@martinhearson - it worries me that no one (?) seems to think it is a problem if the public is bamboozled by figures that aren't robust.
-
-
Replying to @MForstater
@MForstater It's good to scrutinise, I agree, but hard to respond to you without knowing where you are coming from in a v polarised debate1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @martinhearson
@martinhearson that is the thing though, no one scrutinised those figures b4 or after publication. It doesn't help advance understanding.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
@MForstater b) if objective is 'tax justice' this is not the most important debate, but it's the only debate you seem interested in having1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @martinhearson
@martinhearson b) say the wider objective is 'informed public debate on taxation' ...then yes it matters.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @martinhearson
@martinhearson but yes if the means to 'tax justice' is 'misinformed public debate' then no I don't sign up to that.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @martinhearson
@martinhearson - glad to hear it! So we agree that better informed public debate is a good thing. That is why it is important….1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
@MForstater the debate I want is not about whether Oxfam got their sums wrong, but how to fix the underlying [tax] problem.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@martinhearson me too - but that depends on APP Oxfam getting their sums right. Not on ppl who notice an error keeping quiet!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.