he
really observes the present law. The inevitable tendency of the
present system is continuance to pay on the land with speculative
value for purposes other than forestry but _abandonment of land
valuable only for forestry, with destruction of the forest growth
in either case_, by purpose or negligence, because it means added
cost of holding with no possibility of profit. Since the owner
cannot be compelled to grow timber to be taxed at his net loss,
no timber tax at all will be received by the community and its
annual land tax will be confined to land worth holding without
timber for purposes other than timber growing. Under the proposed
system, the latter class would pay the same annual tax, the annual
tax revenue from strictly forest land would be greater, and in
addition to both would be the future yield tax upon the crop.

AN OBJECTION MET

A possible superficial criticism may be that, leaving the land out
of consideration, the proposed yield tax at a personal property
valuation of the crop means that but one year's tax is to be paid
upon the timber. The fallacy of this, however, will be seen when it
is remembered that it is a crop, having been produced from nothing
by the owner, since his acquisition of the land and while he was
paying taxes upon his land upon its value for productive purposes
throughout the entire period just as any other crop grower loes.
_It is not unearned speculative increment._ To tax it annually is
exactly equivalent to taxing an agricultural crop 50 times during
its growing period. The proposed plan does tax the annual production
fully, although not until the crop is produced, for taxing its full
value when grown is the same as taxing each year the increment
added since the preceding year. If it is worth $150 an acre, after
50 years from seed, a 3 per cent yield tax would be $4.50. Each
year since the first must have produced a fiftieth of the ultimate
value, or $3, and had this been taxed at 3 per cent, or 9 cents,
the same aggregate revenue of $4.50 would have resulted. To also
tax annually the value of proceeding years' production, like taxing
a wheat crop twice a week, is exactly the confiscatory prohibition
of forest growing which we should seek to avoid.

When the essential difference of the two systems Is grasped--that
the _crop is distinct from the land and the latter is still fully
taxed_--it will be seen that but one tax upon the crop, at the
rate other property pays, is a