FAQ: The dreaded Land Tax

I think this thread is getting off topic - land tax is a punitive tax levied against all land irrespective of its developed state. The real issue should be about forcing greedy and fat state govts to abolish this tax altogether. Even better, abolish state govts.
 
I agree, the thread which has some very useful information at the start has now been turned into a slinging match. Is it possible to either delete the latest posts, or put them into a thread of their own. As a sticky this thread is permanently at the begining of all the posts for easy access & the latest posts, while entertaining, are not in the spirit of the original thread.
 
hard working aussie families ("working families") will see their largest asset devalued, whilst rents will rise and outgoings for commercial tenants will directly increase

... god lets hope it remains so, there are enough half brained quack ideas on how to wring money out of productive contributors to society as it is, we need less not more
Is there the largest asset the land or the property? Rents do not rise, as has already been explained and proven empirically (see the Law on Rent for a basic introduction). You are perhaps conflating land and buildings into a single package? It is important to differentiate them. Investment in raw land for the hope of future capitalisation does not provide a single job; it is an unproductive investment which forces up land prices by creating relative scarcity (and eventually results in real estate bubbles). Investment in housing however does provide jobs and home and interest to the owner (if 'rented').

People who invest in buildings should have a vested interest in keeping land prices down. Taxes on products and services make the price go up; tax on land brings it down.

I agree, the thread which has some very useful information at the start has now been turned into a slinging match. Is it possible to either delete the latest posts, or put them into a thread of their own. As a sticky this thread is permanently at the begining of all the posts for easy access & the latest posts, while entertaining, are not in the spirit of the original thread.
I would be more than happy to discuss the economics of the matter in another thread and leave this purely for information purposes. Deleting the posts however smacks of censorship, unless there are some which breach the published posting guidelines.

Personally, I have no reason to engage in "slinging". The strength of the argument for productive investments depends on the theory and the evidence, nothing else.
 
I agree, the thread which has some very useful information at the start has now been turned into a slinging match. Is it possible to either delete the latest posts, or put them into a thread of their own. As a sticky this thread is permanently at the begining of all the posts for easy access & the latest posts, while entertaining, are not in the spirit of the original thread.
If Lev doesn't like the censorship aspect, then perhaps this particular thread needs to be 'un stickied', and a new Sticky created that has limited abilities to actually post to, therefore eliminating the risk of the information being derailed.

We can have 'discussions' on the merits or otherwise in a thread that isn't an information thread first and foremost.
 
Investment in raw land for the hope of future capitalisation does not provide a single job; it is an unproductive investment which forces up land prices by creating relative scarcity
I simply cannot believe that on a property forum someone can write that and no-one challenges it.

That's taking non-confrontational pacifism to an extreme.

I'm very disapointed in my fellow forum members that no-one has anything to say regarding that statement. Maybe it's only been an hour and people haven't read it as yet.

It goes to the very core of why my wife and I invest.

My thoughts on the matter ;

1. I'm not in the business of creating jobs....that's the Govt's responsibility. I want my Land to appreciate. It's my no.1 objective of why we bought it and pay to hold it, and if that's against the Govt's social feel good agenda, then that's great.
2. The rates and taxes we pay to hold and control the land pay for oodles of Govt work.
3. Raw land still requires the services of surveyors, fencing contractors, weed controllers, valuers every now and again, and what we buy, can be used as laydown area for a whole raft of machinery....far more useful than infrastructure that has height, access and width limitations.
4. Relative scarcity is also created when companies enter into arrangements to buy-back shares from shareholders and cancel them. This creates scarcity in the issued capital and effectively forces the value of the remaining shares up. Warren Buffett has been using this tactic for decades. What's wrong with that ??
5. Banks generally speaking don't give a rats about the improvements on the Lot. They value the raw land as well...where it is, how big it is, and the aspect of it.....hence why we don't renovate.


Anyway, Lev seems to have beaten everyone into submission. Onya Lev. :)

Once again, I'm very disappointed no-one on a property forum bats an eyelid over that statement.
 
Last edited:
I'm very disapointed in my fellow forum members that no-one has anything to say regarding that statement. Maybe it's only been an hour and people haven't read it as yet.

