1. Wealth
   1. The Earth is the primary source of all Wealth, e.g., food, clothing, shelter, resources, and tools for earning livelihood.
   2. Wealth is produced by labor acting on the Earth's resources (land, natural resources), or products of the earth's resources (capital, see below).
      1. Historically, most great fortunes were derived from monopoly ownership of land sites or natural resources.
   3. The production of Wealth comes from the three "Factors of Production"
2. The Three Factors of Production and Their Economic Returns
   1. Land
      1. Economic Return: Rent
   2. Labor
      1. Economic Return: Wages
   3. Capital
      1. Economic Return: Interest
         1. Capital is anything created by labor to produce or distribute goods
            1. For example: tools, factories, business loans
3. Land differs in that its possessor did not create the land or its value
   1. In contrast, Wages and Interest are both attributable to human effort. Taxing either therefore disincentivizes Labor and Capital investment.
4. What is the Value of Land?
   1. Inherent qualities
      1. For example, native beauty and fertility, natural resources (e.g., trees, bioresources, water, oil, minerals)
   2. Location
      1. Location, for example, relative to bioregions, populations, proximity to roads, municipal services, places to work, public and commercial facilities.
5. The resources weren't created through anyone's labor, and location value is created by the community
   1. Counter Argument: Even if the resources weren't created by labor, one could argue they should go to the finder of the resource. But is something yours if you didn't make or buy it, and simply found it? Georgists argue no. Why?
   2. Because: demand for the resource creates the price of the resource, and that demand is created by the community. Is this circular reasoning? Could one argue that if someone makes something for $5, and the demand for it raises its price to a million (say we're discussing a portable water desalinator on a desert island), does the community keep that return beyond the labor or cost to the producer?
   3. That's not equivalent, is it? In the case of a good, the seller produced it or bought it. In the case of land, he merely claimed it, or found it. There can be work done in finding it, however. Couldn't that work be valued on the market, if it's assumed resources belong to the community?
   4. One could argue that republics grant rights to land ultimately, and can dictate the rules of ownership. Community ownership of resources could just work better, and not hinge on a basic right.
   5. The current system of private ownership of land and resources brings about monopolies on resources.
   6. In a LVT system, discoverers of resources could be paid a finder's fee by the community, determined at a market rate.
6. Taxing Land: Use it or Lose it
   1. doesn't diminish it's quantity
   2. discourages holding for speculative value
   3. encourages holders to use land efficiently
   4. returns to community the increased value of land created by the community's investment
   5. would lower the price of land and urban sprawl
   6. would encourage development