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

marklv

The_White_Horse wrote: »

single people should offer their services, in a slave like manner, to the couples.

Careful about what you are saying - you sound like a swinger to me! :rotfl:

PasturesNew

The article is looking at the lifetime cost, not the 3 years you were a student, living in a shared house, nor the next 3-5 years while you were young/dating before shacking up or getting married. It's not looking at families and one income earner (plus benefits)... it's looking at the cost of being - and remaining - single, over a lifetime.

While any single will be hit with these costs at some point in their lives, those times tend to be when you're younger (so all money is more than pocket money was), or older/widowed (so most of your life you've been building up items and doing stuff not as a single) ... but the cost of being single today, next week, next year, ..... a lifetime of ALWAYS carrying that extra financial burden, without another's financial (or even emotional) support and assistance.

A couple can also tackle more jobs around the house themselves because [a] there's two of them to hold things up and look at the problem there's the support of "I think we can do this" ... and 2x the chance one has the ability. Singles will more often also have to call in some assistance - and pay for it.

ess0two

PasturesNew wrote: »

With all due respect .... you were only in the single situation for a while. Now you're a family.

And not every single buys pointless shoes to put in a pointless cupboard. My shoes tend to cost me £5, last 5 years ... and get wrapped up in supermarket carrier bags and put in a plastic storage box.

Why scrimp on necessities?yet on another thread you paid a few k for a secondhand car.

olly300

lemonjelly wrote: »

I see both of these. It can be difficult to deal with sometimes.

Brother is married. They have 2 kids. I'm not & don't have kids.

So I'm buying 4 people birthday presents through the year, 4 people easter gifts, they get an anniversary present, plus I'm buying for 4 people presents at christmas.

On my birthday/christmas I get 1 present with love from the 4 of them.

solution: - stop being so generous.

By the adults a joint gift.

When the kids reach 18 stop being them birthday presents.

I come from a large family and you only have to concentrate on buying the people you see presents.

Graham_Devon

PasturesNew wrote: »

With all due respect .... you were only in the single situation for a while. Now you're a family.

I'm not. I live on my own. Just an extra payment going out each week for my son aswell as buying a multitude of varying aparatus.

And the pointless shoes thing...lol. Meant buying the other person shoes.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not. I live on my own. Just an extra payment going out each week for my son aswell as buying a multitude of varying aparatus.

And the pointless shoes thing...lol. Meant buying the other person shoes.

why can't they buy their own shoes?

twirlypinky

what about the cost of joining match.com! I was single for three years and it was a nightmare in everyway shape or form. I realise there are pros, but i have no idea what they actually were. It was lonely, expensive and pretty darn depressing. Spent the entire time feeling like a poor unattractive freak.

silvercar

PasturesNew wrote:

The article is looking at the lifelong cost of being single, not just being single a few years before things changed.

I suspect that very, very few people are single throughout their adult life. It must be sad to reach old age never having lived with anyone.

twirlypinky

silvercar wrote: »

I suspect that very, very few people are single throughout their adult life. It must be sad to reach old age never having lived with anyone.

I guess this is why i know of so many pairs of old ladies that live together, usually sisters, but sometimes friends.

It would've been even harder when they were younger and they had to carry on working while their collegues got married and gave up work.

carolt

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Singles are already looking after the children: where did you think the money comes from for all the welfare payments that many with children claim? Nine out of ten familes can claim welfare. Plus singles also pay for schools, NHS (giving birth and any treatment the children need), universities.

PN has a point. A single will have worked most of their life, have a good pension and will have spent most of their lives giving money instead of taking money.

Have to argue with this one.

I am clearly the 1 out of 10 couple that doesn't claim welfare.

We both work - not that I wouldn't rather be one of The White Horse's example couples with 1 earner and 1 stay-at-home parent who looked after the kids, but we can't afford to. So we pay our way now.

As for my kids, when they're older, they will - having inherited a good work ethic - likewise work and support themselves.

Your "singles also pay for schools, NHS (giving birth and any treatment the children need), universities", is illogical - presumably those same singles themselves went to school and possibly uni, were born in an NHS hospital and have recived NHS medical treatment. They got that free, but then pay it back in later life through their taxes. My children will do the same.

You, or other singles, are not paying for my children - they will pay for themselves, just as you now do.

The only reason they don't pay for it now is because they are small children and, understandably, being a civilised society, we don't expect small children to have to work up chimneys/in factories any more to pay for their own medical care or education! Thank goodness.

We pay for them now, just as we did for you when you were a child, on the understanding that when they are older, they will pay that back through their taxes. Just as you are now repaying your costs through your taxes. NOT their costs.