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

pop_gun

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.

the social engineering aspect is one i hadn't thought too much about before. the government and businesses in general seems to cater for couples and families alot more readily than it does singles.

the cost of something is irrelevant as it the items we consume which are of real value and in that respect having children and large families is irresponsible drain on resources. at some point in the not so distant future this country and the government will be forced to redress this imbalanced view of society.

carolt

I can't help wondering if the red herring in this debate is children?

I'm sure that the original point that all things being equal it is more expensive to pay the bills if you're single is absolutely true - common sense dictates that bills split 2 ways must be less than split 1 way.

BUT as most/many (?) couples have children (and yes, I know some singles do too, but not as commonly), that skews the balance back a lot.

As soon as you have kids, for most couples disposable income goes out the window or is seriously reduced. Apart from the costs of supporting small people too young to pay their own way, you have so many extra costs - childcare costs and/or loss of one or half of one income, needing a bigger house, car and far, far more expensive holidays (term-time only, more seats on planes, more/bigger rooms etc). etc etc.

So I feel much, much poorer than single friends who lead a life where their money just gets spent on them.

A single person's bills may have to be paid by them alone. BUT they're inevitably smaller bills than those of a couple with kids.

So swings and roundabouts,I suppose.

I suppose it explains the outlook of DINKY's like Hamish, who don't really get why the rest of us find it so hard...

twirlypinky

Going back to the original post, we weren't actually calculating children in this.

Basically, it's cheaper to be in couples than to be single. And in my personal opinion, nicer.

MissMoneypenny

Really2 wrote: »

A couple of state pensioners receive less than two single people.

No, they receive their own state pension. So they can have double what a single person gets, to run a house.

Really2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

No, they receive their own state pension. So they can have double what a single person gets, to run a house.

Sorry that is wrong, my parents have just both retired (my mom 4 years earlier than my farther) so I know it is not double a single pension.

Here are the figures
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3197943.stm

How much is it worth?
The full weekly rates are (year to April 2011):
Single person: £97.65
Couple: £156.15

So single people living a house (EG mom and sister like my wife has) get more money than a couple (couple works out at £78.08 each)

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

Everyone with a child over 3 is entitled to a maximum of 15hr PW child placement at a nursery. Below that I do not think there is any aid (not as we are aware anyway) but there are things like "Busy Bees" vouchers that come out of your pre tax earnings, they help lower the costs a bit.

Our kicks in this sept (free 15 hours that is).

Incorrect Really2. You can get help with childcare costs in working tax credits, housing & council tax benefits, and other sources.
In example, if a lone parent goes to college, jobcentre may pay childcare. (If the jobcentre doesn't, the college probably will...)

Touch paper lit....;)

PasturesNew

carolt wrote: »

I can't help wondering if the red herring in this debate is children?

It always is .... and it bl00dy annoys me once everybody starts bleating on about kids etc etc .... if this were a discussion about kids I'd have been knocked back by now with that spitting "You don't have kids, what do you know" and put back in my box.

Yes, kids is a red herring..... that then detracts from the actual original issue .... but, somehow, everything in this bl00dy life always becomes about the bl00dy kids.

Nuff said.

lemonjelly

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

A lot of parents are saying that childcare costs and nursery costs went up when the government starting paying these benefit payments.

Absolutely. In example, there is a scheme called "care2learn" which funds the under 20's childcare whilst they return to education.

The max they will pay a week is £160.

Hazard a wild guess at how much they charge for childcare on a weekly basis....

PasturesNew

carolt wrote: »

So I feel much, much poorer than single friends who lead a life where their money just gets spent on them.

But if you do the sums, you might find it's just your perception. I don't know anybody with kids (including single mums) who have less than me. People think they're hard done by, but when you tot it all up it's more than they thought they had, they're just spending it.

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Incorrect Really2. You can get help with childcare costs in working tax credits, housing & council tax benefits, and other sources.
In example, if a lone parent goes to college, jobcentre may pay childcare. (If the jobcentre doesn't, the college probably will...)

Touch paper lit....;)

I was relating it to working as per what the OP said, non of these were available to us as working parents.

I was stating more that everyone gets child care costs covered by the state no matter of wage by child care places for over 3's.

I am not up on the benefits side of it TBH, but I knew all working people can get some help.

I won't blow, can't be assed.