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?

Obviously, in general, you're right, but I have wondered if I'd be better off not living with my DP. Yes, CT and rent would rise, but I could halve the oil use (have the heating on far less when alone, I just snuggle under blankets), and the electricity consumption would go down (don't have all the lights and TVs on constantly, as he does).

I also don't drive, so wouldn't be contributing to petrol and car costs. Local journeys I bike, and longer ones, rare, I take public transport.

And the alcohol costs would go down to almost zero, which would be a huge saving.

So, all in all I wouldn't be surprised if I were better off. But I'm not going to test the theory!

I guess I look at slightly differently, I don't see costs being split. All our money is shared so we don't split bills I knew that you were a socialist deep down, Kursk

People arguing with you that a couple who are earning "cost" twice as much must be a bit dim or unobservant.

You might choose to do different things, but to live at the same level of luxury/going out/accommodation is more expensive as one person.

Yes 2 can and do live cheaper than one. Obviously more on food, but most other stuff works out cheaper, (as long as you have got 2 incomes!)

Luckily it's not an issue for us, but I genuinely don't know how we could afford to split up!

I often wonder about how many couples stay together because they're financially stuck with each other, who would otherwise go their separate ways

Also I do see some single friends press fast forward on relationships and jump into co-habiting with men that turn out to be shit (Because they didn't know them that well when they moved in). I sometimes wonder if part of the appeal is that it is the only way that they can afford a comfortable home, as alone they're stuck at the shittest end of the rental spectrum?

Cooking can be harder too - it's cheaper to buy in bulk, cheaper to cook for at least two.

To have a nice and healthy diet, and person alone has to have a less varied diet (to use things up) or spend more.

But if you purchase alone you don't have to share the capital appreciation and can rent a room for additional income

couples rent out spare rooms too…..

They do tinsel and have to share the capital appreciation. I could stick renting a room out in my twenties. It would have been from at nearly 30 when I was married.

Of course a couple is better off than a single person. However a couple with children is so much poorer than both single people and couples without children.

I guess so in pure monetary terms but .... there is a price to pay for sharing your space

In general I agree with you too.

The only thing I can think of where it's cheaper to be single is that you need less space...i.e. my single friend has just bought a studio flat, DH and I plus toddler want/need 2 bedrooms so are still renting.

Yes, of course it's more expensive to be single. It's a no-brainer.

I think people sometimes forget that the things they choose to spend money on as a couple are not necessities.

Of course it's more expensive as a single person . Your colleagues have no idea.

FirstShinyRobe

Yes I am not sure what just came over me!

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.

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

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.)

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.