Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Ed Balls forgets to engage brain

59 replies

Madge5 · 10/04/2010 09:32

Is anyone else as enraged as I with Ed Balls' comments this morning regarding the Tories tax cuts for married couples?
He said it's unfair because the man can beat up his wife then leave taking the tax break with him to his next marriage and start all over again. Eh? Is this what really happens in marriages? Are we women being beaten up by our husbands, are we left destitute, unable to stand up again and remarry?
Or is he implying this is what happens in poorer families, who are the ones to benefit from this proposal.

OP posts:
KatharineFlute · 11/04/2010 19:59

I agree with Ed Balls.

Why should someone who is widowed or a single mum not get the benefit whilst someone who is married is better off?

Thats not fair.

I would qualify for £150 a year based on our family income of just over £30k and the fact that I only work part-time.

My sister in law - who works full time and earns just over £20k to support her daughter - would not qualify as she is divorced after her partnet left her for another man.

However if he and has partner become civil partners they would qualify.

It seems to me to be a completely unreasonable policy.

Also - how do the Conservatives think it will make people stay in marriages? No-one who is not in love with their partner would stay in a marriage for the sake of a £150 a year tax break.

Even if they increased it to a higher level then that would just increase the inequality and unfairness. It might persuade some people to stay married for the sake of a 'tax advantage'.

It seems ludicrous to me that the Tories talk about wanting to support marriage but all their policy could possibly do is promote loveless partnerships if it was extended further.

TDiddy · 11/04/2010 20:30

MmeBlueberry - you are missing the point that I am making about the important distinction as to whether it is mostly stable couples choosing marriage or whether marriage itself makes couples stable. I am sorry but you have to do that regression to work out whether marriage is the underlying cause or whether it is just another effect of couple stability.

MmeBlueberry · 11/04/2010 20:55

You are too funny, diddy

MmeBlueberry · 11/04/2010 21:06

Sorry, that last comment was mean of me.

I was wondering, what confounders are preventing you with equating (to a reasonable confidence interval) correlation with causality in this case?

TDiddy · 11/04/2010 21:13

MmeBlueberry- can I say that you are also funny . I think it is easy to observe correlation but proving causality needs a bit more analysis or control study.

It is important though not to conclude causality as this can be dangerous?

MmeBlueberry · 11/04/2010 21:18

But unless you disclose the confounders I will go away thinking you are burying your head in the sand.

TDiddy · 11/04/2010 21:47

I am sorry but you are suggesting causality; I am not. But I would suggest that the independent variable could be something like having a loving mother and father.

MmeBlueberry · 11/04/2010 21:54

Indeed, you are denying any suggestion of causality with the same skill as a Phillip Morris' attorney.

TDiddy · 11/04/2010 22:46

Okay we agree on correlation but BEFORE you make policy you have to demonstrate causality. The onus shouldn't be on me to prove something that I find dubious. Should be the other way round!

MmeBlueberry · 12/04/2010 09:58

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

DuelingFanjo · 12/04/2010 18:44

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

which are?

MmeBlueberry · 12/04/2010 19:25

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...

TDiddy · 12/04/2010 19:27

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.

DuelingFanjo · 12/04/2010 19:30

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 · 12/04/2010 19:32

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.

TDiddy · 12/04/2010 19:33

MmeBlueberry - you are joking aren't you?

jackstarbright · 12/04/2010 19:41

"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 · 12/04/2010 19:41

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.

MmeBlueberry · 12/04/2010 19:42

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

TDiddy · 12/04/2010 20:17

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 .

MmeBlueberry · 12/04/2010 20:19

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.

TDiddy · 12/04/2010 20:28

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.

jackstarbright · 12/04/2010 20:38

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.

TDiddy · 12/04/2010 20:42

jackstarbright - very incisive points you make IMO

TDiddy · 12/04/2010 20:43

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