Anyway, Lev seems to have beaten everyone into submission. Onya Lev. :)
You can only beat yor head against a brick wall so many times... ok I'll try a bit more.
Actually that was a paraphrase from David Ricardo. Not that I'm even a member of Prosper Australia anymore and haven't been for a year.
It has your name on it... Take responsibility. If your opinion has changed since then, say so & also state what you now believe.

You want "tax reform" but you haven't actually said what you want changed except increased land tax. So, what rate do you want land tax to be? How about income tax? GST? Has you great list of economists (with no links provided) got any figures lev? Put some substance into your wishy-washy dribble...
 
The ramblings of lev...

The Age
The Age Letters 19/11/07 said:
THE Prime Minister has announced that those convicted of offences involving heroin, cocaine or amphetamines will have their welfare payments quarantined.
This policy will not reduce the use of such drugs one iota. One can only assume it is being proposed for punitive purposes, rather than rehabilitation.

However, such petty criminals will turn to other sources for their necessary income; if not more drug dealing, then certainly theft. Is the Prime Minister also going to dovetail this policy with a home and belongings insurance subsidy? Because it certainly will be needed.

Lev Lafayette, Ripponlea
Petty criminals??? Maybe we can increase payments to them instead?

The Age
The Age Letters 17/2/05 said:
We don't need less land tax, we need more. At the same time, we need to reduce taxes on all productive activity. In fact, we can, and should, seek to abolish all taxes except for land tax and other resource rentals. That is what almost every economist in the world recommends. Why don't we listen to them?
Lev Lafayette, St Kilda
I'm glad you had the authority to speak on behalf of "almost every economist in the world."

Green Left
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/672/6429 said:
Landlords are well recognised as the least productive class in society. Perhaps the ALP needs to decide whether it is the Australian Labor Party or the Australian Landlord Party. It will be interesting to see whose interests they end up supporting.

Lev Lafayette
Melbourne
Did David Ricardo "paraphrase" this for you as well?


Earth Sharing
Lev Lafayette 28/6/06 said:
Tonight I am representing Prosper Australia, an organisation which has, in various guises, been a part of Victoria for over one hundred years. One key objective of the organisation is the reduction, as much as possible of taxes on labour and capital, and for public finances to be derived instead from site rental.

...I should also mention that I am a member of the Australian Labor Party. For several years I was the policy convenor of the Labor Left - Pledge Unions faction, the so-called "hard left" socialist group which strongly opposed the privatisation of public assets and had such disconcerting foreign affairs policies such as ending apartheid in South Africa, self-determination of East Timor, democracy in Indonesia and a state for the Palestinians.

A handful of people in Australia receive the lion's share of the site rent of this nation; this is monies extracted from labourers and productive investors and wealth created from such people. The economist, David Ricardo, saw with great clarity, describing the interest of the landlord (by which he meant literally - not the person who owns and invests in houses) as utterly opposed to the interests of all other classes. Then John Stuart Mill following this lead wrote;

"Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title."

This simple principle of public finance, so far-reaching in its justness and effectiveness, is the orientation that Victoria needs.
I know, you are not a member of this organisation any more...
 
1. I'm not in the business of creating jobs....that's the Govt's responsibility. I want my Land to appreciate. It's my no.1 objective of why we bought it and pay to hold it, and if that's against the Govt's social feel good agenda, then that's great.
2. The rates and taxes we pay to hold and control the land pay for oodles of Govt work.
3. Raw land still requires the services of surveyors, fencing contractors, weed controllers, valuers every now and again, and what we buy, can be used as laydown area for a whole raft of machinery....far more useful than infrastructure that has height, access and width limitations.
4. Relative scarcity is also created when companies enter into arrangements to buy-back shares from shareholders and cancel them. This creates scarcity in the issued capital and effectively forces the value of the remaining shares up. Warren Buffett has been using this tactic for decades. What's wrong with that ??
5. Banks generally speaking don't give a rats about the improvements on the Lot. They value the raw land as well...where it is, how big it is, and the aspect of it.....hence why we don't renovate.

Anyway, Lev seems to have beaten everyone into submission. Onya Lev. :)
1. If the govt increases land tax to enhance aggregate wealth and productivity then it shouldn't be a problem then. After all, they're just doing their job.
2. Do you want your aggregate tax to fall or not?
3. No, raw land doesn't need these things. As products of labour they constitute "improvements" to the land.
4. Relative scarcity is simply a fact in all goods and services. Relative scarcity of an item in fixed supply (you cannot simply "make more land") is a problem.
5. The increase in value is due to the appreciation of other people's work around you and the provision of public infrastructure.

