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?

Yeah, I think not having children and being infertile affects me more in life in terms of how I'm treated and/or valued, than being single does. I wouldn't use the term discrimination but I've definitely felt like an afterthought or that my hobbies/interests/life/time are way less valuable than those with children ("hard-working families", as politicians say!)

Why should help - particularly that aimed at the children of the household - be available to households with a much higher income and not those with a much lower income?

I don’t understand what you mean - a SAHP and parent, earning over £60,000 pa don’t get child benefit at all. What state help are they getting, that people on lower incomes aren’t?

Parts of the tax system are still harking back to the days, when the man went out to work, and the woman was a SAHP. That is where the assumption come from, that if a father is earning more than £60,000 pa, then the family don’t need child benefit. The tax system has not caught up with the reality of two high wage earning parents; its nothing to do with discrimination against single parents.

In my opinion, the state has to make choices and if a parent is earning over £60,000 pa in the case of child benefit or £100,000 pa for 30 free child care hours; then they are a lower priority for state help, than say those living on benefits or the state pension, who have to make a choice between heating and eating in the winter. I would prefer to see benefits and the state pension raised, to provide an adequate standard of living -than help parents, who are already way above the average salary.

Likewise, there are numerous elderly people, who have been taken out of the social care criteria in the last 10 years, who cannot look after themselves in basic tasks like cooking, laundry, paying the bills, etc - and I would prefer to see more pumped into social care for those people, than helping the already comparatively well off with children.

And in a country with a housing crisis something does need to be done about people overoccupying.

Wrong target there.
We should be doing absolutely nothing about people occupying houses they like, want and can afford. Whether it's 1 bed or 3 bed.
We should be targeting politicians about not building enough and councils about keeping properties empty until they literally fall apart.

@SchrodingersImmigrant

And in a country with a housing crisis something does need to be done about people overoccupying.

Wrong target there.
We should be doing absolutely nothing about people occupying houses they like, want and can afford. Whether it's 1 bed or 3 bed.
We should be targeting politicians about not building enough and councils about keeping properties empty until they literally fall apart.

And if you quoted my whole post, rather than just picking and choosing parts that fit your narrative when taken in isolation, you'd see I said that this discussion was irrelevant to this thread.

But that I absolutely don't think single people should shut themselves away in a cupboard, as I was accused of.

But if people want to get into that I think anyone taking up far more space than they need is unreasonable (one spare room is fair, 4/5 is ridiculous) not just single people. So that's not single 'discrimination' either, it's everyone.

@Intercity225

Why should help - particularly that aimed at the children of the household - be available to households with a much higher income and not those with a much lower income?

I don’t understand what you mean - a SAHP and parent, earning over £60,000 pa don’t get child benefit at all. What state help are they getting, that people on lower incomes aren’t?

Parts of the tax system are still harking back to the days, when the man went out to work, and the woman was a SAHP. That is where the assumption come from, that if a father is earning more than £60,000 pa, then the family don’t need child benefit. The tax system has not caught up with the reality of two high wage earning parents; its nothing to do with discrimination against single parents.

In my opinion, the state has to make choices and if a parent is earning over £60,000 pa in the case of child benefit or £100,000 pa for 30 free child care hours; then they are a lower priority for state help, than say those living on benefits or the state pension, who have to make a choice between heating and eating in the winter. I would prefer to see benefits and the state pension raised, to provide an adequate standard of living -than help parents, who are already way above the average salary.

Likewise, there are numerous elderly people, who have been taken out of the social care criteria in the last 10 years, who cannot look after themselves in basic tasks like cooking, laundry, paying the bills, etc - and I would prefer to see more pumped into social care for those people, than helping the already comparatively well off with children.

The changes in child benefits were recent so not harking back to the days when men were the main earner. I have no problem with child benefit being removed from anyone earning over 60, 000. It should also be removed from couples with a joint income of 60,000 and above though ( unless couples are somehow occurring more child related costs, which they clearly aren’t )Parity in treatment is the only thing I have seen anyone on this thread expect.

I don’t understand what you mean - a SAHP and parent, earning over £60,000 pa don’t get child benefit at all. What state help are they getting, that people on lower incomes aren’t?

You have misunderstood the post entirely. What was being discussed is that a single working parent who is earning £60k gets no child benefit, yet a couple who between them earn £90k can get full child benefit, and continue to receive some child benefit until their household income is £120k. Meanwhile the couple can share childcare between them so their household expenses are likely to be much lower, their household income is much higher and yet they still receive more state help than the single parent. Of course that is illogical and unfair.

I think not having children and being infertile affects me more in life in terms of how I'm treated and/or valued, than being single does. I wouldn't use the term discrimination but I've definitely felt like an afterthought or that my hobbies/interests/life/time are way less valuable than those with children ("hard-working families", as politicians say!)

For me, I think it's both. Perhaps because, for me, being "socially infertile" is a direct result of being single. But I know as I age, many public organisations/institutions - and the individuals who work in them & make decisions about my treatment in all sorts of contexts, not just medical - will regard my life as of lesser value because I am female, single, childless. And that's before we start adding 'old' to that description.

I think most people on here are probably not both single & childless, and so probably don't realise just how much we are shut out of most notions of what it is to be part of a community.

