I think Warren Samuels's last post is yet another illustration of his own view that "The discussion about taxing unearned increments is a splendid example of talking past each other, myopia, and the intrusion of ideology into analysis." Thus, whereas I'd suggested that everyone who earns income should pay taxes, say 10 percent, Warren again writes: "Given that taxes have to be raised [you do not like that, but it seems a sensible place to start]..." The "you" in the quote referring to me. My contribution was focused on Henry George's single tax proposal. And it was in that context that I pointed out that those who seek to substitute that tax for all other taxes were attempting to take a free-ride on land owners. Roger Sandilands's statement, "Return these community values to the community, and get labour and capital taxes off our back," says that so well. Yet Warren doesn't recognize the point as such. I asked Roger to tell me what the difference between land and capital was that he thought I didn't know. He didn't oblige my request. I didn't think he would be inclined to suggest that capital is man-made while land is given by "nature." That would be far too elementary, I thought. Warren again hints at some difference between land and capital which, if I knew, would lead me to accept Georgists' land tax proposal. He says, Roger's "articulation of the problem as the failure to appreciate the distinction between land and capital is incisive." Another case of deliberately talking past each other? Much too much has been made of the claim that the supply of land is inelastic. Warren again asserts this: "Given the usual diagram, the supply curve [of land] is pretty much inelastic, i.e., vertical." But carefully considered, the claim is incorrect. Only the supply of total land may be fixed or perfectly inelastic, that is, excluding dredging or reclamation. But land devoted to alternative uses -- farming, housing, playground, road construction, etc.-- is not so. Thus, it is not such a clear-cut case that land is the most suitable object for taxation on the basis of elasticity of supply. But note again that I'm not against raising taxes; everyone who earns an income should pay for the legitimate functions or services of government. John Laurent's summary of Henry George's diagnosis of the source of poverty in the world is quite clear: 'George ... attributed poverty in the midst of _highly productive_ societies to the inequality created by huge land rents. This could not be morally justified, he argued. First, poverty itself was so distorting of human goodness, that it should not be tolerated if a remedy could be had (e.g., George, p. 461). Secondly, absolute private-property rights to land were wrong because "no one can be rightfully entitled to the ownership of which is not the produce of his labor [i.e., land]" (George, p. 336). Land, which is not produced by any human, is part of the common heritage of all. He said "the unjust distribution of wealth" (George, p. 342) was due to the "fundamental wrong" of land ownership.' It is such dangerous misdiagnosis of the cause of poverty that has led to some destructive and wasteful revolutions in several countries. I tried to point out its obvious error by asking whether the people of Hong Kong (before unification) were wealthier than those in mainland China because there was more private ownership of land on the mainland. I directed attention to the USA vs Russia. We can go on with other obvious examples, like North and South Korea, former East and West Germany. When one considers these examples, one hopefully can recognize the error of George's conclusion as summarized by Laurent: 'George concluded that "what has destroyed all previous civilizations has been the conditions produced by the growth of civilization itself" (George, p. 488). In nineteenth-century western nations, the obvious civilization-destroyer in his view would have been private appropriation of land rent (George, p.514).' So let me repeat: Private ownership of land is NOT the cause of poverty in countries (or destroyer of civilizations). And we will not get rid of poverty in the world by substituting George's single tax proposal for multiple taxes. In one sense, all this exchange is wasteful of time. In another, it can be quite productive. I have read more from and about Henry George recently than I had cared to do before. I also have become more convinced of the error and danger of his single-tax proposal as the solution to poverty in nations. And whiles some may believe that no minds are changed from these discussions on lists, I think quite a few minds really are changed. But that latter is not of much interest to me. I entered this debate only because, as I said, Pat wasn't reducing it to its essentials in order to have ended it sooner. James Ahiakpor