"Pro-marital" taxation - how does it work?

[Ed Anger]

My dad married my mum when she was 20 and he was 41.  Age differences don't matter.

They didn't have internet jackasses throwing the 1/2 +7 rule in their faces.

[Valmy]

Actually since the average life expectancy of men is now lower than that of women, it makes sense for women to find younger partners. 

Yet they don't.  I am always amazed how women will jump at a guy 15 years older than they are with two kids...I mean seriously ladies surely you can do better than that.

[Martinus]

Actually since the average life expectancy of men is now lower than that of women, it makes sense for women to find younger partners. 

Yet they don't.  I am always amazed how women will jump at a guy 15 years older than they are with two kids...I mean seriously ladies surely you can do better than that.

Maybe they prefer inheritance/life insurance to companionship.

[Valmy]

Maybe they prefer inheritance/life insurance to companionship.

If they were rich and older it would make sense but 40 year olds with meager incomes and kids to support strike me as poor gold digging prospects.  They are not even likely to die soon either.

[Sheilbh]

Yet they don't.  I am always amazed how women will jump at a guy 15 years older than they are with two kids...I mean seriously ladies surely you can do better than that.

For some reason people perceive younger guys as being immature.  I'd argue almost all guys are immature, at heart.

Also generally speaking when you're elderly if the husband dies the wife can soldier on for years.  If the wife dies very often the husband falls apart and, unfortunately, just doesn't last.  It's happened with a few men in my family and our old next door neighbour.  The only exception of people I know is my uncle who was a lot older than his wife but cared for her for five years before she died.  He's still going strong.

[derspiess]

What the fuck are you talking about? I am asking how is this particular bit of social engineering supposed to work - because I don't see the causal link. How does that have anything to do with believing in social engineering or not?

What's interesting is that your only "contribution" to this thread is that of a retard unable to read.

And a good day to you, sir.  I'm generally skeptical about social engineering in the first place, including what you in past threads have naively championed. 

I suppose my point was given how you favored dubious social engineering schemes (like how allowing gay marriage will magically make gays more monogamous), why would you bother to question the logic behind this one.

[Sheilbh]

I suppose my point was given how you favored dubious social engineering schemes (like how allowing gay marriage will magically make gays more monogamous), why would you bother to question the logic behind this one.

I don't think Marty supports gay marriage to make gays monogamous or for any social engineering purpose.

[Eddie Teach]

My dad married my mum when she was 20 and he was 41.  Age differences don't matter.

They didn't have internet jackasses throwing the 1/2 +7 rule in their faces.

I wonder if women have a corresponding -7 x2 rule.

[Barrister]

Richard, if you are correct in your identification of the issue, why would anyone defend tax policy that gives more deductions/benefits to "single" people living together then to married people living together?

Why shouldn't they be treated equally?

The problem here is the sheer complexity of the tax and welfare systems and the way they interact. Being counted as single, married or co-habiting may or may not be a benefit depending on circumstances. So, for example, a "couple" will get far more state benefits if they run two "separate" households then admit that they are an item.

That is my point.  Tax returns should make people declare whether they are cohabitating or not and treat all such couples the same.  Saying that people wont answer honestly is no answer to that being the correct policy.  It is a matter of enforcement.  Surely in this age of information accessability it should be a simple matter to determine if someone is giving a false address.

Not so simple.  The most common form of welfare fraud going is for two people to claim separate residences, when in fact they are cohabitating.

[DGuller]

Not so simple.  The most common form of welfare fraud going is for two people to claim separate residences, when in fact they are cohabitating.

That was very common among Russian immigrants back when we first arrived.  It wasn't really fraud, so, it was just being smart.  The people doing it and the people advocating doing it told us so.

[crazy canuck]

Richard, if you are correct in your identification of the issue, why would anyone defend tax policy that gives more deductions/benefits to "single" people living together then to married people living together?

Why shouldn't they be treated equally?

The problem here is the sheer complexity of the tax and welfare systems and the way they interact. Being counted as single, married or co-habiting may or may not be a benefit depending on circumstances. So, for example, a "couple" will get far more state benefits if they run two "separate" households then admit that they are an item.

That is my point.  Tax returns should make people declare whether they are cohabitating or not and treat all such couples the same.  Saying that people wont answer honestly is no answer to that being the correct policy.  It is a matter of enforcement.  Surely in this age of information accessability it should be a simple matter to determine if someone is giving a false address.

Not so simple.  The most common form of welfare fraud going is for two people to claim separate residences, when in fact they are cohabitating.

But it is still fraud and people do still get caught.

As a matter of policy I see no problem calling it fraud.

[derspiess]

I suppose my point was given how you favored dubious social engineering schemes (like how allowing gay marriage will magically make gays more monogamous), why would you bother to question the logic behind this one.

I don't think Marty supports gay marriage to make gays monogamous or for any social engineering purpose.

He said as much on more than one occasion.  Not that it's his only reason, of course.

[Martinus]

I suppose my point was given how you favored dubious social engineering schemes (like how allowing gay marriage will magically make gays more monogamous), why would you bother to question the logic behind this one.

I don't think Marty supports gay marriage to make gays monogamous or for any social engineering purpose.

He said as much on more than one occasion.  Not that it's his only reason, of course.

Not really. I think it is a matter of civil rights. Pure and simple.

I have supported other social engineering causes (political correctness/anti-hate-speech, or anti-hate-crime legislation, for example) but gay marriage is not one of them. As far as gay marriage is concerned, I just thought that this was a good reason for a conservative to support it (and which is a reason the tories support it, by the way).

[Ed Anger]

My dad married my mum when she was 20 and he was 41.  Age differences don't matter.

They didn't have internet jackasses throwing the 1/2 +7 rule in their faces.

I wonder if women have a corresponding -7 x2 rule.

math is hard

[Admiral Yi]

They didn't have internet jackasses throwing the 1/2 +7 rule in their faces.

Touchy touchy.