AIBU to think the govt should do more to help/support single people?

[windygallows]

Increasingly I've become more aware of how how single people really struggle in a society geared towards couples. Not only is it pretty hard to get by financially or even to afford a house as a house as a single person, but aside from a small council tax rebate there is absolutely no tax relief or support given by the government. One person paying all bills in a system which 'assumes' and sets couple-dom as the standard.

Surely the govt could intervene by, for instance, setting a different/reduced tax code for those who are single than those in domestic partnerships/couples. Being single is usually out of people's control, often down to fate, and shouldn't be penalized.

I've been single for the majority of my life and vividly recall how much better off I was in the 10 years I was with ex-DP; it was a marked difference. I've seen accomplished, but solo, friends struggle. I certainly don't want to hope and pray that my DCs meet someone just to ensure they have a good quality of life and, as a society, it sends a pretty rubbish message that being independent means that you're likely to have a reduced standard of income.

Maisypops your missing the point on the tax, if you earn under the threshold for tax allowance you your partner earned over it, you can give him some of your tax allowance to him to reduce his tax bill.

Not sure if you can do it if say you had one who is 20% tax payer and the other is just over 40% - in theory you could assign more allowance to lower it back under 40% - anyone know if that is possible?

Anyway reading other posters I think people are focussing too much on single people wanting help meaning help from the government in terms of tax reduction. Not really - I would like if the could make policies that meant insurers dont penalise single peopl for example a single person getting car insurance pay almost double that then a married couple where the second person is added on and the cost is of the insurance is far less. I know this is true from experience.

I like it that supermarkets dont overprice smaller packets of food because I don't want to buy large packets because its cheaper and end up freezing it or wasting it.

Same with holidays - go on any site now and there are plenty of holidays deals like 7nights in crete for £300 per person but only eligible for 2 people to go though, if i tried to book the same holiday it ends up costing me £800, £200 more than if I did the deal. I like travelling on my own, mostly because friends have children now and my single friends have different ideas on the holidays they like going on.

Here is a recent report from Sunlife:

The SunLife report, which focused on data from 3,000 UK households, found the average UK household has an income of £2,083 a month. This leaves £102 a week in spare cash once all expenses are paid for.

People who live alone earn more than half of the average UK household income at £1,242 a month, but they have much less spare cash left each week – just £44. This is considerably less than so-called empty nesters (people whose children have grown up and left home), who have £60 spare each a week and couples who have around £100.

The reason for the significant difference in spare cash is because there are certain costs associated with running a house that bear little relation to the number of people living in it. People who live alone spend 61% of their income on housing, finance and bills; 12% on things they consider “important”, not essential; and 27% on things that make them happy.

Meanwhile, people who live in a two-person household spend 50% on housing finance and bills; and 9% on optional spending, which leaves them with 41% to spend as they wish.

I've just looked at how much a room in a houseshare costs on average where I am. £500 per month for one room including bills. I've just added up my mortgage for my one-bed flat and the same bills I would pay (ie, water, electricity, council tax, broadband). Comes to £575 per month. Interesting.

Same here ... I live in a two bedroom terraced house. Average room rate for a house share in a 3/4 bedroom house in my area, including household bills, is £500pcm ... my rent (renting from my parents, the rent basically just covers the morgage) for my two-bedroom house and household bills for DD and I is £530pcm.

So if I didn't have DD I could house share, but for the sake of saving £30 a month, I'd only have a bedroom as my own private space, have to share with 2/3 other random people, have no control over who those randoms are and lose (effectively) exclusive use of the rest of the house. DD lives here 50% of the time but even when she's here she's not commandeering the kitchen, spending hours locked in the bathroom, hogging the TV, rolling home at all hours or even being up past about 8:30pm and if she does do any of those things I can tell her off

My thoughts are that I'm not so bothered by the money side - but then I am well-off enough to have that privilege. Except I think Council tax is very unfair - the Single Person discount should be 50%

But what really gets my goat is the scorn of single people. I think it's because - as evidenced on this thread - deep down, most people think that single people are "failures" personally. So it's OK to treat them as pretty much non-persons in social/state policies.

I'm bracing myself for all the "hard working family" GARBAGE that will come out in the election campaign. It'd be nice to be thanked for my contribution to this society, but no, it's always "You don't have children, you don't understand."

Bollox to that.

In 2016, around 7.7 million people lived alone in the UK, the majority were women.

That explains why they are ignored then. Women's needs are routinely ignored.

But what really gets my goat is the scorn of single people. I think it's because - as evidenced on this thread - deep down, most people think that single people are "failures" personally

You're completely imagining that. Your own issues coming out, obviously.
It's been explained several times why there are policies such as there are, its not about society validating your life choices that you are clearly insecure about.

Plenty of single people are included in hard working families! Many have children.

On a separate note, I dislike the implication that the choice is between being part of a couple or living alone or with a bunch of complete strangers.

