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