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?

But you are the only one to have used them to put the op in her place.

Single people cannot complain because some people in couples have challenging sets of circumstances - unfair.

However, in general, financially and emotionally, being in a couple tends to be easier.
That's a huge sweeping generalisation and I simply don't accept it. I cannot explain any more clearly why.

You have a specific and I am sure very stressful life
So do lots of people. I am not saying it's a competition. I've been trying to say the opposite, but it's a head-off-a-brick-wall thing.

@crinklyfoil I'm not sure intermittent was saying that. I think their point was that that kind of responsibility can be very challenging in its own right. I can understand that it's derailing the thread a bit but I can absolutely see where they're coming from.

(One of the reasons I'm single is that I do not want that level of responsibility for another person. I have enough worries about my own mental health without being financially and emotionally reliable on anyone else. So it may be that I'm looking at the comments from that lens, rather than being unhappy to be single, which is completely fair enough).

It is derailing the thread a lot and I think is best left.

It has rather uncomfortably reminded me of the idiot who jovially say how lucky I am that my dead parents will require no care in old age

Last time I renewed car insurance the choices were something like this
Single
Married
Living with partner
Widow

In terms of the car insurance, I wonder if they assume that if you’re married you will be travelling with your partner at some point so less time in your car? I’d be interested if there’s a difference between married and cohabiting in terms of cost.

It’s still cheaper for me to keep my father on my car insurance, I assume for similar reasons.

It's a bit daft but insurance companies have to work out risk levels somehow. Otherwise we'd all pay the same for insurance regardless of risk. There are other ways insurance is unfair like you pay more if you have certain 'risky' jobs, eg social worker, musician, or if you live in a high crime area. It's not fair but statistically you're more likely to be in a crash.

I agree with you about the fresh food. We care for an elderly lady and it’s difficult to get her the quantities she would like, eg 2 eggs, 12 grapes, 2 slices of ham etc. We tend to share packs with her where we can.

Single people may end up requiring more social care than married folk (this one probably applies mainly to single people without kids or much family). Many many daughters (and sons) are providing unpaid care for elderly parents that would be funded by the state if the person had no family. Social care forms the lion's share of most council budgets - the amount spent on roads/parks/bins etc is peanuts compared to what is spent on social care. However when people are complaining about council tax they never think about the care they might need in the future.

@Ted27 you should look into the council tax...we got a 25% discount when I was a full time student even though above 18 so you shouldn't have to pay when your son reaches 18.

"According to the Office for National Statistics, people living alone spend on average 92% of their disposable income, compared with two-adult households who spend only 83% of theirs."
www.lovemoney.com/news/84915/single-premium-paying-more

What makes me angry is that people with children pay NOTHING extra for the resources they use. Children suck up resources like sponges yet contribute nothing to the community until they start work. Single childfree people are subbing out other people's kids.

I think that single people do suffer some discrimination - the way lockdown was applied at the start being an excellent example and also, as a few posters have mentioned, the way that single/child-free people are often expected to pick up the slack at work.

I assume the insurance thing is to do with statistics but does seem unfair on the surface.

Council tax, hotel rooms etc is unfortunately one of those things - the council tax is based on services consumed and while it's true you have less garbage, the truck still comes round with same regulatory. Ditto, infrastructure such as roads, water, power lines etc will be the same cost whether there are 2 adults or 10 living in the house. The size of the property has more of an impact on Council Tax costs than anything else.

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.

You are right - it is more expensive to be single. People who have not lived as a single adult for a while dont really get it. As for expectations - if you go to a wedding, of course there is an expectation you will give a gift. Similarly when someone has a baby. And it all comes out of one pocket. This is something that widowed people really struggle with, the realization of how much they have to change their finances due to the new single status (not the main thing, obvs, but a nasty little add on to their bereavement).

I am a high earning solo parent. So not entitled to child benefit for my children or whatever it is called these days as my salary is too high. Fair enough. Except all my girlfriends married to higher-than-me high earners all receive it. WTF

They're not actually receiving anything more than you though. If their partners earn more than you, then the child benefit will be reclaimed in tax through the High Income Child Benefit Charge.

Lots of couples choose to claim child benefit even if they're not eligible, and will have to repay it as tax, because it helps the non-working partner qualify for NI credits.

@memberofthewedding

What makes me angry is that people with children pay NOTHING extra for the resources they use. Children suck up resources like sponges yet contribute nothing to the community until they start work. Single childfree people are subbing out other people's kids.

At which point they will contribute for roughly 40-60 years. So.... I think it seems reasonable to let children get subsidised by the rest of us in the meantime.

You're not getting it @IntermittentParps

You're in a couple. That one of you is going through a tough time but has the other to support them is exactly what the issue is.

You're just looking at it as you being the one doing the supporting and seeing it as a disadvantage, but when it comes down to it a single person who was going through a difficult time like your OH is would be in a far worse position without a partner to support them.

Insurance is a strange anomaly as they are seemingly allowed to discriminate - ie charge you more, if you have a certain job, live in a poor area, are single.

It doesn’t seem fair at all, as you are treated as part of a group based on characteristics largely out of your control, rather than as an individual.

To give a for instance, when I was single, I had a NT membership.

Individually, that’s £72 a year.

For DH and myself, it’s £120 (Ds is a baby so does not count.)

Now - yes, OK, some people will be married to or cohabiting with a partner who doesn’t earn much so might extrapolate that it would be cheaper for them to have the single membership, but the fact is it is cheaper for two than one.

I would say that lone parents get the rawest deal here- everything is priced toward duel earners, so yeah single people suffer a sort of “singles tax” but lone parents who need to pay for a child too get a kind of double whammy

I actually disagree with the ending of cheaper car insurance for women, and now Brexit has happened, that could change, though the misogynist Prime Minister is unlikely to make it top of his list.

I think the OP is correct in the way society looks upon those who are single (which means some people remain in unpleasant or abusive relationships) and those couples who are childless (which may not be by choice, but even if it is, is it any of our business). I do think though it is an extension of the way society is planned around the mum, dad and two (or more) kids as somehow the normal household, when it is in fact probably now a minority.

And actually, that NT membership only works if you earn more. Otherwise, you’d be paying £72 out of a very low salary.

@memberofthewedding

What makes me angry is that people with children pay NOTHING extra for the resources they use. Children suck up resources like sponges yet contribute nothing to the community until they start work. Single childfree people are subbing out other people's kids.

Who do you think will pay the taxes that will pay for your pension one day or social care?

That's right - the next generation!

Government and funding of services is basically one giant ponzi scheme and relies on people joining at the bottom - ie our (not yours clearly!) children to work to pay the taxes that pay for people at the top 🤔🤷‍♀️

If the world protects single status
Then by default it would need to protect all the other types
Married
Civil partnership
Poly relationships
Seperated
Other types

Let me guess, the 57% of people who voted “YABU” are partnered 🙄