Many people who are single want to live with other adults who are friends or family members. We're not disadvantaged by not being in a couple. I neither want to live alone nor as part of a couple.

Well, user149 You're pretty much proving my point.

GoatsFeet
So you make a statement

Somebody disagrees.

You say "ha! The fact you disagrees just proves how right I am"

OK.

No, user149 wasn't disagreeing. They were making a negative personal attack. There was no argument in their post.

goat I think what you miss is the fact that so many families are living in poverty compared to able bodied single people.

Quite frankly I don't think you do have an understanding of what's involved when you have children. I have 3, work FT as does DH. We have parents we support. We earn enough to pay for all of this and the numbers involved are eye watering at times. My day is full from working but also getting laundry done (10 loads a week) and cooking for everyone etc.

I don't expect a single person to really understand because until you are in it you don't fully get it. It's mind blowing that we spend more on childcare than our housing.

Actually Want2b I think what you're missing is that so many single able-bodied people are also living in poverty.
The fact that you are earning enough between you to pay the eye-watering amounts is proof that things could be worse, there are plenty of single people who wish they could afford to support their parents but who are scraping by on a terrible 0 hours contract because thats all they could get, with no partner to help out.

Then obviously the problem is the poverty across the board, and not about whether people are single are not.

Who needs the gov to divide and conquer when you are so damn good at it yourselves?

But there is poverty across the board, but nowhere near equal consideration or assistance across the board, thats my point.

There shouldn't be equal consideration across the board, that isn't what equality means. Poor people with children should be given more assistance that poor people without, because they are children.

This just reads like gimme gimme gimme, poor me.

Thats why I said "nowhere near". Equality also doesnt mean "families have it tough therefore single people can be utterly ignored", wouldnt you agree?
Your argument also reads rather gimme gimme to me.

I haven't read the full thread, but I agree that life is tough for a single person, unless you are proper well-off. A lady near me lost her husband (cancer) in 2009, when she was 45, and he was 55, but their (£300,000) house was paid for instantly, and she had a big pay out from a life cover policy of his. She will also benefit from his pension soon, so she is very solvent.

However, for every lone woman I know like this, (who are well-off,) I know half a dozen who struggle dreadfully financially. Literally hardly anything spare for anything. Just enough money for rent or mortgage, and bills, and food. They never buy new clothes, they never go away, they don't have luxuries, and they often have no car.

I was only single (and living alone) for a couple of years a generation ago, and I never had any money spare. I could barely afford to buy a lager in the pub. I would never, in a million years want to be alone and poor again. Me and DH have a life policy, so if either of us dies, the other gets a 6 figure sum. I literally never want to be poor.

Not sure what the Government can do to support single people though. I would bet if women were offered an extra 4 or 5 hundred a month for being single, many women would leave their husbands, because some women only stay for the financial security!

I've always assumed that single people with DCs do get government help - hence there being more than just a few people out there pretending their partner doesn't live in.
Single people without children though? I don't know, it's an nteresting idea that they should have financial help.

It appears some think that everyone should be just handed money from the goverment, like a giant cash machine. Able bodied single people, what next, more tax breaks for just middle class white men?

storm you aren't comparing like with like. My peers and immediate level above me at work don't have DC. After taxes and housing they have more money. Add childcare in and I'm left with a much lower disposable income.

The disabled are extremely vulnerable and those households are currently being shafted royally by changes. I think before we start helping low income people without DC or disabled dependents we should be focused on helping those groups.

Yes zero hour contracts are terrible and should be banned but that isn't anything much to do with being single or not. As a single able bodied person I was able to work more hours and study to improve my income. I never expected the government to give me anything because I knew there were people who really needed help. As a single person I was fortunate that I could help myself. So I did. As a married couple with DC we are not dependent on the state but net contributors if we lived in the U.K. We don't but even where we live we contribute to enable redistribution of wealth.

I am not talking about giving single people money. It is about planning so single people are taken into account in Government policies. That does not currently happen. They are totally ignored.

Single people are considered.... and deemed to not need special provision compared to other more vulnerable groups. Low income single person households are considered and that is why they will have help with income support and housing benefit. If your argument is that the benefits are not high enough I am afraid I have limited sympathy because there are more vulnerable groups who can't provide for themselves. If your income is low, you are single and benefits provided are not enough you need to get a second job or work on gaining qualifications that will enable you to get paid more. You are able bodied and have more time available than most people.

Low income single people don't get income support or housing benefit if they are on contracts of less than 20 hours, want2b. I know, I am one. And I consider myself extremely lucky to have a job at all, let alone a 16 hour contract, because around here, where it is extremely rural, most jobs are seasonal at best.

I know living in a rural area is harder. Have you considered getting qualifications that lead to FT employment?

Also if your contract is for 16 hours and you need 20 hours why not take on a second contract up to 20 hours.