alue will be taxed annually, perhaps on an exorbitant
basis, as soon as it becomes apparent.

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 see