FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 621 
reliance on other forms of local taxation. The same result, as to di- 
minishing the reliance on the property tax, may be brought about 
indirectly through a continuation of the movement already under way 
toward redistribution of government functions between the State and 
its local subdivisions. As the State takes over functions formerly 
performed by the local governments or renders aid to the local govern- 
ments toward defraying their expenses, the net effect will generally 
be a decreased relative reliance upon the property tax, since the State, 
more than the local governments, already has access to other sources 
of revenue and may be expected to continue to cultivate these other 
sources in the future. 
So far as events develop in this direction, the tendency will of course 
be to lighten the burden of forest taxation. On the other hand, the 
persistent increase in governmental costs which has been in progress 
for at least 2 or 3 generations must not be forgotten. If this develop- 
ment is not checked, it is quite possible that new sources of revenue 
may no more than suffice to meet the increased demands of govern- 
ment, with the result that, even though the property tax might come 
to occupy a relatively less important position in the tax system as a 
whole, its absolute burden might remain undiminished, or even con- 
tinue its past increase. It should be noted, however, that a relative 
decrease 1n the use of the property tax would reduce the competitive 
disadvantage of forestry as an avenue for investment. 
Obviously, no precise conclusion is possible in this matter. It may 
safely be concluded that forest property stands to benefit in the future 
from the tendency to develop other sources of revenue and so to di- 
minish the relative position of the property tax. On the other hand, 
this favorable tendency may be counteracted in whole or in part so 
far as absolute burden is concerned by continued increase in the cost 
of government. While there is here a tendency favorable to the use 
of land for forestry, it would be altogether too optimistic to infer the 
probability of any immediate substantial contribution to the solution 
of the forest-tax problem. 
RELIEVING THE ABSOLUTE BURDEN OF TAXATION 
The reforms which have thus far been discussed have the power to 
produce a more just distribution of the tax burden and a method of 
imposing taxes more appropriate to the peculiarities of forest property 
and forest enterprise. But with all such reforms the tax burden may 
still be heavy. A heavy tax burden is primarily due to heavy costs 
of government, and after all the most effective device for relieving the 
forest-tax burden may be that which offers relief to all taxpayers, 
namely, reduction in the cost of State and local government. Since 
most forest land is naturally in rural areas it is a reduction in the cost 
of government in counties, towns, school districts, and other taxing 
units in rural territory that would give the greatest relief to forest 
owners. 
So far as the burden of taxation may be reduced through the elimi- 
nation of waste and the promotion of efficiency, there can hardly be 
any question of the desirability of this appropriate action. Beyond 
that the question is, What scale of government activity can the com- 
munity afford? There must be provision for a strong, constructive, 
aggressive public service covering activities that are justified by the 
