the fat years. 
Even as to the States, past history is anything but encouraging as 
to their competence to administer such reserves. 
In connection with tables 152, 153, and 154, the reader should note 
that the estimates of the timber quantities and values should be used, 
not to make minute comparisons between States or predictions of 
definite financial results, but only as rough general guides. In actual 
practice, a number of factors would in any case be likely to change the 
results somewhat in ways that could not be definitely predicted even 
