Mason wrote that "in recent usage, 'unearned increment' generally refers   
unambiguously to the rise of the selling price of land, whereas Mill   
wavers between that and a rise of rents. Pat fails to respond to my   
request that he tell us what he means by his terms." Mason also wrote   
that "Mill...used "rent"..to mean the net income imputable to land."  
  
This follows a statement last week by Roy Davidson:  
  
"Pat Gunning and Warren Samuels have referred to "taxing the unearned   
increment" which from a Georgist perspective makes no sense to me. I   
don't recall George ever using the term "unearned increment" while he   
did advocate collecting all or almost all of the ground rent for public   
purposes at the same time eliminating all taxation of labor, capital and   
the wealth produced by labor and capital. Wasn't it Mill who proposed   
taxing the future increment in land values?"  
  
Now in my most recent reply to Mason, I wrote:  
  
"The philosophy behind the Georgist program is based on the assumption   
that there is an unearned increment. This means that the person who   
received an income did not work or even use his brainpower to receive   
it. In the context of a market economy, this usually also means also   
that he has not contributed anything to the satisfaction of others' wants."  
  
I hope that everyone realizes that anyone who claims that rent can be   
"imputed to land" is also claiming that the rent is an unearned increment.  
  
Is this really "talking past each other," as Warren seemed to suggest?  
  
Pat Gunning