Marriage Tax Breaks

[eFestivals]

FFS... Here we go again...

I am totally consistent on what I am saying...

My FAMILY INCOME is in the top 10% (going off Robinsons numbers)... That is made up of one higher rate payer and one lower rate payer... I am just below it and my wife is just above it... Do the fucking maths!

Were Robinson's numbers about family income or something else?

FFS, if we all work by your method of adding in any numbers that we fancy then everyone in the world is top 1%, and no discussion has any sense or basis.

Welcome to the world of Farry Bish.

[kaosmark2]

as far as I'm concerned there's little as abusive as posting lies only for the purposes of winning an argument.

Abuse comes in more than one form.

[eFestivals]

but they do...

They do not.

They state that those who are married are in their relationships longer than those who are not - and not a jot more.

Nothing of that proves anything about a better world if more people married, just as knowing the number of BMWs cannot tell you the number of Fords.

If you want to believe that those stats back up your belief then all you are demonstrating is your lack of understanding and knowledge of what stats can tell you.

[kaosmark2]

Yet the statistics shoe married couples stay together longer... We keep coming back to that fact...

So unless you think a modern day marriage is the same as a 60/70s marriage and all the socially different acceptance back then (like rape in marriage) then it would seem, at least to me, that its a good route for more people...

[eFestivals]

Again you suggest I am lying... At least have the dignity to post where I lied last week ?

Tell me how a two person family with two earners, earning just above and below the tax threshold ARE NOT in the top 10% of family incomes ?

first off you'll need to give me a table of joint incomes to put your joint earnings against.

When you made that comment did you have a table of joint incomes to put your joint income against? It certainly wasn't the table that Robinson had in his programme from where you saying that came.

So where is the table of joint incomes you used to state yourself (and your wife who you forgot to mention at the time at first - great partnership you and her have, where you ignore existence until you get called out as a liar ) as top 10%?

But anyway, you're just sadly average, mr sadly average man. Whatever lies you cook up don't change that.

[kaosmark2]

Im off to play with the kid... See ya...

[eFestivals]

Yet the statistics shoe married couples stay together longer... We keep coming back to that fact...

and the fact that they're already married shows them as likely to have a stronger commitment to each other than those that are not.... we keep coming back to THAT fact.

Some of us are able to discern how that fact affects what the stats are telling you. Others are too thick to engage their brain or perhaps have no brain.

So unless you think a modern day marriage is the same as a 60/70s marriage and all the socially different acceptance back then (like rape in marriage) then it would seem, at least to me, that its a good route for more people...

"seems" - yes.

"at least to me" - yes.

A fact that's extraditable into other sorts of relationships? No.

The stat you quote is relevant ONLY to those who are married. It does not say anything of those who are not.

It's because this country is run by half brains like you that it's so fucked.

[eFestivals]

Again you suggest I am lying... At least have the dignity to post where I lied last week ?

Tell me how a two person family with two earners, earning just above and below the tax threshold ARE NOT in the top 10% of family incomes ?

Only after you tell me how a comment I made about just your income and how you're a leech to the state on the basis of that one income becomes "no I'm not if I count my wife's income as my own (but I won't tell you that I added my wife's until you call me out as a liar for first pretending I earn that much by just myself)".

You like to spout on about your great morals - morals that include a glee in lies and deception. Did you learn those great liar morals in marriage too?

[eFestivals]

It was family income you fairy!

no it wasn't.

and that is what we clearly discussed last week.

when I similarly pointed out that it was personal income that Robinson was using in a table about income tax.

And you keep confusing how much I earn gross

no, I know what you've stated, which is how I was able to know you were lying when you included your wife's income with your own.

and how much I choose to take out of my company as a personal income.

PMSL - so you do tax avoidance on your personal income, but then chose to pay extra tax by leaving money in your business.

Yeah, right.

It varies because of the fact I am now contracting,

oh dear - your successful business has fallen on its arse has it?

but this year I will certainly earn no more than £40k personal income, the company takes more but I only take out £40k...

