The Cost of Being Single (not single mums, proper single)

PasturesNew

Also, somewhere in some small corner of the equation, there must be something about savings too.

A single can only have one ISA.
A couple can have two.
So they get double the tax free income from that per year.

Then, if there's any money left over, they again benefit by getting more into each of the relevant savings schemes, meeting the criteria, keeping it safe. Not that many singles will even get into an ISA, never mind fill one and have to think about what to do with even more money.

MissMoneypenny

StevieJ wrote: »

It doesn't seem to work that way with those unemployed single mums, it seems to pay more for the partner to stay away.

Or for them to claim that their partners are staying away.

MissMoneypenny

chucky wrote: »

maybe in your world they're not - they're paid by the state as an allowance for people bringing up a child or children.

http://www.welfarerights.net/benefits-guides/Child-Benefit

Child benefits are definately welfare. I claimed it for my two:p

Shakethedisease

Alos socialising - couples are usually happy enough to have cosy nights in etc, whereas when your single you tend to spend more going to out to do things with friends.

To those who said there is a cost in terms of buying rounds, sharing taxis etc, I think you will find if you explain this to your freinds they should understand, if they refuse to consider themselves as individuals and spilt things evenly, then they really aren't true friends

Nah.. if you're pals, skint and both single you do what me and my best mate did for years.. alternate Fridays at each others houses with a bottle of vodka ( cost also alternated), a cheap takeaway ( chips n cheese ) and a stack of cd's... Some of the best nights of my life those !

As for 'meeting' a potential partner. Well the vodka helped.. we both gigglingly phoned up and placed free personal ads in a newspaper, that night was soooo hilarious. I can't tell you how funny that night was.. we both thought nothing more of it through the thumping hangovers the next day...

2 years later she married number 34 on her list of calls back.. and 6 months before her, I married number 650 on my list ( mine had been 'ad of the the week' with 3000 replies)..

Both of us are still happily married 12 years and several children later, still laugh about that night. No socialising, money or pub rounds required. We also laugh about all the internet dating sites that are around today wondering what we'd have done if they'd been around then...

Life throws strange curve's sometimes. But waiting to be 'picked' seems strangely passive.

Single life is what you make it and financially, lets not forget that children are very expensive. Pro's and con's for both.. but again, kids COST and holidays, for those that aren't the statutory 'size' family.. are bloody expensive. Especially when the kids ages are ranged from 15 to 3.. most over 12/14 are counted as 'adults'.

Yes, pro's and con's. Best not to get too one sided about it. There are big shades of grey. I've produced 5 potential and future tax payers. Should I be ashamed of that ?

MissMoneypenny

Shakethedisease wrote: »

2 years later she married number 34 on her list of calls back.. and 6 months before her, I married number 650 on my list ( mine had been 'ad of the the week' with 3000 replies)..

That must have been some ads. Perhas you could help PN with an ad?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I've produced 5 potential and future tax payers. Should I be ashamed of that ??

I guess that would depend on how much you have claimed.

Shakethedisease

I've produced 5 potential and future tax payers. Should I be ashamed of that ??

I guess that would depend on how much you have claimed.

Really ? Why's that ? My children should be discounted or devalued somehow on the basis of how much I've claimed in benefits in the past ? Why should that be ? Or just that I should be ashamed of having them ?

That must have been some ads

Not really, just first names, a bit about ourselves and what we were looking for in a potential partner. Nothing earth-shattering. The hard part was trying not to dissolve into hysterical laughter when the other one was on the phone trying to say it straight-faced !

neverdespairgirl

I'd be an awful lot better off (in financial terms) if I were single, rather than half a couple-with-one-child.

If you're working, as we both are, childcare doesn't half cost. Compared with that, saving a few quid on the TV licence and utilities by being a couple is neither here nor there.

The state subsidy as far as we're concerned is just over £1k a year (child benefit)

silvercar

The state subsidy as far as we're concerned is just over £1k a year (child benefit)

Exactly, child benefit is a (slight) state subsidy. Living off welfare implies that the state is paying all the costs of bringing up the child. I doubt anyone can bring up a child on £10 a week.

ninky_2

ceridwen wrote: »

I guess the fact that singles have to pay so much more for everything than someone who is in a couple is probably something that is quite deliberate "social engineering" - to try to incentivise people into getting married/otherwise coupling up. The level of financial penalty attached to being single has got to be either thoughtlessness or deliberately penalising us.

not at all. as i've stated before, couples use less resources and that is why it is cheaper. it's got nothing to do with 'social engineering' -it's simple mathematics. if you were in a threesome you could save even more - yet not many of those around! most people are in a couple because they like being in a couple not because it is cheaper. you could equally choose to share things with mates and save money. but most single people don't want to do this.

in my experience, those who are longterm single choose to be so (even if they profess otherwise). they simple aren't willing to make the compromises or adjustments regarding being in a couple (and that includes being realistic about what sort of partner they could get). that's fair enough. some of my best friends are longterm single.

MissMoneypenny

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I'd be an awful lot better off (in financial terms) if I were single, rather than half a couple-with-one-child.

If you're working, as we both are, childcare doesn't half cost. Compared with that, saving a few quid on the TV licence and utilities by being a couple is neither here nor there.

The state subsidy as far as we're concerned is just over £1k a year (child benefit)

Quite a few people get most of their childcare costs paid by the state.

You worked too hard when you were at school NDG, so you don't get rewarded by the government.