addition to both would be the future yield tax upon the crop.

AN OBJECTION MET

A possible superficial criticism may be that, leaving the land out
of consideration, the proposed yield tax at a personal property
valuation of the crop means that but one year's tax is to be paid
upon the timber. The fallacy of this, however, will be seen when it
is remembered that it is a crop, having been produced from nothing
by the owner, since his acquisition of the land and while he was
paying taxes upon his land upon its value for productive purposes
throughout the entire period just as any other crop grower loes.
_It is not unearned speculative increment._ To tax it annually is
exactly equivalent to taxing an agricultural crop 50 times during
its growing period. The proposed plan does tax the annual production
fully, although not until the crop is produced, for taxing its full
value when grown is the same as taxing each year the increment
added since the preceding year. If it is worth $150 an acre, after
50 years from seed, a 3 per cent yield tax would be $4.50. Each
year since the first must have produced a fiftieth of the ultimate
value, or $3, and had this been taxed at 3 per cent, or 9 cents,
the same aggregate revenue of $4.50 would have resulted. To also
tax annually the value of proceeding years' production, like taxing
a wheat crop twice a week, is exactly the confiscatory prohibition
of forest growing which we should seek to avoid.

When the essential difference of the two systems Is grasped--that
the _crop is distinct from the land and the latter is still fully
taxed_--it will be seen that but one tax upon the crop, at the
rate other property pays, is all that is just and all that can