What was being discussed is that a single working parent who is earning £60k gets no child benefit, yet a couple who between them earn £90k can get full child benefit, and continue to receive some child benefit until their household income is £120k.

As I said, a married couple with one parent earning £60,000 pa and the other a SAHP won’t get child benefit either. What is unfair is that two parents earning £45,000 each still get it. If I wanted to reform the tax system, I’d just say no child benefit for a combined household income of £60,000 pa.

It is beyond me how you think a single parent on £60,000 pa needs child benefit, while so many people have much lower income and are living in real poverty - looking at those on ESA, the basic state pension, carer’s’ allowance, LA housing allowance for people under 35 in the SE, to name but a few?

@IntoAir
I’m not in that position but can imagine some of the treatment just from some of the changes I have seen moving from a couple to a single parent. Just reading some of the posts here shows an underlying dismissal.
It has reminded me of other threads where people with no direct experience try to tell you that that there’s no issue. I have been on many an institutional racism thread where people jump in to say it’s not real. I’m always a bit astounded that people without experience are so happy to jump in and say there is no issue. Being young and house sharing is a pretty common experience that gives no insight into some of the social and financial penalties that kick in later.

@Intercity225

What was being discussed is that a single working parent who is earning £60k gets no child benefit, yet a couple who between them earn £90k can get full child benefit, and continue to receive some child benefit until their household income is £120k.

As I said, a married couple with one parent earning £60,000 pa and the other a SAHP won’t get child benefit either. What is unfair is that two parents earning £45,000 each still get it. If I wanted to reform the tax system, I’d just say no child benefit for a combined household income of £60,000 pa.

It is beyond me how you think a single parent on £60,000 pa needs child benefit, while so many people have much lower income and are living in real poverty - looking at those on ESA, the basic state pension, carer’s’ allowance, LA housing allowance for people under 35 in the SE, to name but a few?

That would be absolutely fine by me. As long as there is parity based on household income. So two parents each earning £30k get no child benefit then in your scheme. And if the household income is over £100k then no tax free childcare etc. And single parents get £24k tax free allowance, or they get the standard £12k but houses with two parents and children only get £6i per person so £12k in total.

If you want to make all of the allowances, for everyone, less generous then fine. But at the moment single parents are being taxed extra to fund state benefits for households that have a much higher household income than they do, and that is wrong.

As I said, a married couple with one parent earning £60,000 pa and the other a SAHP won’t get child benefit either.

That married couple with a SAHP will have zero childcare expenses. Are you really being so deliberately obtuse that you can't imagine why a single working parent should receive more help than a couple that has two people who can alternate/ share work and childcare? Instead the single parent is taxed more on the same household income and loses entitlement for childcare assistance at a lower household income threshold, despite doing it all alone. How anybody rational could think that is ok is beyond me!

As somebody who can't have kids I've defo experienced a lot of piss taking employers who would try and lumber me with work in the knowledge that I wouldn't be rushing off to collect the kids at 4pm. Many of my contracts have said things like 'may have to work outside of usual hours around deadline submissions' etc, so can be hard to argue, but clearly the single people were doing more work in many of the companies I've worked at. Funnily enough, the bonus was always split evenly.

your bin isn’t emptied half as often

To be fair, the act of emptying a bin as you walk past it takes only seconds. The main factor in the waste industry is weight, and families produce much more. I often don't fill my bin and sometimes only put it out fortnightly.

That married couple with a SAHP will have zero childcare expenses. Are you really being so deliberately obtuse that you can't imagine why a single working parent should receive more help than a couple that has two people who can alternate/ share work and childcare?

I am not being deliberately obtuse, I fundamentally do not agree with you! I see the function of a progressive tax system to be to reallocate money from the wealthy to the poor, who cannot afford the basics of food, heating, shelter, clothes, medical care (like dentistry), etc; and to ensure equal access for all to free healthcare, education and social care (for those who cannot look after themselves, because of disability or frailty). There is an £11 billion backlog of school repairs; a surgeon today estimates it will take £1 billion to clear the extremely long NHS waiting lists for surgery, due to Covid; and an article in the Guardian yesterday estimated that 4.2 million children are living in relative poverty, which is defined as below 60% of the median income (apparently £18,000 pa).

Life is not fair and nobody can make it fair. It’s not up to the government to give handouts to a single parent on £60,000 pa, because there isn’t another parent to provide child care, while people die of malnutrition or the cold or they can’t afford the electricity for their fridge for their insulin. (See all those cases of people, who have died because the DWP has cut off their benefits in sanctions or sheer incompetence)

IMO, its akin to Carrie going completely crackers, because The Times had done an article about Dilyn the dog, while half of Downing St was debating whether to bomb Iraq; as tens of thousands of people were about to die horribly from Covid or other conditions at home, due to the government’s failure to act quickly enough.

@Intercity225
Yes you are being deliberately obtuse. You could shut down every thread on here as well as personal discussions about all manner of things using that reasoning.( How dare you bring that up. What about....)
This is relatively new taxation that clearly discriminates in favour of 2 parent families. Nobody is talking about handouts.
This whole discussion lies within a cultural context of single women not historically having access to equal treatment in a myriad of different ways.