It is not my purpose in this discussion to beat everyone into submission. It is provide an alternative point of view, and to have that point of view tested. I am only swayed by reasons and facts. I would hope others are also capable of putting aside sectional interests when considering the reasons and evidence presented.

You can only beat yor head against a brick wall so many times... ok I'll try a bit more.
It has your name on it... Take responsibility. If your opinion has changed since then, say so & also state what you now believe.
I am quite happy with Ricardo's comments on the matter. I was merely illustrating the source. I do ask however that you differentiate between the acquisition of land ("landlord") and the provision of capital ("capitalist"). Like Ricardo, I certainly have no problem with the provision and 'renting' of capital assets.

You want "tax reform" but you haven't actually said what you want changed except increased land tax. So, what rate do you want land tax to be? How about income tax? GST? Has you great list of economists (with no links provided) got any figures lev? Put some substance into your wishy-washy dribble...
The site goes through point-by-point and explains how nearly every single tax; taxes on labour, taxes on capital, taxes on transactions - all punish productivity and reduce trades. It explicitly states that the only efficient taxes are transaction taxes on luxury consumables and a tax on ground-rents (the annual value of holding a piece of land). It argues that most other taxes are, apart from being being unproductive or difficult to collect, require an invasion of privacy. It argues that taxes on labour are perhaps the worst of all.

I note also that you're beginning to lower your posts to personal abuse ("your wishy-washy dribble"). Please at least try to be civil. People are allowed to have different opinions, especially when there is much empirical evidence in the links I have provided in this thread.

The AgePetty criminals??? Maybe we can increase payments to them instead?
Irrelevant to the subject at hand, however in my considered opinion treating this issues as a medical problem rather than with a punitive approach is more successful.

The AgeI'm glad you had the authority to speak on behalf of "almost every economist in the world."
I don't need the authority, they say it themselves. "Economists are almost unanimous in conceding that the land tax has no adverse side effects. ...Landowners ought to look at both sides of the coin. Applying a tax to land values also means removing other taxes." (William Vickery, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, 1996). If you disagree, please provide a contrary example and I will consider it: Any economist of note, among the many tens of thousands, who claims that an reduction in land tax encourages productive investment. JUST ONE.

Earth SharingI know, you are not a member of this organisation any more...
Are there any matters of fact from the presentation that you wish to discuss?
 
Appropriation for the common good

Quote;
This simple principle of public finance, so far-reaching in its justness and effectiveness, is the orientation that Victoria needs.

Answer
As a young communist I always thought it important to read as much about the far right in politics as I did about the my chosen side. Ann Rand's book entitled Atlas shrugged was the first of many books that I looked at regarding the opposing arguments of the common good. Both extremes profess to have the masses interest at heart but both apply the jack boot to the esophagus and squeeze the life out of anyone who stands in the way of their brand of "social good"

"Bye Bye American pie drove my chevy to the levy" but lev Lafayette your argument just doesn't hold water. In democratic societies where in the last 100 years the masses have been allowed to acquire and accumulate property those societies have flourished and broken down the class system which you profess to abhor. ( Canada, USA, Britian, Australia, New Zealand)........Where governments have stepped in and expropriated or applied unfair imposts on the ownership of land such as mugabe in Zimbabwe
the people have starved. Tell me its a nasty capitalist plot the entire sorry story of the bread basket of Africa that is now the basket case of Africa

Touche Lev, Je suis Canadian !
 
Appropriation for the common good

Quote;
This simple principle of public finance, so far-reaching in its justness and effectiveness, is the orientation that Victoria needs.

Answer
As a young communist I always thought it important to read as much about the far right in politics as I did about the my chosen side. Ann Rand's book entitled Atlas shrugged was the first of many books that I looked at regarding the opposing arguments of the common good. Both extremes profess to have the masses interest at heart but both apply the jack boot to the esophagus and squeeze the life out of anyone who stands in the way of their brand of "social good"

"Bye Bye American pie drove my chevy to the levy" but lev Lafayette your argument just doesn't hold water. In democratic societies where in the last 100 years the masses have been allowed to acquire and accumulate property those societies have flourished and broken down the class system which you profess to abhor. ( Canada, USA, Britian, Australia, New Zealand)........Where governments have stepped in and expropriated or applied unfair imposts on the ownership of land such as mugabe in Zimbabwe
the people have starved. Tell me its a nasty capitalist plot the entire sorry story of the bread basket of Africa that is now the basket case of Africa

Touche Lev, Je suis Canadian !
 
