Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-08-10
WILD LAND TAXATION.
Mr.. DarIing's Theory is CriticiseS
A. w. Plummer.

Editor Kcnncbcc journal
AS ono who has read with mu9h in
tcrcst the letters Of Mr. Darling. in re-
Iation to the effect Of the present sys-
TEN of taxation on the conscfv2t iOn
of Maine forests, l have been! some
what surprised in the coinmenty | have
seen thereon, that no ono except HIM
self has suggested any modification
which would meet the objections lie
raises.
Briefly summarized his letters state,
first, that timber is being "clft three to
five tj,acs fustcr than it grows, con
dition hich unless changed, will pro-
ducc Il timber famine within the HE
time of men now in businessi"
Second, that the tendency of taXa-
tion as at present assessed Is TO force
the wild land owner to cut his logs ut
| the earliest moment;
Third that timber farm differs
from q potato farm only in the fact
that the crop is very much longer in
| making:
| And finally. fourth, that the remedy
| lies in renewing the tax from land, as
he terms it Though apparently having
| in mind or including the standing tim
/ j.
market. ""|
| Nos 1, and arc unqucstionabiy
| correct and though No. is more than
| counter balanced. bv the increasing
price of stumpaGe, such would not he
| the case should taxes as at present
laid, he increased beyond certain
| point But it seems surprising that q
| man who has reasoned thus far 50
| clearly should bring forward as pan
| acca No. 4, that is to say, the removal
| Of the tax on standing timber and its
| assessment on fallen logs
| In other words in place Of timing
Naxins) a lumberman for growing his
timber, Mr. Darling would fine Nax)
him for cutting it down.
Both methods are absurd. Wouih
Mr.. Darling recommend not to tax pn-
tatoes growing. but to tax them when
dug. or not to tax q growing steer but
to tax it when turned into beef?
If the choice lay between these two
methods only. the latter might be pre-
ferahle but tho true mode Of treatment
is not to tax the crop at all standing or
fallen. growing or harvested. on the
lhoof or as beef.
N ~
Of this very question, ''thc thing to tag
is tho location for raising crops. and
regardless Of whether it is cultivated
or not. If this were done alike WIN
reference to timber ground, estate,
land and building cites crop ralSNrS
would he encouraged and only the
IforcstalIers of crop sites would pear
burden"
| That this alternative dld not occur
to Nr. Darling ! can only account l"r
hy the confusion apparently cNlStlh@
in his mind as to what he terms inc
land tax which i'm reality in 50 TAR as
tho assessment is on standing timber.
is ny more a land tax than tax on
potatoes or cattle.
Tn his last letter Mr.. Darling says,
"the tax proposed is purely an income
tax. admittedly the ideal method. Tor
nv it the burdens of taxation are IN
exact proportion to the benefits Ley
us see. Suppose that timber Delivered
at a given market be worth slo per
thousand: that from one point the cost
If forestry. cutting and delivering NC
&c from another 81. and from third ~.
l. Now if tho state require 81 tax or
oach thousand the first generator VIII
net g. the second 50 and the thlrd -
en- that this tax is neither proportloned
TO income nor is it just.
On the other hand suppose we Apply
tho land tax proper. Xxx. j. c. on 'hc
LAND at its value as q location or rala-
ing timber Manifestly the first Sc
is WORT, ST. the second 81, the 'h'r"
nothing. q,
Now if the state takes in taxes =
!, from the first 81 from the second am
nothing from the last VIII not ehcn
,nmherman have an equal sum- y iei
for himself and is not justice 'iiuS
! | satisfied?
Eurtbermore bv the imposition of
this fax neither the growing Of ;h''
cron nor it's harvesting at maturity IS
discouraged.
4. w. PLJ-MMER.
| ;Shop Falls Me, Aug. Z.