To think being single should be recognised in law as an unreasonable basis for discrimination?

[OneLovelyDay]

I've just discovered (learning to drive later than others) that apparently it's unreasonable to charge women less for car insurance, but apparently fine to charge single people more than married people.

There's loads of things like this that discriminate against single people, although some not as directly. I'm thinking things like council tax discount, which should be 50% for living alone, not the 25% it is.

More broadly, it's interesting how society has accepted (to some degree) alternative family arrangements but not singleness/childlessness. I could marry and start a family with another woman and it would fit with societies' expectations (and financial incentives) more than being single, or having children alone by sperm donation.

I find being single totally an acceptable thing, don't feel the need for a partner in a day to day sense. But hoping for a family and a ticking biological clock reminds me that it's not my choice to be single. So I don't think it's acceptable for society to discriminate like this. (But also even if someone chooses to be childfree and single that should be respected and treated as legitimate and fulfilled life!)

I was reminded of it particularly harshly in the first lockdown in 2020, when people not living with a family were not supposed to go within two meters of another human, and there was no outcry. It was a real jolt in terms of realising how society views us as different/weird/not normal (thus not entitled to the same basic humane conditions, in that instance).

Fortunately most of my friends are either single or not the joined-at-the-hip with partner type. But sometimes these things crop up and I'm suddenly reminded that my life and needs are not considered as legitimate as those in couples or with children. At the moment this is happening a lot as I'm about to take a drop in income and so going through bills working out where to save money.

I just think it should be illegal to discriminate for things like car insurance based on single status, and more broadly that people should consider this issue and not treat single people differently, in the same way people have started to consider racism, homophobia etc.
AIBU?

*taxation isn't based on what you "use", otherwise the bulk of it would be paid by elderly and disabled people

Many elderly people have contributed massively when they were younger also.*

But even if they haven't, they are entitled to the same care. We don't have a hierarchy of "valuable citizens" based on marital or parental status, tax contribution, (dis)ability etc. and thank god for that. Nit picking at the edges of specific taxes and benefits is divisive. No taxation system, no society is going to be perceived as 100% fair by every single person in it.

I'm technically single (don't live with my partner and no plans on changing that) + childfree by choice and I don't feel any discrimination, if anything I'm happy to pay a premium for what I consider being a very privileged lifestyle.

If I'm suddenly not able to sustain that lifestyle, I have options: a flatshare, moving in a less expensive area, reducing my expenses, and that would only impact me.
I spend more and save less than a childless couple but my savings are just for me. If I lose my job, I'll be the only one living off my savings.

That's why I do believe it's a privilege, I somehow benefit from a lot of society perks (education, infrastructures...) but don't contribute with sharing my assets and having kids / future tax-payers, so I'm happy to contribute with money.

@FastFood not having children isn't a privilege! You're paying your taxes so are already contributing.

Well ofc you think council tax is grand if you're liable at a rate of 50% less than the single parent next door to you.

That was to @SchrodingersImmigrant

@SuziQuatrosFatNan

Well ofc you think council tax is grand if you're liable at a rate of 50% less than the single parent next door to you.

I wasn't always tho. I just treat it as any other tax or payment for services now or in a future. And I am not liable 50% less than the single parent next door anyway. They get 25% off.

But single people already have to pay more rent etc so things like council tax should be fairer.

I don't think so! You pay rent according to the size of your residence, not according to how many people live there. Ditto council tax. After all, smaller residences pay less rent and less council tax. You could even argue that singles getting a reduction on the latter (regardless of the size of residence) is discrimination against larger households!

single people don’t pay ‘more’ rent or mortgages

you pay the rent or mortgage according to the value of the property

What I object to here is the suggestion that as a single person I should live in a cupboard or house share

I can afford my house, I can’t afford any of the decent flats here, but again I do not want to live in a flat, and its not for anyone else to tell me what I need in terms of my home

The point is single people have no one to share rent costs.

I'm saying 25% isn't a fair discount. Single people are paying 50% more than people in a couple.

That is no argument - a single person earning £100k is far better off, than a couple, who both earn the NMW!

There is also the frequently repeated assumption on this thread, that two people have two incomes - what about couples where one is a SAHPs, or disabled or a carer, or child care eats up the equivalent of one's salary? Many families effectively live off one income, which has to support them all?

If two people work in an office and earn the same; but one is single and the other is supporting their spouse and three children - who is worse off? Why should the single person be complaining that they are worse off in terms of council tax, hotel rooms, etc?

But single people already have to pay more rent etc so things like council tax should be fairer.

Single people don't have to pay 'more rent'. You pay rent according to the size/value of your property, no matter how many people live in it.

