IFS questions Cameron's promised tax breaks for married couples - Telegraph

Quote:

Pupils whose parents are married are known to make better progress at school than children of cohabiting couples, a report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies said. But the research concluded that this was because more affluent and better educated couples were more likely to get married and have children who were successful at school. Factors such as parents’ income and educational background play a key role in how children from different families develop, the study said. The Prime Minister has repeatedly expressed his desire to support marriage through the tax system. Supporters of such a move argue that children whose parents are married, rather than living simply together, are more likely to do well at school and develop good social skills. Mr Cameron has been criticised for failing to implement his pre-election pledge to introduce tax breaks for married couples amid opposition to such a move from Liberal Democrats in the Coalition. However, the IFS research, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, directly questioned whether such a policy could be justified on the basis that marriage itself helps children. Ellen Greaves, research economist at the IFS, and one of the authors of the report, said: “It is true that children born to married couples are on average more cognitively and emotionally successful than children born to cohabiting couples. “But careful analysis shows that this largely reflects the differences between the types of people who decide to get married and those who don't. “On average those who marry tend to come from more advantaged families, and are more cognitively and emotionally successful themselves, than those who cohabit. “This explains the differences in outcomes for children. Marriage itself appears to confer little, if any, benefit in terms of child development.” The researchers analysed the progress of children in the Millennium Cohort Study, which followed the development of 19,000 babies born in the UK in 2000 and 2001. They also examined results for an older group, based on figures from the British Cohort Study, which observed all children born in Britain during one week in April 1970. The report found that the children of cohabiting parents performed worse than pupils born to married couples in assessments including vocabulary, reading, mathematics and making patterns at the ages of three, five and seven. They were also significantly more likely to show signs of hyperactivity, lack of attention, and problems forming friendships with other children than pupils whose parents were married. However, when differences in the parents’ educational achievements, social class and family structures were taken into account, the gulf in development between the children of married and cohabiting parents disappeared. The IFS suggested the Prime Minister and other supporters of tax breaks for married couples could not argue that marriage helps children to develop social skills or intellectual abilities. Anastasia de Waal, head of family policy at the think-tank Civitas, said it was crucial to understand why some couples decided to marry. “It really matters what marriage means,” she said. “Marriage here means commitment and stability.” Often, couples cohabit because they are not financially secure enough to commit to each other, are therefore more likely to separate, she said. “Why are people with low educational levels not getting married? We do need to think about what marriage means.”

Emotionally successful? Wtf?

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Emotionally successful? Wtf?

I think you're taking an increasingly ideologic position on this stuff, you know. Emotionally successful could simply mean less likely to commit suicide, self-harm, be bulimic/anorexic or become depressed.

Why not?

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Suicide is a personal choice, self-harm and bulimia might just be what makes you happy, I dunno it's none of my business. Equally, as long as it doesn't affect you, you have no right to make judgements about what I do.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Quote:

Suicide is a personal choice...

Then why is it not statistically random?

Quote:

self-harm and bulimia might just be what makes you happy...

Ideological lalaland. Things may not be black and white but no one ever said "hey, depression is what makes me happy"... Kind of by definition

Quote:

I dunno it's none of my business. Equally, as long as it doesn't affect you, you have no right to make judgements about what I do.

I reserve the right to pass judgement but I may very well not intervene. There, I agree with you.

All told, you haven't demonstrated that "emotionally successful" can't be measured on fairly objective grounds and/or is an evil attempt by the state to control your every action...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

Then why is it not statistically random?

Voting patterns aren't statistically random either. Should we intervene to prevent people from doing that too?

Quote:

Ideological lalaland. Things may not be black and white but no one ever said "hey, depression is what makes me happy"... Kind of by definition

No, solid psychology. Moment at which mental patients are at the highest risk of suicide? When they've just got out of hospital. Right when they're supposed to be cured, or at least better than they were. It's because mental health treatment has a tendancy to focus on the symptoms (such as self-harm) as if they were diseases in themselves. The presumption is that because you've stopped cutting yourself you're better; actually the probability is that they've just deprived you of your only outlet.

Even if you're completely nuts, you make the cutting yourself/not cutting yourself decision based on what feels right for you. If that's the only thing that's going to stop you jumping in front of a train, falling into a depression or having a nervous breakdown, then I'll happily pass you the razor-blade and the kleenex.

Quote:

All told, you haven't demonstrated that "emotionally successful" can't be measured on fairly objective grounds and/or is an evil attempt by the state to control your every action...

I don't much care about the state, it's the mere existence of the concept that pisses me off. Imagine if we'd always made emotional success the be-all and end-all of life. No Anthony and Cleopatra. No St Francis of Assisi or Buddha. No Jesus or Bobby Sands. Would the net happiness levels in the world increase? Probably. Would life be worth living? Probably not.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Quote:

Even if you're completely nuts, you make the cutting yourself/not cutting yourself decision based on what feels right for you. If that's the only thing that's going to stop you jumping in front of a train, falling into a depression or having a nervous breakdown, then I'll happily pass you the razor-blade and the kleenex.

(Well okay, actually, I won't because the psychiatry gestapo are out to get you at every turn. I'll advise you to find some way of doing it so that it doesn't show, that way they've got nothing on you.)

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Okay - Maybe I am going about this the wrong way round.

Emotional success doesn't have to mean "I-am-so-happy-and-bubbly-and-soooo-happy" type of personality. Indeed, I find this people deeply suspicious and unlikely to be really happy.

But, according to some serious research, the kind of experiences that make people happy aren't relaxed moments or moments of self-indulgence and contentment...

They tend to involve the following elements:

- challenging activity that requires skills
- merging of action and awareness
- clear goals and feedback
- concentration on the task at hand
- a sense of control
- loss of self-consciousness
- transformation of time.

(Positive psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Therefore, I am pretty sure that being dissatisfied with something doesn't stop from being happy - once you set actions in motion to address the issue and you feel in control.

I suspect that Jesus kicking the merchants out of the Temple must have felt very happy - He had been enraged by the desacration and was doing something about it and being successful... Good stuff. Similarly when he was preaching and multiplying bread and fishes... A kick-ass sermon, plenty of people listening as if he was the Messiah - He must have been in the zone...

Of course, all those criteria could also be fullfilled by a serial killer as he is stalking and then killing his victim.

But I do think that this is directly opposed to being depressed. And it is important stuff as, after all, society was invented to enable people to pursue happiness - life, liberty and inalienable rights being the means to that end (with thanks to Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson for that one).

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.