Ed Balls forgets to engage brain

Or tax incentive for parents where child attends extra Maths/English lessons (after school) and passes exam....Not perfect but a bit of creative thinking could put this money to much much better use and be less social divisive.

How about for failing schools, parents getting tax allowance/incentive based on child doing homework...teachers have to monitor so not that easily operationally. Will think of other ideas though.

Targeted policies on problem areas could have a better direct impact without demoralising/disadvantaging single or unmarried parents. I think it is awful having a policy that punishing innocent, hardworking single or unmarried parents.

Madge5- hmm, social engineering with fiscal policy. Let me think altho' I think this is a difficult area.

understand what you are saying but I think it is a crude policy that will/should offend those unfairly excluded. I would have looked for other creative ways of rewarding good parenting.

Tdiddy Of course unmarried, divorced and widowed people can and do make excellent parents. I know several. I'm just saying the Tories thinking behind the tax relief is possibly that two committed parents are more likely, on average, to be successful parents. IMO there are so many other factors - but that really is another thread.

jackstarbright - you don't have to be married to be two good parents.

And you can be married and be awful parents. I do think that the policy is badly designed.

By the way, does our widowed girlfriend get this tax break as well? She is a very very good parent of her two children.

TDiddy Labour have tried 'nudges' i.e child trust funds (to show you what a good idea saving money for your child is).

I think 'good parenting' is behind the Tory policy i.e The belief that two committed parents are better are than one. And given it's a transferable tax relief, it implies SAHM/D's.

...although I think that it would be much to send signals that good parenting is a "positive thing"...

jackstarbright - very incisive points you make IMO

Apparently the 'perception' of a tax can be disproportionately more important than it's actual value.

So, I see the proposed tax relief for married people as a 'signal' that marriage and committment is a 'positive thing' to be encouraged and certainly not penalised (as it is for some now).

Having said that, I'm not sure it's the best policy for the Tories to bring out at this stage.

MmeBlueberry- I am not playing with anything! AQny social scientist will tell you that it is very bad to base policy on correlation without establishing causality. That's all. And rewarding marriage (as opposed to good parenting) seems like classic prejudice born out of last minute election headline grabbing.
That's all there is to it.

Both sides indulge in this sort of crap. It is the Tories this time but let's just admit that it is bad policy making.

You may have the skills to play with statistics, but that is not the same as making good decisions based on them. They are just another tool.

MmeBlueberry - do you really want me to show my social skills by talking about eigenvalues, and vectors or other boring techniques. I will save that for the next actuarial party that I get invited to .

No, I am definitely not joking. Far from it.

How would you design a study, diddy?

You can even tell when a cohabiting relationship begins and often not when it ends.

You can't isolate confounding variables. All you can really do is look back over past relationships and identify the variables present in each relationship. You can easily use statistics to determine significance.

With a large enough study, you can perform many breakouts, such as age, social class, education level, income, support of extended family, length of time before first child appeared - basically anything that you think will have an impact on the happiness and longevity of a relationship.

If it were a law banning cohabitation, the I agree that a high standard of proof is required, but for a small tax break, then a much more relaxed standard is appropriate.

"I have always had a problem with Ed Balls as I think he looks just like Buzz Lightyear."

jkllpu Thank you - I was struggling to think who he reminded me of .

MmeBlueberry - you are joking aren't you?

Am awful lot do, though. It is much harder to drift into marriage, even if it a shotgun wedding. And with marriage, both parties are equal from the get go. No one is pressurised one way or the other.

that's one thing MmeBlueberry. What other elements?

I don't agree though, Not every co-habiting couple drifts onto a relationship or is caught out by a surprise pregnancy.

MmeBlueberry- correlation without analysis and deeper thought is the seed for bad policy as in this case. I am not claiming causation but you and the Tories are so please prove it. Common sense tells me that stable, loving and nuturing parenting is what children need to thrive.

Lifelong and equal commitment, with a clear starting point, by both parties rather than drifting into a realationship and being caught out by a 'surprise' pregnancy...

"There are important elements that are in abundance in marriages, that are less so in co-habitations"

which are?

I'd like to see you design a test to prove causation. Correlation is enough for many government policies.