Current issue: 56(2)
Under compilation: 56(3)
The paper, which was written already at the turn of the year 1950–51, gives a quite detailed description of the early history of the Act on Forest Owners’ Associations, which was passed on 17 November 1950 and is still in force, of the long-lasting and multifarious preparations involved with it, and of its consideration in the parliament. In most parties there were both supporters and opponents; only the social democrats voted harmoniously for the act and the people’s democrats against it.
The PDF includes a summary in English.
This investigation studies the significance of forest income to the economy of a farm in Finland. It concentrates on the relationship between monetary income from forestry and the capital of the farm, especially from the viewpoint of investments made in the agriculture. The material is based on results of the accounting holdings of the National Board of Agriculture between the financial years 1925-1926 and 1936-1937.
The study shows that there is a high correlation between farm’s monetary investments and changes of deposits, and changes in the monetary income of forestry. The changes in depts seem not to be as closely related to forest income as could be expected. The most important role of forestry income in farm economy is financing the investments, i.e. operations that aim at developing and rationalizing farming and making it more profitable. In many parts of the country, the investments would have remained low without income from forestry. Income from cuttings provides usually a relatively large sum on a single occasion, which is easier to use to finance a large investment compared to a smaller regular income. The needs of agriculture may, however, lead to overcutting of the forests.
The PDF includes a summary in German.
In Finland the state has to pay local government taxes and certain connected smaller taxes, such as church and land taxes and forest management fees, on its forest property. On the other hand, the state tax on income and property is not collected, as the corresponding amount goes to the state in the form of a state forestry surplus.
It has been stated that if the state should pay similar taxes as companies do, the income of state forests would be small. The author has calculated the different taxes if the state forests would be a company or an individual tax-payer. As a company the income and property taxes would amount to 1,251 million marks and as a company to 730 million mark when the year 1952 is used as a reference. In drawing up the balance sheet for state forestry, local government taxes and other similar charges have been taken into account as expenses. By comparing the surplus with the calculated state tax payable, the state forestry would give a surplus, after deduction of taxes, of 1,846 million marks as an individual and 2,367 million marks as a company. State forestry would thus have been able to pay state income and property taxes from its surplus.
The Acta Forestalia Fennica issue 61 was published in honour of professor Eino Saari’s 60th birthday.
The PDF includes a summary in Engilsh.
Only fifth of the farms in Finland had no forests in 1936. Forests have been important for the economy of the farms by providing household timber and income from timber sales. However, forests have not been taken into account in the profitability studies of agriculture. The article analyses the revenues of forestry in private farms, and the different sources of revenue. The revenue is examined in farms of different sizes, different parts of the country and in different financial years in the period of 1925-26‒1936-37.
Forest holdings smaller than 25 hectares give relatively small financial support to the farm economy. Household timber saves costs, and timber sales can give opportunities to investments. The revenue given by bigger forest holdings are, however, important items in the income statement. Finally, the results are compared to profitability studies in other countries.
The PDF includes a summary in German.