As a young communist I always thought it important to read as much about the far right in politics as I did about the my chosen side. Ann Rand's book entitled Atlas shrugged was the first of many books that I looked at regarding the opposing arguments of the common good. Both extremes profess to have the masses interest at heart but both apply the jack boot to the esophagus and squeeze the life out of anyone who stands in the way of their brand of "social good"
I have read some of Ayn Rand as well. She never actually presented arguments for the common good, indeed she claimed that altruism was intrinsically evil. Nevertheless she did make some headway in distinguishing between land and capital and, as Dan Sullivan's essay points out, she almost understood site rents as abasis for economic liberty.


"Bye Bye American pie drove my chevy to the levy" but lev Lafayette your argument just doesn't hold water. In democratic societies where in the last 100 years the masses have been allowed to acquire and accumulate property those societies have flourished and broken down the class system which you profess to abhor. ( Canada, USA, Britian, Australia, New Zealand)........Where governments have stepped in and expropriated or applied unfair imposts on the ownership of land such as mugabe in Zimbabwe
the people have starved. Tell me its a nasty capitalist plot the entire sorry story of the bread basket of Africa that is now the basket case of Africa
You are deliberately misrepresenting my position; an action commonly known in rhetoric as a "strawman" argument, which is frankly quite unfair. One should debate a proposition on its merits, not turn it into something that was never presented in the first instance. There is no instance whatsoever in anything that I've provided that suggests that any government acts like Mugabe in Zimbabwe with regards to land. There is no suggestion of appropriation of title deeds, of forcible acquisition or anything like that.

Indeed, some research will reveal to you that, in various forms, Canada, the United States, Britian, Australia and New Zealand have all used and land tax/site rating valuation. I can only recommend that you go through the multitude of case studies which are readily available and witness how the introduction of land value taxation and site rental, reduces the price of land, increases the quantity and standard of buildings and raises overall wealth. I am yet to find an instance where this is not the case and would be delighted and thankful if you could find such an anomaly.
 
Fighting the battles of the past

Originally Posted by Lev Lafayette 28/6/06
Tonight I am representing Prosper Australia, an organisation which has, in various guises, been a part of Victoria for over one hundred years. One key objective of the organisation is the reduction, as much as possible of taxes on labour and capital, and for public finances to be derived instead from site rental.

...I should also mention that I am a member of the Australian Labor Party. For several years I was the policy convenor of the Labor Left - Pledge Unions faction, the so-called "hard left" socialist group which strongly opposed the privatisation of public assets and had such disconcerting foreign affairs policies such as ending apartheid in South Africa, self-determination of East Timor, democracy in Indonesia and a state for the Palestinians.

A handful of people in Australia receive the lion's share of the site rent of this nation; this is monies extracted from labourers and productive investors and wealth created from such people. The economist, David Ricardo, saw with great clarity, describing the interest of the landlord (by which he meant literally - not the person who owns and invests in houses) as utterly opposed to the interests of all other classes. Then John Stuart Mill following this lead wrote;

"Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title."

This simple principle of public finance, so far-reaching in its justness and effectiveness, is the orientation that Victoria needs.

Answer;

Lev your arguments about greedy landlords is rooted in the past struggles of the working class in Ireland and the voraceous Irish aristocracy who caused the Irish dispora that was incorrectly sheeted to English incompetance.

The 19th century caricature of the anti-semetic hook nosed shylock landlord needs to be consigned to the waste basket of history. Your clever card trick of advocating the site rental "tax" is exactly what current state governments have done with their voracious land tax imposts. They cynically reason that it is a small group who are powerless. In fact a recent survey suggests that up to 17% of Australian families own at least one investment property.

The rich landlord rhetoric needs to be exposed for what it really is a con job to expropriate individuals capital under the guise of the common good (provided your not a landlord!!).You said it all above that the increase in land values should belong to the community.....Stand and deliver Lev?

