The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1919-07-10

| beyond which the individual cannot
go, and here the state or the federal
government must come to the rescue.
AS an encouragement to private in
itiative in the matter of reforestation
and to enable it to go farther than
would otherwise be possible, it is
commonly proposed to lay an annual
tax on the land, and exempt the
growing timber from taxation till.
cut, the tax then to be based on a,
certain percentage of the stumpage
value. Still others believe that the
state in its own interests should go
step farther in granting relief to
the holders of cut-over lands for sue,
cessive crops of timber by exempting-
both the land and the timber from
taxation till the timber is cut. the
accumulated tax against both the
land and the timber to be levied
against the timber. Please remember
that l am referring TO taxation of
cut-over timber land that is being
held for a second crop, and not taxa
ton of the present merchantable
timber crop. The latter question is
open to debate, but discussion of it
is beyond the scope of this paper
On the present basis of assessing tim
ber land, taxes constitute a burden
some proportion of the total cost of
growing timber A large part of this
cost occurs as a tax on the land aside
from the tax on the timber. For ex-
ample, I am told that the average
acre of cut-over land in Latah county
pays an annual tax of about 8 cents.
It requires 80 to 100 years for even
a fairly rapid growing tree like white
pine to develop into saw timber of
good quality A tax of 8 cents per
acre, if paid annually and five per
cent compound interest is allowed on
the payments, amounts in 80 years
to $77.90 and in 100 years to S208.80.
But the grower does not get off here,
for after few years the timber
comes to have value apart from the
value of the land, and he then begins
to pay tax on the timber, which
tax increases as the timber increases
in value This is a burden which can
not fail to have discouraging effect
on private initiative in the matter of
holding timber land for a second cut.
The burden is all the more apparent
when it is remembered that however
effectively the growing crop may be
guarded against fire, the owner al
ways takes chance of having it
burn before it natures. This is
risk the state should share as it
would under yield tax system,
wherein the tax would be deferred
till the timber is cut. In the end the
timber owner would pay just as much
tax as he would under the present
system, but as in the case of the
farmer. he would pay it when he
harvests his crop. But the plan is
objected to because it would tempor-
arily interrupt the stream of tax
revenue now flowing into the treas
uries. I submit that it would be
better to interrupt this stream than
to see it dry up entirely as would be
the case if the lands revert for taxes.
Moreover the plan by encouraging
reforestation would help maintain the
pay rolls in the logging camps and
saw mills.
Will so Much Forest Land be Profit
able?
The question is raised as to
whether so much timber land will be
profitable. whether the timber will be
needed. The answer is found in the
fact that the u. S. as a whole is
growing only about 1-3 of the timber
She is consuming, that the timber
area of the country at large is rapid
lv decrea sing, while of course the pop
ulation is rapidly increasing, and
that ultimately every acre of forest
land left even under the most in.
tensive management will be required
to supply the population with wood
MANY of the richest farming states in
the middle west will never grow but
little timber. 1t has been found in
the older European countries where
the forests are under intensive man
agement that about one acre of