do, upon its actual value, but without this value being enhanced
for taxation purposes by reason of any crop thereon.

COMPARISON WITH PRESENT SYSTEM IN RESULTS

The community would get no less tax revenue, but presumably more,
than it does under the present system. In either case the owner
will really pay annually only upon the land value, not upon the
growth; the only difference being that under the proposed system
he would not be asked to, while under the present system _either
there will be no growth to tax, or, if there is, he cannot afford
to pay and the land will revert_. It must be borne in mind that
while cut-over land is actually being held under the present system,
it has seldom grown anything yet. No expense has been incurred to
establish a crop, accidental growth is almost always destroyed
by fire because it does not pay to protect it, and if it is not so
destroyed it has not yet been accorded the expectation value which
the assessor will be obliged to recognize in the early future if 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