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.

Im sure everyone on a very low income has considered how they could get a higher income. Maybe they should have a baby.

Supermum A lot of contracts wont let you. An MNer has a DS who works at Nestle Its a 12 hour contract but he has been told he must keep himself available in case there are any extra hours.

There are many employers who wont guarantee extra hours but expect you to be "on call" without paying you to be.

Want2b I've seen you on other threads and I've tended to find you come across as one of those people who actually looks down on non-parents and thinks parents are more important members of society. You may be nothing of the sort in real life, but that is the impression you give on other threads, and you're not coming across any different on this one.

want2b I've got a first class honours degree. There is very little FT employment and what there is goes (rightly I think) to younger people with families to support.

And they don't give longer contracts because that would mean they'd have to pay extra (I may be wrong, but I think there's no maternity payment if your contract is under 20 hours?). We're all on 16 hours. It's just that everyone else has a partner to help with the bills.

I've got a second job too, which is the only reason I'm not actually starving.

Well the problem is the contracts that are allowed not the benefits. Personally I strongly dislike zero contract hours. As a business how can you not know what your needs are? How can you hire someone without having a plan in place for the employee to know what their expectations are. Those expectations start with what is expected in terms of working hours. Zero contract hours don't benefit any employee, single or not.

I know living in rural areas is very difficult. Quite a few adults in the village I grew up in either commute up to 45mins a day to a city or leave during the week, staying in a rented room Monday - Thursday night. This applies to single and people in couples. So many people set up their own business. My friend has spent two years after finishing her course in graphic design to get experience so she can freelance. It is working for her as she has started with a small portfolio of work. Over time hopefully it will build up. I think in rural areas you do have to look at self employment. It what my family have done and how they were able to make rural life work for them.

Shatners I really do not think parents are better than non-parents. I do think parents of dependent children are more vulnerable and there needs to be a support system in place so the children are not left behind.

I have young DC and it is expensive. I dread to think of how expensive they will be as teens. I have blocked out college/university (which will cost us a lot because our DC won't be home students). A single person is just not going to have these costs and with 3DC it is a lot. We can afford it but the vast majority of families can't.

I am employed and also work in a self employed capacity (as my second job). So the variable hours contract works for me (if there's a lot on in my second job I can keep my employed hours down to give me time to complete work). So I understand why people work zero hours contracts - if you've got another income to depend on, those flexible hours can be brilliant. If you haven't, then you are buggered. And, as you get older, it can be extremely hard to leave one job and find another, better paid with more hours.

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

No, single has two meanings really. I think the poster you were replying to was thinking of a one-person household because single parents would be included in the hard-working families group.

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.

Brasty this is my view as well. Its a realy important point - the number of single person households is growing, and there needs to be a recognition of their contribution and their needs as for any other category of citizen and family.

Want2Bsupermum seems to have misread my post which starts:

My thoughts are that I'm not so bothered by the money side

In order to follow through her prejudice against single people. There really does seem to be the view that parents are more important than anyone else. No - it's the children who are important, but really - there are too many people in the world. Westerners having children puts a huge strain on the Earth's finite resources, so it's not all that, really.

zaph So you should qualify for income support as you are working more than 20 hours right?

goat The way to support the DC is to support the people who are responsible for them which are the parents. No one else apart from DH and I are responsible for our DC. It's expensive to raise them properly in terms of time and money yet you think the government should be thinking more of single people?

Once our DC are of adult age both DH and I will be considered without dependents. Compared to our peers with no DC they will be way ahead of us in terms of retirement planning. Personally I've paid a heavy price for having DC professionally and it's taken 5 years plus the hide of a rhino to walk out of my employer today and into a role that is a promotion in terms of title, responsibilities and compensation. My peers who are single have all had so many more opportunities than me professionally. As a new mother I was the one laid off. It wasn't the single people from my peer group. When it came to promotions, I was the one held back because I had worked an 80% schedule. My single colleagues were promoted over me and I was left working for them. I went FT because I was pushed into it. My son, who has autism, a disability, really suffered from me working 100+ hours a week. My single peers coped as they were only responsible for themselves.