What your advocating lev is an unabashed kleptocracy. Your arguments by quoting David Ricardo reeks of the premise that there are "those with the basic economic literacy and the rest". You quote a long list of economists who are disciples of the principle of comparative advantage. The fact that those "theories remain rooted in the 19th century with all the baggage of its time, speaks volumes about the irrelevance of your premise.

What you are advocating is that the landlords of Australia should goose-step like lemming over a cliff into a financial abyss to pander to an economic theory that was devised in 1817 before the industrial revolution...good on ya lev;)

QUOTE;
You are deliberately misrepresenting my position; an action commonly known in rhetoric as a "strawman" argument, which is frankly quite unfair. One should debate a proposition on its merits, not turn it into something that was never presented in the first instance. There is no instance whatsoever in anything that I've provided that suggests that any government acts like Mugabe in Zimbabwe with regards to land. There is no suggestion of appropriation of title deeds, of forcible acquisition or anything like that.

Answer gee Lev I must have really wounded you with that one. You espouse a doctrine thats major goal is to expropriating landlords capital but squirm when I pick out only one example of a kleptomaniac who has applied your principle all be it with a a Zimbabwean twist:D

Can I recommend a great holiday read Lev if you haven't already got it. Its called WHO OWNS THE WORLD the hidden facts behind Landownership by Kevin Cahill ISBN 978 184596 158 9 It should be in every landlord and rebel rousers library shelf:p
 
Fighting the battles of the past

Originally Posted by Lev Lafayette 28/6/06
Tonight I am representing Prosper Australia, an organisation which has, in various guises, been a part of Victoria for over one hundred years. One key objective of the organisation is the reduction, as much as possible of taxes on labour and capital, and for public finances to be derived instead from site rental.

...I should also mention that I am a member of the Australian Labor Party. For several years I was the policy convenor of the Labor Left - Pledge Unions faction, the so-called "hard left" socialist group which strongly opposed the privatisation of public assets and had such disconcerting foreign affairs policies such as ending apartheid in South Africa, self-determination of East Timor, democracy in Indonesia and a state for the Palestinians.

A handful of people in Australia receive the lion's share of the site rent of this nation; this is monies extracted from labourers and productive investors and wealth created from such people. The economist, David Ricardo, saw with great clarity, describing the interest of the landlord (by which he meant literally - not the person who owns and invests in houses) as utterly opposed to the interests of all other classes. Then John Stuart Mill following this lead wrote;

"Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title."

This simple principle of public finance, so far-reaching in its justness and effectiveness, is the orientation that Victoria needs.

Answer;

Lev your arguments about greedy landlords is rooted in the past struggles of the working class in Ireland and the voraceous Irish aristocracy who caused the Irish dispora that was incorrectly sheeted to English incompetance.

The 19th century caricature of the anti-semetic hook nosed shylock landlord needs to be consigned to the waste basket of history. Your clever card trick of advocating the site rental "tax" is exactly what current state governments have done with their voracious land tax imposts. They cynically reason that it is a small group who are powerless. In fact a recent survey suggests that up to 17% of Australian families own at least one investment property.

The rich landlord rhetoric needs to be exposed for what it really is a con job to expropriate individuals capital under the guise of the common good (provided your not a landlord!!).You said it all above that the increase in land values should belong to the community.....Stand and deliver Lev?

What your advocating lev is an unabashed kleptocracy. Your arguments by quoting David Ricardo reeks of the premise that there are "those with the basic economic literacy and the rest". You quote a long list of economists who are disciples of the principle of comparative advantage. The fact that those "theories remain rooted in the 19th century with all the baggage of its time, speaks volumes about the irrelevance of your premise.

What you are advocating is that the landlords of Australia should goose-step like lemming over a cliff into a financial abyss to pander to an economic theory that was devised in 1817 before the industrial revolution...good on ya lev;)

QUOTE;
You are deliberately misrepresenting my position; an action commonly known in rhetoric as a "strawman" argument, which is frankly quite unfair. One should debate a proposition on its merits, not turn it into something that was never presented in the first instance. There is no instance whatsoever in anything that I've provided that suggests that any government acts like Mugabe in Zimbabwe with regards to land. There is no suggestion of appropriation of title deeds, of forcible acquisition or anything like that.

