To think it's expensive being single

[rainyinnovember]

Mortgage / rent is more expensive
Council tax
Entertainment
Bills
Shopping

Or am I missing something

Yes of course its cheaper - bills are halved, you go out sometimes you pay sometimes he pays eg meals and taxis, its not you all the time. & if you're "short" one month at least there's somebody else to help, and vice versa. Thats all saying a woman isn't with Mr Skint or Mr Mean, in which case its a different story. But apart from that no way is it cheaper to be single, single means carrying financial loads alone so it can't be cheaper, simple as that

Some people are single not through choice - partner lost through divorce/death - and they are entitled to a reasonably 'nice' lifestyle (and the cost of clubbing, taxis home do not figure in that life)
Re Council tax not being 50% - apparently it is based on 50% of the cost being for the property and 'services' provided by local council and then the remaining 50% assumes 2 people living in said property. Hence 25% discount if only a single person living there! not fair but those are the rules. This is why there is no extra council tax for any additional adults

Mistress if you have a partner who doesn't work or doesn't pay then it is cheaper single. So people who are fairly well off and can afford to have a spouse who doesn't work or who pay because they earn a lot more than their spouse as I did will find it cheaper single as there was no sharing of the load just sharing of their income by 2 when they were married.

Also I very kindly house an adult son who doesn't earn enough (or I haven't forced him to pay yet anyway and he's about to buy a house) to contribute so I pay full 100% council tax so that is no different fromw hen we were together but in terms of things like paying for my ex's meals, holidays, food, clothes it is cheaper now as I just pay for me not for him too.

Thats all saying a woman isn't with Mr Skint or Mr Mean, in which case its a different story
^
Me2017 you missed that line in my comment, I think. SWYM re scenario the you mentioned tho, however its not relevant re the OP as its not living as a couple/ lifesharing with a partner its supporting another adult by choice..

and they are entitled to a reasonably 'nice' lifestyle

Nobody is "entitled" to any such thing. We all have to work for our own lifestyles!

If someone isn't working they would be entitled to some kind of benefits unless their partner's income is at a certain level. The costs are still split between two adults who have the possibility of either working or claiming benefits

The benefits available to couples without children are practically none existent if one of them earns above about £16k, which isn't much above minimum wage for a full time worker. The none working partner would get JSA of about £70 a week for 6 months and nothing else.

So you could have someone earning not very much expected to support another adult without help.

I've been single 6.5 years after 10 years living with a partner. It's much more expensive on my own.

For assorted reasons of a really shitty year, I looked at giving myself a little treat in the new year, as I've always wanted to see the northern lights, so thought I might try by going on a 4-day/3-night break to Iceland in January. As a single person, it would cost me £600 for flights, 3-star hotel on B&B basis and airport transfers (no standard bus or train option). That's before getting to the airport this end, parking at the airport, food, drink etc. If I was coupled and going with a friend, it would be half that.

Still aghast at £15 a month for a Netflix. The most expensive option is £8.99 a month for Ultra HD bullshit and 4 people watching. FIFTEEN POUNDS. Lol.

I realise it was addressed already now

"The benefits available to couples without children are practically none existent if one of them earns above about £16k, which isn't much above minimum wage for a full time worker. The none working partner would get JSA of about £70 a week for 6 months and nothing else.

So you could have someone earning not very much expected to support another adult without help."

Yes, but they'd still be better off than a single person as a couple.

"When i was single i live in a big share house while studying and then for the first few years of work"

Quite easy to share when you're under 25. It gets more difficult once you're older and stuck in your ways. I can't share any more. It's not really a choice, I would just end up unhappy if I can't relax in my home and do what I want.

hungryhippo90 - you could leave your partner. I can't magic one up.

It is weird, how adamant people are that actually, being single IS, if not cheaper, the same!

"average for a bedsit type flat is £600 pcm and a two bed flat is £1170. "

Most adults don't want to live in a bedsit, which means eating and sleeping in the same room and anyone you invite to your 'flat' being in your bedroom. Similarly, couples don't need a two bed flat, though it might be nice to have one bedroom as a study. You need to compare the cost of one person living in a one bed flat to two people living in a two bed flat.

I currently pay 425 for a small one bed. If I moved someone in, I'd probably want somewhere a bit bigger, but I could get a more spacious one bed or a small two bed for much less than twice 425.

"however to reach 45 without having saved a penny is pretty irresponsible"

People on very low incomes have nothing left over to save

Yes, but they'd still be better off than a single person as a couple

A single person living by themselves is probably going to be better off compared to a couple if one member of that couple is not earning - and there are no children / children in the equation - as 1 adult is supporting 2 people.

But there is no denying that being single in this world is expensive. Especially if you don't want to house share.

"A single person living by themselves is probably going to be better off compared to a couple if one member of that couple is not earning"

This has been addressed. The other adult should have the capacity to work, be looking after children or get benefits.

In the fairly unique situation where an able bodied couple with no dependents have one adult never working and always supported by the other, yes, being in a couple is more expensive. I'm not entirely sure that's typical example-wise, though.

If you have a partner who refuses to work and can't get benefits either or is a compulsive spender/gambler etc. you can leave them. A single person can't just click their fingers and find a partner, especially as they get older.

God yes :( have come out of a relationship reasonably recently and I am skint. Went from a two income household with small mortgage to a one income household with large mortgage (stayed in the same property but had to remortgage to be able to buy him out), plus double the bills I was previously paying. It's not rocket science.

There are an awful lot of mumsnetters with school age children who will never work and most of the time don't need childcare and for their husbands it is cheaper being single than supporting the non working wife.

A lot cheaper than divorcing her though

Gwenhwyfar speak for yourself darling !

and for their husbands it is cheaper being single than supporting the non working wife

That's a very specific statement. Plus - when the wife is 'not working', what is she doing? The unpaid work that enables the husband to work and have that lifestyle. Running the home. That frees up time for the husband to work .

In some marriages. Thsi is why it is hard to generalise and rather pointless our debating the issue. It also depends on life stage. If you are an OAP with mortgage paid off and only one of you has a pension ou might well find it cheapest to be single. If you're both working with young children it is probably cheaper to be together even if you factor in cost of later divorce.