The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1909-08-16


From the standpoint Of principle III"
general property tax just explained
cannot be justified. II violates the
great principle that one should be
taxed in proportion to his present anil-
ity tn pay. In other words. the selling
Price ol timber land IL speculative. and
~ not established by a capitalization
Of annual net income.
Timber.
Timber land is not susceptible nr an
annCai yield. If the timber Isolated
from the market bv hack OF tTan~prt.a-
tion, IT if 1t be not of sufficient growth
To be merchandise" ii can be readily
seen that to tax ii at all is drain
upon the outside resources nf lis owner
with the element Of uncertainty as to
when the investment will be realized
In any event. to make timber land
Weld tn" ultimate financial return il il
necessary that tho timber he cut first.
1t PRESENTS II form nf wealth that To
b" Of utility must undergo Il transfer
nation. Its use - not consistent with
it, natural state. 1t does not present
III" features Of an annual crop h4r-
vested from Land with but slight de
probation in original value. 1t. there
fore. cannot he placed IN the same
class with annual return property
without subjecting its owner to an an
just burden.
return land and "A piece Of timber land.
For example. take picc" of annual
each possessing "a selling value Of $500
600. tax each Mt the rate of per cent
IA year for 10 years. TIL" 10-year ag-
grogate for each would be a SJ0.000
tax: say the annual return Land Yields
"A yearly income oI i per cent. or $500 -
900 in - years. At the end nf the 10
years suDatracting tn. tax. the ledger
of the annual return land would show
$3.50. coo I'm value. and that Of tho tim
Der land $4,000.
In other words. the community has
not only paid the tax on the annual
return land but has added to it in the
way If income 1900. while the so
called equal and uniform tax upon
land Was reduced the value of the
timber land to the extent OF the tax
or 80. 0nG in amount
This may seem an extreme example,
and IL may he said that while the tax
on the timber land has been taken out
Of the principal still the rapid increase
in its value more than eompenSatos the
owner. This may be true. but still to
urge the logic of the point to its "1aclu-
sion would he to include all land value
in the same category-that of monop-
oily and unearned increment. But in a
system Of pure taxation that does not
contemplate IL redistribution of wealth
method IF acquiring land IL material.
The mere fact that the selling CrCes
mas greatly advanced over the original
purchase prize Is not an index Of pres
ent ability to ray taxes or a iustitiCa-
tina for dIsCri ninHtioh. Inl"r such n
system ~ the general property tax
can it he w"udered At that the timber
man cuts his timber at the earliest
possible moment in order to avoid the
drain Of an unfair tax upon his outside
resources? Does not such n method
place premium upon economic waste
Is there an incentive to preserve un-
matured but marketable timber when
during the years Of growth necessary
for it to come Ia maturity, the slight
increase IN value would be completely
absorbed ny taxation?
And does II not now become clean
that our system "f taxation is destruc-
tive 20 conScr"ation@
That taxation on forests must he re-
dueed in order to promote conservation