FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 619 
problem of finding what rate will produce the maximum revenue, or, 
in other words, charging what the traffic will bear. Experience with 
the classified property tax in the United States has failed to demon- 
strate its effectiveness in any large way. There is little reason to hope 
that future developments will succeed in producing any greatly 
increased revenue from the taxation of intangibles, or any corre- 
sponding relief to real estate. 
What has been said about intangibles applies substantially to the 
attempt to obtain more revenue from the taxation of those forms of 
tangible personal property which now largely escape. Household 
furniture, libraries, jewelry, and musical instruments are undoubtedly 
destined more and more to evade the attention of the assessor. Even 
such forms of personal property as merchants’ stock in trade, and 
manufacturers’ machinery, materials, goods in process, and finished 
products present a problem whose solution has not yet been found. 
There is no sound basis for the hope that future developments will: 
ereatly increase the effectiveness of the property tax as it relates to 
tangible personal property generally. 
It should be noted that attempts in the United States to improve 
the application of the property tax to personal property, and espe- 
cially to intangibles, run counter to experience in other parts of the 
world. In only a few places, found chiefly in the Swiss Cantons and 
the States of Germany, has the ‘‘general”’ property tax persisted 
outside of the United States. Of course, the tax is not ‘‘general’’, 
except in name, even in the United States. Everywhere else the 
attempt to tax intangibles and most forms of personal property has 
been given up, and the general property tax, after a long process of 
evolution, has reverted to its original form as a tax upon real estate. 
Those who look for a different ultimate result in the United States 
have slight ground for their hope. 
With respect to tax exemption, there is, as has been shown, room 
for substantial relief. Whether there is ground for any real hope in 
this direction is largely a matter of speculation. Frequent protests 
are being heard against the increase in tax exemption, and serious 
question is being raised as to the theoretical basis, if any such exists, 
of exemption. What is obviously needed is the formulation of a clear 
theory upon which to justify the public concession to the favored 
property. It is hard to see how any sound theory of this sort could 
fail to condemn much of the exemption that is now permitted. Even 
as to the rest, there would then arise the question of whether the favor 
could not be extended in some more equitable way than through tax 
exemption. A system of bounties, carefully drawn so as to conform 
to some measure of the public service justifying the concession, 
would possibly be more equitable than exemption from taxation. As 
a general rule, the value of property exempted can have only a rough 
relation to the considerations which would justify a public concession 
In any given case. It may be stated that while forest property 
doubtless suffers from the widespread prevalence of exemption and 
has just ground for demanding a change, the prospect of any sub- 
stantial relief here is at best remote and problematical. 
In conclusion, while any change which would broaden the property 
tax base and reduce the importance of real estate therein, would, to 
that extent, benefit forest property, there would appear to be no 
ground for expecting any very substantial relief to the forests from 
this direction. 
