Do couples pay the price for being in a relationship?

Former_MSE_Amelia

According to Confused.com, it's waaayy more cost effective being single than having a partner.

They've crunched a few figures and reckon being in a relationship costs £2,340 MORE than not having an other half. They say it's something to do with all the romantic dinners and trips away that couples indulge in. But what about all the dates that you might be splashing the cash on if you're single?

Believe it?

We want to know what you've found. What status do you think is the most money saving and why - being in a relationship, playing the field or just happily dating yourself.

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply!

[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

ellesbellesxxx

I found that when I was single I spent more! I spent the same on my then mortgage as what I pay towards our joint mortgage, but bills are now halved, shopping bill is halved etc. Socialising wise, my friends have mostly now all got children so whereas we used to have nights/dinners out, we tend to just go to each others houses or the park rather than out!

fairy_lights

No, I believe the complete opposite is true. Rent, council tax, utilities etc are all shared costs when you're in a relationship. If I was single I'd hardly have anything left after rent and bills, but with those costs spread between me and my OH we have a healthy amount of disposable income.
The reason people in relationships spend more on weekends away and meals is probably because they can afford them in the first place.

SandC

Opposite definitely. All your bills are shared if you are in a relationship, living together. There will be more on food and maybe on heating bills if you are in the house at different times. Whilst singles get a reduction on council tax it's still cheaper to share the full amount between two.

Maybe couples spend more because they have more, or their lifestyles are different through being in a couple. As a singleton it's rare for me to go out for a meal, but most couples I know do it regularly. It's a myth that singles go out drinking all the time by the way, typically we don't have the disposable cash to do so but if we do it means we are scrimping elsewhere..... like food. :-)

pinkandblueshoe

Rent and council tax might be shared costs but some people pay so much more in rent than others it becomes moot anyway. Its possible to have an active social life while single or in a couple, it´s possible to be skint and everything else in between whether you are single or not. Speaking as someone who lives alone even when I was paying rent and working full time I had enough left over, unlike some couples I know who just spend spend spend.

Its about how you manage your own finances and there are so many more factors as to what you have left over than whether you are single or not.

VestanPance

It certainly costs me way more living on my own than it ever did as part of a couple.

The drop from two people pulling together their incomes who both worked full-time to the drop to one wage is massive. There's very little saving in living alone.

missbiggles1

I'd think it the single people who were having romantic dinners and weekends away rather than the couples!

Gloomendoom

I'm certainly better off. I managed on one salary before I was married and now we have two. As far as I can work out, the only extra expenditure is a bit more on the council tax but that is probably balanced by spending less on petrol. The extra food costs are negligible. The water bill has trebled though.

VestanPance

Even things like holidays aren't much cheaper. I don't do package holidays and since hotels tend to charge per room the only saving is the cost of a flight.

I'd imagine single people who are dating probably spend far more going out than most couples do as well.

jackieblack

MSE_Amelia wrote: »

According to Confused.com, it's waaayy more cost effective being single than having a partner.

Absolute rubbish

onlyroz

Some things are cheaper and others are more expensive. E.g. as a singleton I was perfectly happy with instant noodles for dinner but there would most certainly be complaints if I served that up at a family mealtime. However, the bigger costs of running a household are massively reduced if you share them with a partner.

I suppose you could argue that the simplest cheapest lifestyle would be as a singleton renting a single room in a larger household, eating instant noodles and never going out to socialise. But that wouldn't be much of an existance.