They don't care what you actually work, it's the contracted hours that count, so no, no income support even on the weeks I work more than 20 hours. Sadly.

Most people in the UK & the industrialised West have a choice about having children, and it's not as if the costs etc are hidden. There is an issue about the post-Industrial Revolution workplace being organised around the "norm" of the married heterosexual white male - organisation of work hasn't adapted to women's life patterns.

Want2BSupermum you make a lot of assumptions about the life of a single person. There is no domestic emotional support, for example, so although from the outside it looks like "freedom" there can be constraints on single people too - different ones. Establishing support networks can be tricky without the nuclear family around you. As others have said upthread, if one becomes seriously ill, then what? There is the risk of very little support socially. These are not the same demands on those who are parents, but they are there and real.

And frankly, with attitudes like yours to proposing that parents are more important, I fear for my fate if I become a frail elderly woman in hospital. If others had your attitude, I'd be turfed out for a more "deserving" mother a la Andrea Leadsome Loathsome more important because she has had children That went well for her, didn't it?

And have a look at the "marriage bonus" that goes to men. So single working women can get slammed several ways: no domestic support, if mobile for work, the need to establish networks alone in a new strange place (I've done this several times and it is very hard, believe me), and we get paid 15% less than men and considerably less than married men - who are perceived as more deserving of a good salary.

As I said earlier reading is your friend I'm not so concerned about "handouts" or benefits (although the Council tax situation is iniquitous). As brasty says upthread, I would like to see the state acknowledge single people as nett contributors and include this as a normative lifestyle in planning etc, instead of seeing all us single people as a "problem." Taking up too much space in our housing, being selfish, etc etc etc.

goats I was once single and know the benefits and pitfalls. Life is what you make of it and as a society the vulnerable need the most help. Those most vulnerable groups do not include able bodied adults regardless of their relationship status.

As a single elderly lady you are very vulnerable and the support needs to be there. It isn't because you are single but because you are an elderly frail lady who is vulnerable.

Going slightly off question but I've never understood why Council tax only reduces the bill for a single person by 25% and not 50%? Prior to our DT's going to Uni we had 4 people living in our house but our single next door neighbor living on her own has to pay 75% of the Council tax bill.

I've been single and on a low income and no, I don't think the government should have propped me up, I managed to live on my own, run a car, have a social life and eat well all on £17k a year, not a drop of debt and renting a nice flat in a nice area of town. Prior to that I was earning less and in a shared house. I'm not even great with money but I certainly didn't need a hand out.

Going slightly off question but I've never understood why Council tax only reduces the bill for a single person by 25% and not 50%? Prior to our DT's going to Uni we had 4 people living in our house but our single next door neighbor living on her own has to pay 75% of the Council tax bill.

I would guess that there's a fixed percentage cost - eg. Rubbish would be decreased with fewer people, but the rubbish lorry will still have to visit the house. I would think that a fair chunk of the cost of picking up rubbish is those fixed costs - running the lorry and hiring the people, whereas a difference in volume of rubbish is a smaller percentage.

I would imagine this fixed cost/household vs. cost per person ratio is what has been used here.

"I've been single and on a low income and no, I don't think the government should have propped me up, I managed to live on my own, run a car, have a social life and eat well all on £17k a year, not a drop of debt and renting a nice flat in a nice area of town. "

Bully for you. I hope you realise some people earn less than 17k and live in places where rent is higher than in your town.

Last year my total income (both jobs) was £9,500. I run a house, helped out my kids at uni when their loans were late, run a car and ate (just). But I am one short hours month from homelessness and always aware of that fact. It's the anxiety that always hovers and never lets you go - so it's probably my mental health that's most at risk.

People under estimate the constant low level of worry you live under when alone. 'What if I break my leg?' 'What if I'm really ill and can't reach my phone?'