618 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
an income cycle of 15 years, the tax ratio with a reduction factor of 
30 percent is 41, the same as that of the income tax. However, if 
the factor is reduced from 30 percent to 10 percent, the tax ratio is in- 
creased only to 47 percent. The reason for this result is in part the sta- 
bilizing influence of taxing the land value at the full property tax rate. 
The comparisons in this section have been based on tax ratios, 
because these ratios lend themselves readily to comparative analysis. 
The discussion might have been built about taxes or land values, with 
conclusions similar to those developed. 
The results in this set of examples are in some measure dependent 
on the relationships between the several items of income and expense 
assumed for the purpose of illustration. These relationships cannot 
be typical of all forest conditions. Therefore, it is suggested that the 
reader use the method and formulas of these tables to test the applica- 
tion of these plans to the forest conditions with which he is familiar. 
A MORE INCLUSIVE BASE FOR THE PROPERTY TAX 
Examination of the possibilities of forest-tax reform would not be 
complete without at least brief notice of the possibility of relief from 
broadening the base of the property tax. Reference was made at an 
earlier point (p. 527) to the charge that, on account of the virtual 
escape of intangible property and many forms of tangible personalty, 
real estate is burdened with a disproportionate part of the revenue 
collected by means of the property tax. Whatever disability exists 
here obviously affects the forests, and any reform which would broaden 
the base of the property tax by means of more effective taxation of 
personal property would bring corresponding tax relief to the forests. 
In the brief discussion of this topic on page 527, no attempt wasmade to 
arrive at an answer as to the justice of this charge against the property 
tax. This is a question on which opinion is divided, and the answer 
requires further extended study. For the purpose of this investiga- 
tion the answer to this question is not of great importance, owing to 
the very slight probability of relief to real estate along this line. The 
notion that all intangible property ought to be included along with 
tangibles in the tax base is unsound in theory and utterly incapable 
of practical achievement. Attempts thus to tax intangibles have 
everywhere resulted in failure. A considerable school of thought 
today believes that the remedy lies in the classified property tax, by 
means of which intangible property, or certain classes of intangible 
property, would be taxed at rates materially lower than are applied 
to tangibles. While this is not the place to go into a thorough 
examination of this question, it is submitted that this program is 
weak in theory and of little promise as to practicalresult. Ifintangi- 
ble property, as is held by many, represents in large measure simply 
roperty rights to tangible property which is itself taxed, then even a 
ibe rate on such intangibles is double taxation. If, on the other 
hand, intangible property is to be regarded as representing taxpaying 
ability j in the same way as tangible property, then the low rate of tax 
represents an unjustifiable discrimination. The classified property 
tax, indeed, rests on no sound foundation of theory; rather, it repre- 
sents the attempt to get as much revenue as possible from the taxa- 
tion of intangibles. It is admitted that taxation of intangibles at the 
same rates as apply to tangible property is utterly impossible, and 
these who advocate the classified property tax set themselves the 