PMSL at the man who doesn't know the difference between turnover and profit.

[eFestivals]

Neil... It was all about family / household

Income...

Any chance of that apology now ... Didn't think so...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-13633966

whether it was or wasn't, my comment was about you personally and was correct.

[kaosmark2]

Could you two take it to PMs please? You're like an old, unhappily married couple airing their dirty laundry in public

[fred quimby]

Could you two take it to PMs please? You're like an old, unhappily married couple airing their dirty laundry in public

[kaosmark2]

I was just thinking that. Bet they will make up around the christmas dinner though. I love the way Barry calls him wife

[Gre]

They've brought back this cheap headline-getting middle-England idea then? They were knocking this about in 2008 or so, my two housemates and I joked about getting civil-partnered to each other back then. £150 a year for filling in a few forms? Easy money.

Makes car insurance cheaper too doesn't it?

[eFestivals]

They've brought back this cheap headline-getting middle-England idea then? They were knocking this about in 2008 or so, my two housemates and I joked about getting civil-partnered to each other back then. £150 a year for filling in a few forms? Easy money.

it's Dave Moron's pet idea, that everyone being married is all this country needs to get back on track.

Aside from the whole idea being extrapolated from data which doesn't say what Dave Moron likes to pretend it says, it's simply a sopp to the middle classes to divert them from the issues which really matter.

[sifi]

A couple of points on this :

Firstly, the legislation is pointless other than a PR exercise for Moron to try and further ingratiate himself with the squeezed middle, or whatever you want to call them / us.

Secondly, the discussion as to whether or not a child is more or less succcessful in future life because of where they were brought up, or how they were brought up is hugely insignificant as compared to the genetic make-up of the child.

Studies in America identified groups of twins who were adopted, one by a rich, loving couples in middle-class or well off affluent areas, and compared the success in education, earnings and other indicators with the second twin who was bought up (sometimes by one parent) in a poor, ghetto type neighbourhood. The results showed that that the level of achievement by both sets of twins was roughly the same. It's on one of the most excellent Freakenomics podcasts, if anyone is really interested.

Conclusion : It's all about the genes. Oaf probably wants me to shag his wife, just to be safe like.

Edited December 21, 2011 by sifi

[sifi]

How do you explain two very bright and successful parents spawning a total fucking let down though... Could be down to so many reasons...

[sifi]

I think the American twin results are as close to a control experiment that we have with regards to near-identical genetic make-up at different ends of the wealth spectrum. As to your specific "what makes a fuck-up" you'd have to ask a biologist - good genes in the 'rents don't automatically guarantee good offspring - for example, you don't have dynasties of athletes winning the olympics every time around, do you?

Edited December 21, 2011 by sifi

[kaosmark2]

I think the American twin results are as close to a control experiment that we have with regards to near-identical genetic make-up at different ends of the wealth spectrum. As to your specific "what makes a fuck-up" you'd have to ask a biologist - good genes in the 'rents don't automatically guarantee good offspring - for example, you don't have dynasties of athletes winning the olympics every time around, do you?

[sifi]

I don't think it was isolated adopted twin cases. I think there were lots of them. It was from the same group of people who pointed out that the level crime in America dropped approx. 20 years after abortion was legalised.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I know it's not relevant to the thread but imagine splitting twins up in the first place! Can't think what the justifications would be.

[fred quimby]

I know it's not relevant to the thread but imagine splitting twins up in the first place! Can't think what the justifications would be.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Hadn't thought of that. Two ugly babies would indeed be far too taxing for one set of parents. It's good this forum is because you can learn stuff. lol

[eFestivals]

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Well for my part in it I'd like to thank you. Not just you, but also to my mom and dad and those who have supported me all the way. A special thanks goes out to my resuscitation team. May their pioneering work never come to the light of the authorities. Hopefully one day, by whatever means, some people will lighten up. Amen.