To think that life as a single person is generally more expensive?

[teaandcakeat8]

Had this debate at work today and thought it was interesting to hear others opinions.

I'm single and most of my colleagues are married/cohabiting. They argued that life in a couple is just twice as expensive but I disagreed.

Some examples:

Housing - mortgage/rent costs are generally halved in a couple

Council tax - a single person receives a 25% discount; this isn't 50%

Utilities - not necessarily halved for a single person - you still have to cook, have lights on etc

Holidays - usually a single person supplement which isn't half price

I've lived as a single person and part of a couple and generally I was financially much better off when cohabitating.

I don't argue that couples may have higher outgoings however aibu to argue that if you are single life costs 50% less?

[FrankieStein]

I my particular case it was less expensive when I was single. But that's mainly because my partner is disabled. So one wage (plus his pip, not at the higher rate, he can't get esa as I earn too much) I also only work 20 hours per week as I'm his carer.
However, we shop smart, can afford the rent/bills/internet and everything that we (and more recently DD as well) need.
Maybe not everything we want, but definitely everything we need.
Before DP became incapacitated two waged were obviously better. But pre DD, post diagnosis time was much harder in all ways, including financially, than being single.

[supersop60]

Oh, the cables........... (misses point of thread)

[Trills]

piles of computer games, cables, DVDs, leftover curry, dirty laundry, wet towels etc

I sometimes have quite a few of these, but if I do it is MY MESS so it doesn't bother me.

[ChickenVindaloo2]

Thanks ladies.

I've lived with a bloke twice before. Never again. It's just me and the cat now. I don't know how I ever put up with piles of computer games, cables, DVDs, leftover curry, dirty laundry, wet towels etc. Not to mention the noise and smell.

The tidiness and quietness is lovely. I don't even have a TV anymore.

It's the best-kept secret tbh!

[FreyaJade]

I have lived alone since my twenty something flat sharing days, it definitely is expensive.

However I agree that "living alone is priceless" it's great doing what you want when you want... however would be better still with more income to spend (in a care assistant so a bit poor).

[NipInTheAir]

chickenvindaloo's post.

Priceless wisdom. I have fantasies about living alone.

[ChickenVindaloo2]

Mortgage £600
Council Tax £90
Living alone £priceless

[MTB133]

I can't understand why anyone would question it. Surely it's obvious unless you are a bit thick

[shouldaknownbetter]

Being single is more expensive. But not as expensive as being in a couple with children, even if both are earning.

I went from long term single/ living alone but seeing someone to cohabiting and having a baby within quite a short time - so minimised the time spent in the holy grail of living together without kids, unfortunately.

Yup I missed out there...

[Cloudyapples]

Cohabiting has worked out more expensive for me but I'm in London and was in a house share before moving in with dp - renting a flat on our own is much more expensive

[Walkingthedog46]

I am worse off living in this house as a singleton since my husband died. Council tax is only reduced by 25%, not 50%, and the gas and electricity bills have remained substantially the same as when both of us were living here and there were two incomes.

[SheepyFun]

It depends on your living situation - I've never lived alone; I house shared until I got married. A house share with several people (3+) is cheaper still, as the bills are shared among more of you. Living alone is a choice, not a requirement.

[MorrisZapp]

Of course it's cheaper to live with someone. Why do your mates think all the bored miserable sods in relationships stay, instead of nabbing themselves a fab singleton pad and eating cereal whenever they fucking please?

[Piewraith]

Your colleagues aren't the best at maths. Even if it was twice as expensive, which it certainly isn't - couples have got double the income.

And for the people saying being in a couple is expensive because you "have to" spend money eating out, going to fun places, etc. That's just what you choose to spend on entertainment, being part of a couple has nothing to do with it.

[Willyoujustbequiet]

Of course it's more expensive being single. Your colleagues aren't the sharpest if they think otherwise.

Single with young children even more so.

