Roger points out that George believed that where there  
is entrepreneurial activity, the income should be left  
in the hands of the entrepreneur and not be taxed. I  
have argued that increases in the value of land is  
practically always the result of entrepreneurial  
activity and that the notorious �unearned increment�  
would be virtually impossible to identify.  
  
I want to deal with the case in which an entrepreneur  
buys land at $101, improves it at a cost of $99, and  
then sells it for $201. Roger suggests that because  
the entrepreneur has increased the land's value, the  
increase in value should not be taxed. But he goes on  
to say that the land should nevertheless be taxed for  
its �annual rental value.� An example of an annual  
rental value tax, he says, is $10.  
  
I maintain that any NEW tax is a tax on  
entrepreneurship. Who will pay it? The entrepreneur or  
the new buyer? Whoever pays it, the tax will be borne  
by the entrepreneur. Presumably this would go against  
George's wishes. So it would be unacceptable. Thus, if  
we follow George's principle, as stated by Roger, we  
should not impose a new tax on the annual rental value  
of the land in this case. And, of course, we cannot  
impose an OLD tax. Either it is already imposed or it  
is not. But we cannot impose it.  
  
Roger discusses another case of speculation. I  
disagree with his conclusion but I hesitate to go into  
that case. I assume that it is not relevant to George.  
Did George consider speculative gains? If he did, no  
one has yet mentioned this aspect.  
  
Pat Gunning