Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-07-02

instead of from the tree while growing,
the financial interests of the State and
of the lumhermen would, as they
should, be identical, and their incomes
in direct proportion.
The system of forest taxation es-
tablished in countries furthest adj
vanced in tree growing, and proposed
in many of our states, is to tax the
land at its value bare of all trees, or
the potential value of the soil taxing
in addition, either the logs when cut,
or the amount of yearly growth.
The latter method, or increment tax,
is Impractical for us at present, even
if preferable, and will remain so until
we have 4 far more accurate knowI-
edge Of our timber growth than We
have at present.
But it is perfectly possible to OBJ
tain the amount Of logs cut, and for
us, the log tax will be the best method
to adopt.
To take a concrete instancc-We own
in round numbers. $4,000 acres of tim
berl2nd, ranging from burnt over
land, practically barren, to a small
urea of virgin spruce forest. so it may
be taken as fairly representative of all
Maine timberland
Some of it can be cut now, some
never again during our life time, and
some of it Will yield fairly well in %
or 80 years
On this we pay $500 a year in taxes.
and can afford to let the cut over land
grow UP. but We're the tax rate to be
cpn sod SOn 10
W" would be liable to $500 Il year.
Suppose we could afford to pay this
sum, would it be good business policy
to hold our land and do 50?
For the sake of argument we Will
suppose that this land averages 9 NJ
feet to the acre, or 12O million feet all
told, and, on this basis, with land at
81 per acre, and stumpage at s. per
NJ, is an investment Of $66O,Oo0
1t would be as easy to set $500
aside at interest yearly as to pay it
out in taxes. Which would be bcsto
If we set aside $500, yearly. in 80
years we would have over $3.50. 900.
and to yield an equal return in tim
Der our land must produce, in that
time. l56 million feet, or more than
double the original stand if, at the end
of that period. we are to have our
capital unimEaired.
As most of it is mixed hard wood
forest, Where soft woods grow very
slowly. the growth required would be
clearly impossible even if we could
afford to leave the entire original
stand uncut as foundation.
Suppose. on the other hand. we at
tempted to cut merely the amount of
yearly growth. leaving our capital un-
impaired, what would be the result?
SO far as we know, spruce timber
will grow from u per cent. yearly, so,
taking 4 per cent. as a basis. we could
cut 100000 feet yearly, Of which
100000 feet must 60 to pay the taxes,
leaving US a balance OF 1900 600 feet
at stumpage value of SIG 500.
Allowing that we have no special
road taxes, no expenses for fire patrol,
and no losses from fire and wind, this
would give us q return of 2H per cent
on our investment. not a tempting
business proposition.
But we do pay special road taxes,
We are under expense for fire control,
and as for the other losses, in the last
10000 acres from fire, and have had
orc whole town blown fiat before we
could cut a log.
To be sure the last loss is, in bulk,
unusual. but many isolated trees blow
down yearly. and the danger of loss
by fire is ever present also
Neither OF the foregoing propositions
could we consider, for we could not
afford 20 pay that amount and leave
our timber to grow, nor could we af-
ford to take the risks attendant on a
possible 212 per cent. return we
would have to get our money out of
it and into something less precarious.
Suppose on the other hand. the log,
or income tax system. We're so firmly
established it would not be disturbed,
so that we could safely figure that
conditions would warrant us in cut
ting no more than The annual growth.
ard in taking al possible means to
increase that yield what would be the
immediate and the ultimate results?