[Slightlyperturbedowlagain]

What reasonable person would ever think their best friend should subsidise them Honey? honestly there's some crazy entitlement stories on mumsnet at the moment.

[honeylulu]

I think it's true that being a couple is cheaper provided both are working and no children. But when the dynamic shifts, it can be very difficult.

For example, my friend E was talking about her best friend S who is single, complains of being skint and expects E and her husband to subsidise her when they go out etc.
S has a one bed flat, covers all bills but doesn't bother with "boring" expenses like contents insurance, pension etc. Blows all her money on meals out, holidays and clubbing.
E's husband works full time but E only works 3 days a week. They have three children and a three bedroom house with mortgage. When they go out they have to buy five dinners, five people to go on holiday etc. So you have S supporting one person on one salary and E and husband supporting five people on 1.5 salaries. It's definitely not cheaper for them.

[puddingpen]

Yes Queen, being a non-cohabitting couple can be very expensive - having to go out for alone time because you both live in house shares, transport costs, purchasing multiple items because you need (e.g.) a hairdryer at you OH's...

If you live together it works out cheaper per person, although obviously depends if you are both earning etc.

[WeirdAndPissedOff]

If both partners have an income and there are no dependants, then being single is definitely more expensive.
As you said some costs are halved, but others either stay the same or don't quite double.

I imagine this would only be the case if both people are on the same page with regards to finances, though. If one partner is controlling or a big spender then you wouldn't be much better off, if at all.

[WinchestersInATardis]

Of course, all those pointing out that couples with children will have less cash than singles without chidren seem to miss the fact that there are also plenty of us singles with children who have to make childcare costs on a single salary.
If you have a single home with two incomes coming in, it's always going to be better financially than a single home with one income.

[Beebee7]

Re @highlycompetentexwife and @monny who both said they had husbands who were obsessed with having the biggest and the best.

I know several couples like this (and the man and the woman are equally as annoying!) who seem to equate a big, rather expensive house, with success.

One couple I know recently purchased a £320K house, and had £70K to put on it after they both got inheritances, and so they have a £250K mortgage at the age of 51. Sod that. Me and DH are close to that age and mortgage free, and that is how we like it.

All she goes on about is how jealous her sister is of their big 5 bed detached executive home (that is 3 feet from the house next to it, and has a 10 foot long front garden by the way!) And how envious all her work colleagues are. HE drones on about how his brother is so jealous of his £20K car (on finance of course!) And how jealous his cousin is of the fact he is going to Greece for his holiday (why would anyone be jealous of a holiday to Greece PMSL!)

Some people are just obsessed with materialistic things, and think everyone is jealous of them. Er, no I am not jealous of your £300K of debt thanks!

I honestly couldn't live with someone who was obsessed with material goods, and who droned on about their 'wealth,' and how buying a big house means you're better than people with tiny homes or people who rent... Very off-putting and vulgar imo.

[teaandcakeat8]

Totally understand that life with children is significantly the most expensive although in this case none of my colleagues have children.

I think it was winding me up that they argued life was half as expensive when single but then acted shocked that I have 26 years left on my mortgage/don't have enough money for Sky/shop at Aldi (some examples).

[Firesuit]

When DW moved in with me it made almost no difference at all to the household bills. Had she had a job and been contributing half, my cost of living would have nearly halved.

(I am talking only about essential bills, accommodation, utilities, food etc. Not personal and discretionary spending, or work-related expenses, which would include car if that is only needed to facilitate getting to work. I think work-related expenses should be regarded as negative salary rather than expenses.)

[Guepe]

I find cohabiting with a partner (who earns significantly less than me) to be far, far cheaper than living alone.

[supersop60]

I was definitely better off as a single person. Lovely little flat, cheap rent, managed to save money. As soon as I bought a house and bloke moved in, I was broke. Never got better. Oh wait, yes it did, when I found myself single again in my mid-30s. Met DP at 39, 2 DC and 18 yrs later, guess what - broke again.