Answer gee Lev I must have really wounded you with that one. You espouse a doctrine thats major goal is to expropriating landlords capital but squirm when I pick out only one example of a kleptomaniac who has applied your principle all be it with a a Zimbabwean twist:D

Can I recommend a great holiday read Lev if you haven't already got it. Its called WHO OWNS THE WORLD the hidden facts behind Landownership by Kevin Cahill ISBN 978 184596 158 9 It should be in every landlord and rebel rousers library shelf:p
 
I must ask you why you are posting your messages twice in this thread and why you don't use the quote button to automatically generate inline quoting?

The 19th century caricature of the anti-semetic hook nosed shylock landlord needs to be consigned to the waste basket of history. Your clever card trick of advocating the site rental "tax" is exactly what current state governments have done with their voracious land tax imposts. They cynically reason that it is a small group who are powerless. In fact a recent survey suggests that up to 17% of Australian families own at least one investment property.
The sheer number of people who own an investment property tells us very little about the distribution of investment properties as a very basic knowledge of statistics would reveal to you. As a matter of fact, the distribution of wealth in Australia has a much higher Gini coefficient than the distribution of income, and the distribution of natural resource ownership is worse still (check the various Australian Bureau of Statistics publications on this matter).

You said it all above that the increase in land values should belong to the community.....Stand and deliver Lev?
Absolutely; seeming that an increase in site-rental values is the result of community activity and even government spending (e.g., infastructure), not only is no moral basis for its private appropriation it makes no economic sense either.

The fact that those "theories remain rooted in the 19th century with all the baggage of its time, speaks volumes about the irrelevance of your premise.
I have also provided plenty of economists of the 20th and 21st century as well. Please provide ONE economist of note who says a reduction in land tax improves productivity.

Answer gee Lev I must have really wounded you with that one. You espouse a doctrine thats major goal is to expropriating landlords capital but squirm when I pick out only one example of a kleptomaniac who has applied your principle all be it with a a Zimbabwean twist:D
Actually of all the places you noted the only one which hasn't used a variation of site-rental/land tax is Zimbabwe - and of course the use of strawman arguments annoy me - especially if they are used to engage in an ad hominen rhetorical argument as well, as you have done. It is as offensive as a poster making a comment about sex and then you claiming they're a child pornographer.

Can I recommend a great holiday read Lev if you haven't already got it. Its called WHO OWNS THE WORLD the hidden facts behind Landownership by Kevin Cahill ISBN 978 184596 158 9 It should be in every landlord and rebel rousers library shelf:p
Already aware of the content. Not particularly relevant to this discussion and the author, who is a good journalist and apparently not a bad political advisor, needs to do some more work on the notion of "bundle of rights".
 
I'm still trying to understand if you are proposing for a massive increase in umimproved land tax or upon all land developed or not?

to be honest the former I couldnt care less about, as I have no intention on sitting on raw land. in fact if it relieved me of my current land tax burden it would be advantageous, tho still morally wrong
 
I'm still trying to understand if you are proposing for a massive increase in umimproved land tax or upon all land developed or not?
Increase on the unimproved value of land with a contingent reduction in all other taxes on useful labour and capital and especially those related to housing first. As mentioned in the first post I made, there is some justification for taxes on cigarettes, alcohol etc however (i.e., incorporating externalities, public health issues etc).

to be honest the former I couldnt care less about, as I have no intention on sitting on raw land. in fact if it relieved me of my current land tax burden it would be advantageous, tho still morally wrong
I'm glad to hear that because it is exactly my intent; to encourage investment in the quantity and quality of housing stock, retail centres, factories etc. However, why do you think would it morally wrong to appropriate public funds from land use? Most moral theory on taxation claim that taxing a person's labour and labour products is suspect, but site rental is not.
 
I was once very interested in this thread but like others am getting bored with what's been postled lately. Can we get back to more practical issues and leave the philosophying to another thread?

Lev, can you start another thread somewhere else so that we don't get accused of "censorship".
 
I was once very interested in this thread but like others am getting bored with what's been postled lately. Can we get back to more practical issues and leave the philosophying to another thread?
Seeming that the first paragraphs of the first post started with such "philosophy" (indeed, the discussion is very much about practical implications), I hardly see the difference except perhaps, in presentation of an alternative opinion to original post. If you're bored by the discussion perhaps you shouldn't read it.
 
Top