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?

[quote TheLastLotus]@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.[/quote]
No one said basic economics are discriminatory, just that some policies (like council tax) are.

Single room supplement.
I 'm a single traveller, but abolishing this, just wouldn't work.
it's not so much a 'single supplement' as 'a discount for sharing a room'.

If two people didn't get get a discount for sharing a room, then they'd say, ok 'we'll have two rooms' (even if we only use one).

[quote TheLastLotus]@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.[/quote]
Yes, sure. A couple of people on this thread seemed to be denying those basic economics though, that it is cheaper for a couple living together than a single person.

To the point of the OP re discrimination. I'm longterm single, own my own house, take holidays by myself etc. I don't feel discriminated against though a lot of the scenarios don't apply to me so maybe I'd think differently if they did - car insurance, single supplements for holidays (don't think I've ever paid one), widow's pension, benefits. Council tax...I mean I'd prefer to pay 50% but don't give it much thought.

@tanguero

Single room supplement. I 'm a single traveller, but abolishing this, just wouldn't work. it's not so much a 'single supplement' as 'a discount for sharing a room'.

If two people didn't get get a discount for sharing a room, then they'd say, ok 'we'll have two rooms' (even if we only use one).

I don't understand this about single supplements. Isn't it generally just a cost per room? Regardless of whether you share it or not?

I don't understand this about single supplements. Isn't it generally just a cost per room? Regardless of whether you share it or not?

Usually it is, I think the default is 2 people per room now, so a single person pays the same rate for the same (double) room.

Booking.com is pretty good as it often shows you different rates for the same room - single, 2 adults and 3 adults.

It isn't always a cost per room. It's sometimes a cost pp and single rooms are in shorter supply and comparatively smaller and more expensive.

In the case of some cheap travel deals, they're not even available to single travellers, even at a supplement.

@MagentaZebras

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.

These points are really the crux of the issue. Some of our taxation rules penalise single parents. They are clearly discriminatory. It may not matter to most but it matters to single parents and it’s wrong.

Single is a lifestyle choice

Age, disability, race are not a choice

So I guess, as a lifestyle choice, it is valid to penalise single parents through taxation....
What is the problem with expecting parity?
The fact that those disparities exist is evidence enough that some protection is needed.

@5289Electricity
I think a lot of people may disagree with the flippant use of lifestyle choice to describe their situation.
I don’t regard my situation as a ‘ lifestyle choice ‘ and I can think of plenty of other scenarios that would not be a ‘ lifestyle choice’. Leaving an abusive relationship would be one.
By its nature, single life is more expensive, but further penalties through inequalities in taxation rules are unfair. It’s not so long since there were huge obstacles in the way of a woman wanting to stay single and I would say it’s important not to forget that.

@5289Electricity

Single is a lifestyle choice

Age, disability, race are not a choice

Not if your husband keels over from a heart attack it fucking isn't.

Use your brain and have some compassion.

Yes I was a bit at that comment.

Thank you @Lockheart
Much better response than mine. It’s hard to read sometimes isn’t it.

I can't get over this "single is a choice" attitude.

Yes, there are people who are single and happy with that and have no plans to change. That is a choice they have made.

However, there are also:

• those who are single and unhappy about it but who can't find a partner
• those whose partners have died
• those who have had to run from an abusive relationship

In those cases, do you really, REALLY think it's a choice?

Not forgetting those whose partners cheat on them and run off.

Guess that's a choice too, huh?

@OneLovelyDay insurance is on risk profiles for a set of circumstances rather than discrimination and it's not universal that being single makes car insurance premiums higher compared with being married as mine went up by about £150 when I got married. No other circumstances change to the policy except that I became Mrs instead of Miss. I was really annoyed as nothing relevant had really changed.
There are benefits to being single that don't apply to being married and vice-versa.
I suspect it's annoying at times to all but I suspect discrimination isn't quite the right word.
I may be biased as I'm also disabled.

being single is rarely an active decision

I’m happy wity my life now, but becoming single in the first place was not my choice or decision

Well I’m looking for another word to describe the tax scenarios outlined above.
Annoying doesn’t quit cut it.

Quite cut it.

I absolutely agree. As others have mentioned it's not marital status that is protected, just being married. This seems unfair and unlike most of the other characteristics which cover all people in them e.g. all religions, all sexes etc. It doesn't make sense to outlaw discrimination based on being married, but not on single/ widowed/ divorced etc.

I think single parents shouldalso be added because there is so much discrimination that occurs towards single parent families. I run a voluntarycampaign groupcalled Single Parent Rights and we are trying to get single parents added to the Equality Act. Our research shows up to 80% of single parents face discrimination and we've come across lots of examples of government policy which discriminates (e.g. rules for free childcare and those in receipt of carers allowance). We also found that employers often treat single parents differently which prevents single parents progressing, hence 43% of working age single parents in poverty despite almost 70% being in work. Another big area of discrimination is private rentals. So many single mums are told, "we don't rent to your kind". It's criminal that it's not actually a crime to treat single parent families this way. And like others have said the fees and pricing structures for so many things exclude single parent families, it's like we are invisible to society. I'd love to see a situation where single parents are protected and all marital statuses (including single) are covered like the OP suggested.

Couldn't agree more on these points. I'm running a campaign to try and get single parents added to the Equality Act so that these kinds of discrimination stop. Once you start looking into it it's shocking how many things single parents are excluded from... e.g. single parents on carers allowance can't get the 30 hours free childcare but those in couples can (if the partner is in work), and so many others. It is discrimination like you say, only in legal terms it's not because single parents aren't a protected characteristic so it's allowed to continue.

Things like insurance I’m conflicted about because they changed the rules for men vs women because ‘poor menz’ no matter what the actuarial model says. Why is relationship status still counted?

But for everything else nope. @5289Electricity you’re conflating being single with doing things ALONE. There’s a difference.
Wanting your own flat, wanting to travel alone etc are all choice

Also note that I’m talking about childless people.
Single parents I have no experience with so can’t comment w.r.t benefits and the like

I don't understand the comments about "single supplements" in hotels. You don't pay per person, you pay for the room. So a room costs the same if one person is staying in it or if two (or more) are. Single travelers aren't being discriminated against. They're paying the same as a couple would for the same room.

Historical context should be taken into account

In the past & in some countries still today, single people have less rights & freedoms than married people

In some countries, people don't get a choice about being married at a young age

There were recent discussions on MN, where some women had to give up their job once they were married, due to old fashioned laws by their employer

I will re phrase & say that for some people these are lifestyle choices
Some countries they are forced
Single
Married
Civil partnership
Other