638 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
assessment be in large measure taken out of the hands of the minute 
local jurisdictions which now generally administer it and be centralized 
in the hands of jurisdictions large enough to maintain an efficient 
organization of full-time, well-paid, expert assessors appointed on 
the basis of merit and free from local interference. In general, State 
assessment would appear to be the ideal; and the next best step, 
centralization by groups of counties or towns. Where complete 
centralization of assessment is not attainable, or during the period 
while this result is being brought about, improvement may be 
obtained by an increased degree of State control of and assistance to 
local assessment. 
Changes are necessary in the haphazard methods of tax collection 
which prevail in many States. Efficient collection procedure vig- 
orously enforced, together with accurate assessment, might do much 
to reduce the widespread and growing evil of tax delinquency and 
should go far toward eliminating this evil in normal times. 
Sound methods in the administration of the »roperty tax would go 
a long way toward providing more suitable iurest taxation. Never- 
theless, they would not wholly solve this problem, since the very 
nature of the property tax imposes disabilities upon certain types of 
forest enterprise. To meet these inherent defects of the property 
tax, more fundamental changes are required. 
Recognition of the weaknesses of the property tax, both struc- 
tural and administrative, might conceivably lead to the suggestion 
that the forests be cut loose entirely from the property tax through 
substitution of a yield tax. Widespread discussion of the yield tax 
and some legislative exper mentation dur ng the past three decades, 
together with the general history of property taxation throughout the 
world, would appear to indicate the futility of seeking to introduce 
the pure yield tax in place of the property tax on forest properties. 
If the yield tax is to be considered at all, it will doubtless be that 
form which substitutes a yield tax for the property tax upon the 
trees, while leaving the land subject to the property tax. Such a plan 
has certain distinct advantages from the viewpoint of the forest 
owner, but certain disadvantages as well. Furthermore, its adapta- 
tion to local finance presents serious difficulties. These difficulties 
would apparently require a State-wide administration for the benefit 
of the various local subdivisions concerned. The entire yield tax 
would preferably be retained in the State treasury, with a corre- 
sponding assumption by the State of functions formerly performed 
at local expense. Any attempt to distribute the proceeds of such a 
tax among the local jurisdictions raises problems, the solution of 
which appears not to have been found. The lack of a clear-cut 
method of determining the rate of the yield tax is also a serious weak- 
ness. In short, the yield-tax plan appears distinctly inferior to other 
possible solutions of the problem, and it is therefore not. recommended. 
The fact that after 20 years of experiment no State has yet suc- 
ceeded in setting up a satisfactory yield tax of broad application is 
evidence of the difficulties invo ved. 
It has also been proposed that forest property be relieved from the 
property tax by the simple dev ce of exempting all immature timber 
from taxation. As such an exemption would grant a greater tax 
concession than can be justified, this proposal is not recommended. 
Three plans for meeting the defects of the property tax as related 
