I'm not sure. Are you agreeing neutrality is legitimate in this kind of case? If you are, then we are agreed. If not, we are not!
-
-
Replying to @DanNeidle @CarterPaddy and
I am not expressing a view on the legitimacy of "tax neutrality", I am expressing a view on the viability of a clear distinction between "tax neutrality" and tax avoidance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_ClairQuentin @DanNeidle and
what's wrong with avoidance = reduce x or y neutrality = no impact on x or y ?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CarterPaddy @DanNeidle and
Sorry to interject. Just a point of interest. Under that definition, would any kind of taking advantage of treaty benefits qualify as avoidance?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @martinhearson @CarterPaddy and
I'm sure you can skip a bit of furiously re-writing your co-authors' words to mean the same thing the co-author originally wrote, without too much value lost? ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @DanNeidle @phdskat and
But we are. You should see Twitter when people disagree..
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @iaincampbell07 @DanNeidle and
We can reconvene this discussion when the survey results are out...... which will take me a few days. Plus I'm waiting to get to the magic number of responses -->
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
No repeat entries...
-
-
Replying to @MForstater @DanNeidle and
I always thought vote early vote often was such a simple mantra..
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.