Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [LandCafe] Re: Legitimate LVT criticism

Expand Messages
  • Harry Pollard
    Not to mention security to prevent double-dipping and suchlike. (A process that is not very efficient in today s world.) Harry From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 199 , Feb 28, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      Not to mention security to prevent double-dipping and suchlike.

       

      (A process that is not very efficient in today’s world.)

       

      Harry

       

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Spain
      Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 6:11 PM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Legitimate LVT criticism

       

       

      I think the point is that a very extensive & expensive & uncertain bureaucratic process seems to be required to underpin & calculate & deliver such a UIE.

       

      DS

       

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mattbieker
      Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013 12:02 PM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Legitimate LVT criticism

       

       

      I think the point is that the UIE applies to residences, and exists to facilitate occupancy of land in desirable areas.

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "David Spain" wrote:
      >
      > I don't see why an SR/LVT society would collect data on the number of lots
      > owned or part-owned by individuals (cf corporations or corporate trustees),
      > or of the number of individuals using - or claiming to use - each lot.
      >
      > David Spain.
      >
      > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      > Of roy_langston
      > Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013 9:18 AM
      > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Legitimate LVT criticism
      >
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com , "Harry
      > Pollard" wrote:
      > >
      > > Well, at least the unnecessary Exception will provide umpteen thousand
      > jobs for bureaucrats.
      >
      > Nonsense. The calculation uses only information that is already collected
      > anyway in a LVT society. A handful of programmers, database specialists,
      > etc. will suffice.
      >
      > -- Roy Langston
      >

    • walto
      ... Right. Both almost surely true. ... And the truths find there way in there too! W
      Message 199 of 199 , Mar 5 4:00 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > So you are saying that the existence of the Flat Earth Society DOES make the spheroidal shape of the earth disputable?
        > >
        > > My degree of confidence is roughly the same as that in my above judgment regarding your personality. Put it this way: is it possible I'm wrong about either the shape of the earth or your arrogance? Sure, I could be wrong about pretty much every proposition that seems obvious to me--that is the nature of human fallibility. But it's really, really doubtful in both cases.
        >
        > So you claim the earth's spheroidal shape is not only disputable, but about as disputable as your opinion of my personality?
        >

        Right. Both almost surely true.



        > "A sick man dreams nothing so dreadful that some philosopher isn't saying it." -- Marcus Terentius Varro
        >
        > -- Roy Langston
        >


        And the truths find there way in there too!

        W
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.