If only the value added each year, $2.80 in our illustration, were taxed annually, there would be no injustice. The tax would then, in the case cited, be 9 cents the first year and 17 cents every year thereafter. But this cannot be calculated with sufficient accuracy upon our present knowledge of forest growth and under conditions varying with every trace or acre. Our example, with its several arbitrary factors of growth, tax rate, interest rate, and future stumpage price, was merely for the purpose of illustration. Furthermore, such a solution would still be illegal under our present laws.
REQUIREMENTS REFORM MUST MEET
These facts are recognized by all students of forestry and taxation. In all countries where forests are grown the general property tax has been abandoned. Disinterested authorities of every class, approaching the subject only from the public's point of view and holding no brief for the timberland owner, unite in saying emphatically that its application to growing forests will retard or prevent forestry in our country. These authorities include statesmen like Roosevelt and our most prominent governors and senators; expert authorities on taxation generally, like state, national, and international tax conferences and professors of economics in the leading universities; forestry authorities like Graves, Pinchot and State foresters; and all the many associations and congresses devoted to such subjects.
These authorities all agree that the forest crop should not be taxed till harvested, but differ somewhat as to the degree to which the public need of reforestation warrants deferring part or all of the land tax also. This Association, after careful study of the subject, including European methods, the experiments made by several of our States, and the plans proposed by many others, believes the following objects should be sought:
1. Greater permanent revenue to state and country than is possible under the present system of destroying the taxable source.
2. Sustention of present revenue to the highest degree compatible with permanence.
3. Assurance that the owner will do his fair part to make the land productive.
4. Assurance to the owner in return that future action by the community will not confiscate all profit resulting from his effort.
5. Division of risk, so both owner and community will seek highest production and safety from fire.
6. Demonstrable justice to all concerned, rather than subsidy which, while doubtless warrantable to secure the public good, affords less precise basis of legislation at the present time.