Hasse Walum at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, and colleagues looked at the various forms of the gene coding for a vasopressin receptor in 552 Swedish people, who were all in heterosexual partnerships. The researchers also investigated the quality of their relationships.
They found that variation in a section of the gene called RS3 334 was linked to how men bond with their partners. Men can have none, one or two copies of the RS3 334 section, and the higher the number of copies, the worse men scored on a measure of pair bonding.
Not only that, men with two copies of RS3 334 were more likely to be unmarried than men with one or none, and if they were married, they were twice as likely to have a marital crisis.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewducker
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 09:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 09:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 09:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 09:43 am (UTC)BUT THEN I read your comment and your point reminds me of the Poll Tax - taxed per per person, not per household, which put large and often low income families at a massive disadvantage while small, well off families paid less. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 10:20 am (UTC)But I need details, dammit!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 10:06 am (UTC)Also vaguely in favour - I've been moaning for income-assessed council tax since before I was paying it, but like everyone else, I'm concerned how it will pan out. The usual problem with income-assessed tax is that it relies on the assessment of how much you can afford actually being fair and reasonable...
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 10:09 am (UTC)Leaving aside the fact that I'd get it in the neck to the tune of a couple of thousand quid a year extra (my flat was low-balled in it's initial CT valuation), there's a huge can of worms here.
What about second homes? Do you pay an extra 3% income tax for each house you own? What about landlords?
What about folks who live in England and have a second home in Scotland? (See also landlords who live in England and own Scottish properties.)
How is it to be collected? HMRC said "fuck off, not our job". Are you going to have to fill out a second, local, income tax return for Holyrood?
What about poor folks who are currently below the income tax threshold (it goes up to £7000 next year, IIRC)? How is the extra 3% income tax going to be banded, or is it going to be a regressive flat-rate tax on everyone?
I can see ways in which this local income tax could be worse than the hated Poll Tax of yore, if they choose to administer it that way. I'm not opposed to LIT in principle -- other than the very personal principle that 200% tax increases hurt, and obviously that doesn't apply to everyone -- but what it really looks like to me is the SNP trying to force Westminster to split HMRC's administration of taxes so that if they go for independence post-2010 they'll already have the tools in place to raise income tax directly.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 10:18 am (UTC)That's currently my biggest query - and one that I'm trying to find out details on. I suspect there aren't any.
I've heard that the tax is at 3% because devolution allowed them to vary income tax by up to that amount. Which would mean HMRC would have no choice - and that presumably banding would continue.
But I need details, dammit!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 10:54 am (UTC)No. Income tax is based only on earnings, not on property you own.
What about folks who live in England and have a second home in Scotland?
This is a good question and one they will need to resolve. Since it is mostly going to be high-erners who own more than one home, it will be in their interests to declare their property in England to be their place of residence and pay English taxes. How they plan to resolve this one I am not sure.
landlords who live in England and own Scottish properties
The tax will not be linked to property. They will not need to pay it. Besides which, landlords don't pay council tax currently, it is the responsibility of the tennant(s).
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 11:12 am (UTC)I have difficulty seeing this as a net win, especially as, like the poll tax, LIT schemes decouple the property tax from the property.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 11:23 am (UTC)Which form of taxation is preferable depends on your political ideology really, whether you believe wealth should be redistributed or not. The Poll tax assumed we should all bear the burden equally, income tax varies it directly in accordance with your ability to pay. Council tax is a bit of a fudge, somewhere between the two and based on the assumption that high earners live in more expensive houses, which is not always the case.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 11:24 am (UTC)Surely that's because it's manifestly _not_ a property tax?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 11:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 05:06 pm (UTC)The way around it would be for the LIT to be collected nationally and allocated by central government to local government bodies according to need -- but this gives central government a choke-chain to strangle local authorities they disagree with ((c) Margaret Thatcher, 1984 -- see also "Poll Tax").
no subject
Date: 2008-09-05 11:47 am (UTC)Google Chrome
Date: 2008-09-04 02:59 pm (UTC)"For times when you want to browse in stealth mode, for example, to plan surprises like gifts or birthdays, Google Chrome offers the incognito browsing mode. Webpages that you open and files downloaded while you are incognito won't be logged in your browsing and download histories; all new cookies are deleted after you close the incognito window. You can browse normally and in incognito mode at the same time by using separate windows."
Yeah... gifts and birthdays... yeah..
Re: Google Chrome
Date: 2008-09-04 03:11 pm (UTC)