If you have a 2 bed flat and rent is £100 (totally arbitrary number for ease of division), it's £100 no matter what. If one single person lives there they pay £100pp, if 2 single people live there with a room each they pay £50pp, if a couple live in one room and have the other spare they pay £50pp, if a couple and single person share the flat (couple in one room, single in the other) the couple pays £25pp and the single person £50pp (because the single person has more space), and if 2 couples have a room each is £25pp. So yes the couples pay less in some instances but that's because they get less space! If the same number of people are in the property they pay the same no matter the relationship status (2 single people vs 1 couple comprised of 2 people) Space is a privilege that you have to pay for it. 2 people living in one room is a very different experience to getting a room to yourself. You arent entitled to more space just because you're single, you still have to pay for the privilege.

Well I could say a couple are on £200k?!

Yes, but those families are often entitled to additional benefits.

My post was to @Intercity225

The point is single people have no one to share rent costs.

They could do though, it's a choice not to. And they're welcome to have that choice, but they don't then get to complain the choice they made is unfairly expensive when they could've chose a cheaper option. Plenty of people in couples don't live together and therefore don't share rent costs. Plenty of single people find housemates/lodgers ect, there are options of ways to share rent, if you don't like those options that's your prerogative but don't complain that your choice not to take those options is somehow unfairly expensive. I'm sure plenty of people would love their own room away from their snoring partner but can't afford it so make the choice to not have it because it's too expensive for them.

@boredbuttercup rent is rent, I'm not debating that. I was responding to another post related to CT.

@excuseforfights

You quite literally said

The point is single people have no one to share rent costs.

That's about rent, not CT

I simply pointed out that single people could have someone to share rent costs with should they choose. But if they choose not to of course they pay the full rent alone. The same as any couple who choose not to live together.

I know what I posted, but I posted it in response to a post about rent and council tax.

I'm not debating rent costs so there is no point in going into it.

Council tax isn't calculated on the size of house but on notional 1998 value of property. For eg a two bedroom flat built post 2000 is usually in a higher band than a two bedroom house built prior. If it was square foot you might have some leeway to argue that 50% more tax liability is justified, but it isn't, so you don't.

SuziQuatrosFatNan Tue 25-May-21 12:15:54
Council tax isn't calculated on the size of house but on notional 1998 value of property.

Actually it's the notional value on 1st April, 1991.
About time there's was a revaluation.

People are comparing apples with oranges all over the thread - partners that live apart, a low income couple compared to a high earning single etc.

Of course it is financially harder for single people, compared to a couple that lives together. Eg rent, as singles can't share a room (or could do, but I think there's a limited period of your life when you are prepared to roomshare). So a couple on £50k needs a one bedroom flat, and so does a single, on the same salary of £25k. So the single is paying proportionally more from their salary for rent, bills, possibly food, council tax.

@tanguero wow that's even worse! Agree we need a revaluation. The housing market has changed dramatically since that time. Even in the past year ... I very much doubt that all of the gardenless open plan "executive city living" newbuilds that councils have been merrily putting into band d up and down the country would be valued the same now.

When I lived in Bristol the one bed flat I was renting was band d for council tax, and the four bed houses down the road band b.
Those of us who appealed the banding were told it was because we were in executive apartments and were lucky they hadn't banded them higher.

This happens a lot with gentrification, the houses that had a valuation in the year used by the valuation office retain their low banding, but new flats are not valued in the same way. Even when the houses are now valued in the millions.

@Tribblers that’s true, but it’s basic economics, nothing to do with discrimination.
As pp have mentioned life is expensive. Having an extra person to share with doubles income but doesn’t double expenses. If you’re a low earning single person this is a problem. But that’s a factor of your low income, not your relationship status.

It's the same here @jay55. Plus the new developments are strictly for investors - you can't buy as an owner occupier. The residents are all tenants who are being rinsed for council tax by a local authority that okayed the assets to go to investors only knowing that the investors themselves won't be paying the council tax.

The one I think is most egregious is single parents being penalised financially. Not sure what replaced the childcare voucher scheme but I thought it was outrageous that a single parent couldn't take advantage of childcare vouchers in the same way that a two-parent couple. Ditto, a two parent couple benefits from 2 tax free allowances (well, I guess this is true for non-parent couples too) which has knock on effects on benefits etc and/or can be penalised if only one parent works so that the other one can look after the children and is a high earner.

Agreed. A family with two earners can earn £90k and still receive child benefit. A single parent with the same number of children to provide for but earning £60k receives none.

The couple get two tax free allowances and twice the amount of income charged in the basic rate tax band.

If a single parent earns over £100k their children lose entitlement to the 30 hours of "free" childcare and the "tax-free" childcare discount. Yet a couple who each earn £95k can still access these schemes. It certainly feels that single parents who try really hard to provide for their children are massively penalised for doing so.