@Prashant_Garg_ @hollyjeanbuck @EleAla Very interesting research. I have some questions about whether the provision of profiles mixes ideological and affective polarization, but my main question is: Take away: be moderate, take the 7-10% drop in credibility, and be non-silent? A fair or crazy interpretation?

@MekkaDonMusic @gms111 @ReeseClarett13 Nooooo. Warne, ball of the century, 1993.

@Noahpinion @flowinguphill Big “victims should coddle abusers” vibes

RT @25_cycle: #ClimateBrawl #ResistanceEarth A recent "reminder" made me search for the original word file used to compose my long rebuttal…

@TaxPawspective @TRAVLIC @every0000000 Please explain how a concocted example of a hairdresser establishes “who most benefits”? This is actually a test of the logical fallacy of over-extrapolation. Go

@Acyn In Orwell’s 1984, education was entirely aimed at pacification and control. How did that manifest in schools? Only functionality was taught. No history, art, science, geography, philosophy etc. Just functionality. Oceania didn’t want kids developing critical abilities.

RT @thejuicemedia: The Liberal Party of Australia has made an ad about its Nuclear Plan, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative! ⚛️🇦🇺…

@TaxPawspective @tobyeggleston @every0000000 @TRAVLIC Pfft, you have studiously avoided the tough questions. I’m going to let you return to your paid advertisements for the LNP. Seats

@TaxPawspective @TRAVLIC @every0000000 What would be really helpful is if you extrapolated from this ‘insight’ - an SME still needs $ to spend - to my query about the risk of disproportionate benefit to the already well off. Ask if the policy fails distributive justice, in other words.

@evcricket Well I teach a subject on expertise, so maybe Will, when he grows up, can take the class?

@TaxPawspective @TRAVLIC @every0000000 Let’s imagine you are right that “have a connection with” would not make it into the tax code. Is the policy thus a case of over-promising, like a political sugar hit? What Dutton claims he opposes? Or would the exemption aim for the politics and be stupidly loose? Lose, Lose

@TaxPawspective @TRAVLIC @every0000000 I think it’s Pollyanna Land stuff to think a policy that has great potential to irretrievably blur non-deductible vs deductible is not going to foster audit shenanigans. Indeed Dutton’s ‘cut red tap’ claim seems based in the loosening operation.

@TaxPawspective @TRAVLIC @every0000000 Who benefits if Tracy shouts her staff lunch? You ask this after having avoided the query generated by your own framing: is the benefit going to go disproportionately to the already better off? With this kind of defense of the policy, it’s no wonder it’s fallen flat.

@TaxPawspective @every0000000 @TRAVLIC You seem to think the squirrel tactic - “look over there” - establishes Dutton’s policy as good policy. What you need to do is assess the taxpayer-subsidized lunch policy stand-alone. You have not provided an argument why re-inventing the perks that Hawke cut is good policy.

@TaxPawspective @TRAVLIC @every0000000 I note you have strategically avoided the question. Does the condition of “have a connection with” open the floodgates of conversion from non-deductible to deductible?

@TaxPawspective @TRAVLIC @every0000000 That you feign ignorance about the practice of reclassifying is either a) a good reason why everyone should expect Dutton’s policy to generate rorting, or b) it’s fake ignorance, see ‘a’

@TaxPawspective @every0000000 @TRAVLIC It’s not clear how whining that SMEs are not getting all you think they deserve is an argument for Dutton’s policy. Others have already suggested many other ways to assist SMEs, without running the risk of systemic rorting unconnected to productivity.

@TaxPawspective @TRAVLIC @every0000000 Your example of Tracy’s hair salon and asking how many lunches she can afford to expense actually makes the point for critics. Greater revenue SMEs might get disproportionate benefit. Taxpayers subsidize the better off?

@TRAVLIC @TaxPawspective @every0000000 The FBT exemptions blurs the line beaten private consumption expenditure (not deductible) and income producing expenditure (deductible). That can already occur via reclassifying but does Dutton’s language of “having a connection with” irretrievably blur it?