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.

Google "magic money tree"

Ethylred, the posters here are not suggesting anyone gives them money.

What is being suggested is that people's marital status is taken into account when paying tax.

So many people are astonished (and have even argued with me) when i explain that being single, in a NMW job on restricted hours contracts but having no dependants, does not qualify me for any financial help whatsoever.

And a couple have even suggested that I 'move in' with my OH. So, in 2017, the only way I can be seen to survive is to compromise my independence. Not going to happen. I'd kill him in a fortnight, anyway.

But it would be nice if there was some understanding of how much more expensive it is to live as a single person, running an entire household on one income!

Want2bSupermum wel lsingle people are people not in need. Well let me so to bat on this one and I am probably in for a killing but don't care at this point. Children in my opinion are a lifestyle choice - there I said it and its my opinion on the matter. Therefore if you cannot afford a child than why should the government help you afford one. Now if for example population was decreasing than I could understand it but it isn't really hence why China has a one child policy. If you have a child and then something happens that puts on of you out work and you are struggling than yes but why have a child in the first place if you simply cannot afford it and expect others to pay for it.

If a person stays single all their life they are subsidising a hell of a lot of people, paying for people's children to be educated at school is one example. You can argue that the children will be the ones to provide support to elderly and retired in the future but the Government has been making plenty of noises in the past years that people under 47 should not bank of a state pension so if that is the case then that argument is moot.

I get pressure to get married and my response always is I would rather be single and happy with my life (which I am) than to be married and miserable or comprising so heavily that life is not as enjoyable. So if that means I stay single for ever so be it but I shouldn't be ignored or my life be harder financially because the Government's policy is to reward married people and those with childrren.

Actually most people without dependents are supporting those with dependents and those who are vulnerable. I think this whole discussion is very skewed.

I really don't see that single people are hard done by. Parents and the disabled are hard done by. The elderly are sometimes hard done by and the tools are not there to identify those who are vulnerable.

I think that ppl without kids do come last.

But children arent always a lifestyle choice. There are contraception failures and in some cases reproductive coercion in abusive relationships.

Want2be You say parents are hard done by? If so, isn't that by their own choice (barring redundancy, serious illness and death)? No one puts a gun to your head to say "you will procreate" do they?

From the point of view of government support parents are not hard done by, they are prioritised, or the child is anyway but it amounts to the same thing.

"I think there's a market for University style accommodation - shared kitchens, en suite bathrooms, communal lounges and bigger bedrooms / own little lounge area."

I suggested that on a thread ages ago and got destroyed in flames immediately because "poor people deserve their own place", youd have thought I'd suggested housing people in concrete prison blocks.

Single by choice women have better health than married women.

So your point is that happy people are healthier than sad ones then? There is lightyears of difference between single by choice and single not by choice.

The point people make about wanting their own place is because experiences have shown that other people are not necessarily good housemates, e.g. dirty, unhygenic, messy, weird and inconsiderate.

At some point we all need to feel like we have progressed in life and when we don't its really depressing.

Many partners are also inconsiderate, dirty, unhygienic etc. Living with people is a compromise for which there are some benefits - financial and social - but also a cost in terms of your freedom and sometimes your independence, when it's with someone you share most values with (as people as most likely to do with someone they consider suitable to be a partner) then the compromises tend not to seem so bad. It doesn't stop the fact that the reason it's cheaper to live with someone is because you use fewer resources. The way to make life less expensive is to encourage people to use fewer resources, not to subsidize them using more. Perhaps the government could help by encouraging better houseshare matching somehow, or pay for programs that build a culture of tolerance and shared norms around flat sharing.

What is being suggested is that people's marital status is taken into account when paying tax

Ok...so one person pays one lot of tax. 2 people (as in married or partnership) pay 2 lots of taxes.

Another bash on single people - your taking up too many resources so go forth and partner up and compromise your life for the benefit of everyone else and by the way if you don't than you are intolerant and need to be taugh tolerance.

I think it's bizarre that if you're a 16 year old single mother with no way of supporting yourself the govt will give you £ to have your own flat/home without ever suggesting that you might live with your family or a family member.

Meanwhile 50 year old singles are being told not to expect to have their own place and to live in a house share. Absurd.

I agree with you completely I live on my own and it's hard having to work FT just to keep a roof over my head and pay all the bills it would be nice if the government thought a bit more about people who live on their own and could do with a bit of extra help paying for things. Some months are a struggle for me.

peanut You know what's harder?

Try working FT plus dealing with DC. My new role is 50 hours a week. I'm pushing myself to get home so I can do my second of housework, dinner and prep for next day. Oh and two of us are working to keep a roof over 5 people's heads.

Ooh! A competition! I love competitions!

Some people WANT to be single.... shock horror... why should they be penalised?

No I don't think they should get more help at all, you should always be looking at to improve your circumstances yourself, not expect to get it handed to you.

Council tax goes up and down based on property. Me and DH have a 4 bed house so our tax is more than if we had a 1 best flat. It's not unfair. It's just life.

Single person pays one lot of tax.
A couple where both work pay 2 lots of tax.
Why should a single person pay less when tax is per person not per social unit?

Now if you want some control on house prices and rent to mean that people on average incomes have a chance of buying etc then I would agree. I think that's better for everyone.

Hey supermom I do exactly what you do - 50 hours a week then evenings and weekends with dc and all the domestic work. And I do it without a DH (help and income). Does that mean that I win??

maisy the point is you and your dp have the same tax threshold as a single person. Fair? Not really.

It goes both ways, I think. If both partners are earning, then they can split the bills and they will be better off. However, if one half of a couple becomes unemployed, they will not necessarily be able to claim the same benefits that a single person could claim because the expectation is that their partner will support them.

Want2be I'll say it to you again. Did anyone put a gun to your head and insist you procreate? No. You CHOSE to have children. There are plenty of single people who do those hours, and more, and look after ailing parents too you know.

MsJamie So presumably you disagree with married couple's tax allowances, child benefit, free nursery hours, those sorts of things? And that any parent who has ever received any sort of Govt support simply for having a child or three should refuse to accept the same?

Me and a few friends own a few holiday houses together. Individually we could have never have bought them, but with 7 mates all contributing we managed to buy one every few years and let them out for holiday lets when no one wants them, together we can more easily cover the upfront costs and maintenance and occasionally we all go away together for an awesome time, we are business associates, so you don't need to be in a couple to be successful.

I am assuming most of the poor single people on here complaining are unpleasant to be around hence why they feel hard done by.