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?

My heart bleeds for you...

@IrmaFayLear

So what some posters would essentially be arguing for is the return of the poll tax, whereby you are charged council tax per number of occupants. That went down well

To be fair, it was a cause hijacked by people who weren't in the least bit interested in the nuances of infrastructure costs incurred by single- and multiple-adult households.

The protesters were, in the main, people who didn't pay any amount of council tax - not living in a rateable property - but were going to be caught by the poll tax.

It was a much fairer system, had it persisted.

But I likely will be. The changes she is wanting to implement affect my future. So why does my opinion not matter because i'm in my mid 20's rather than 30's? I'm still an adult, and actually because i'm not married I tick 'single' on all the insurance forms/census/ect. So my opinion is directly relevant to OP's rant.

Not to mention her crass and incredibly naive comparison to racism which can only come from a place of ignorant privilege.

And I am facing some of the exact same structural life challenges. I currently can't afford my own place, and part of that is to do with the council tax, therefore I manage this by living in a shared house (which I don't love by the way) but it's what you do. I certainly don't expect to be given reduced living costs (council tax, utilities ect) because I'd rather live on my own. I accept the fact that it costs the same to heat a place whether there are 1 of even 5 people living in there. I accept the fact that council tax pays for more than just the bins and therefore the 75% is proportional.

That is true. The only unfair thing was that the costs varied so much according to where you lived.

For car insurance, I think their algorithms assume/statistically find that people with children tend to take fewer risks, drive more carefully and travel away less, which is probably right. The problem is then that they assume that couple = family and single = no children, which whilst possibly more likely numbers-wise, is a highly unreliable and often grossly misrepresentative assumption to make. I'd have thought that single parents are the most careful of all, knowing that if anything happens to them, their children don't have anybody else to look after them.

I said YABU and I'm single. I just don't think it should be considered an protected characteristic.

The only thing that I'd really like to see direct action on is tackling workplaces that create a 2-tier system of employees: those with children and those without. How you do that is anyone's guess, but it affects me more than single person supplements and the council tax banding.

(I recognise that we also need to tackle workplaces who discriminate against employees with children - the issue goes both ways, but there is at least a hook for a discrimination claim there, whereas there isn't with single people.)

I haven’t read the full thread, but in case it’s helpful, the reason for 25% discount and not 50% is because Council Tax is a kind of a merger of the old rates system and poll tax. So Council Tax is half property and half occupancy, meaning that if there’s only one adult non-exempt liable party, you only get half off the occupancy half, so it’s 25%. I’m sure I explained that really badly, apologies.

For the PP who will soon have an adult son in education, if it’s full time education, you can still get a 25% discount. Speak to your council.

@boredbuttercup

But I likely will be. The changes she is wanting to implement affect my future. So why does my opinion not matter because i'm in my mid 20's rather than 30's? I'm still an adult, and actually because i'm not married I tick 'single' on all the insurance forms/census/ect. So my opinion is directly relevant to OP's rant.

Not to mention her crass and incredibly naive comparison to racism which can only come from a place of ignorant privilege.

And I am facing some of the exact same structural life challenges. I currently can't afford my own place, and part of that is to do with the council tax, therefore I manage this by living in a shared house (which I don't love by the way) but it's what you do. I certainly don't expect to be given reduced living costs (council tax, utilities ect) because I'd rather live on my own. I accept the fact that it costs the same to heat a place whether there are 1 of even 5 people living in there. I accept the fact that council tax pays for more than just the bins and therefore the 75% is proportional.

You don’t understand what it’s like to be single when the majority of your peers are partnered and the way that society is organised around those who are partnered. Your situation is perfectly normal/ the majority for people in their 20s.

You are also being naive and speaking from a position of privilege.

@Jaxhog

It isn't about how many services you use. Or families would pay more than childless couples. That you get a discount for being 1 person is something to be grateful for.

What is it about then? Single people are much as single parents with children and 50% more than couples. That's extremely unfair.

*are paying

mrsm43s
Ditto with a hotel room. If a single person shares with another person, they pay exactly the same rate as two people in a couple sharing. But, if they want a whole room to themselves, rather than sharing with someone, then obviously it costs more - because they have a whole room not half a room.

But if you bring back a guest for the night you would get charged with another fee.

@boredbuttercup

*You don’t understand what it’s like to be single when the majority of your peers are partnered and the way that society is organised around those who are partnered. Your situation is perfectly normal/ the majority for people in their 20s.

You are also being naive and speaking from a position of privilege.*

And that may be a cultural difference but has nothing to do with what OP is talking about of wanting to pay less tax and thinking she's being discriminated against when it comes to money and paying for things.

And you really are a racist pig if you think the privilege of being in my 20's (which everyone in their 30's, 40's ect) had at some point is comparable to the privilege of being white in racist Britain.

Ok that’s not on at all. Now you are calling me names.

I said you are speaking from a position of privilege in relation to your views about being single/ partnered. There are lots of different types/ axis of privilege, I said nothing whatsoever about race/ white privilege, and was in no way trying to rank different t forms of privilege.

@excuseforfights

In terms of council tax, being a single person doesn’t mean you use 50% less of council provided services than a couple does. The houses of single people aren’t generally half the size of those of couples, your bin isn’t emptied half as often, your car doesn’t do half as much damage to roads etc.

I disagree. Single people are more likely to live in 1 bed flats and they will produce rubbish for 1 person not 2 or more and they will have less people to ferry around.

They may be more likely to live in a single bed than a family, but not more likely to than a couple who would share a room. And in any event, bedrooms are only part of the story. A one bed flat may only be one room smaller than a two bed (there aren’t going to be two kitchens, two living rooms etc). It’s not half the size if it only had one room fewer.

Producing rubbish for one person is true, but the bin men have to empty one bin per household just the same.

You could see it as a single person having fewer people to ferry around, or you could see couples as car pooling and therefore taking up less space / producing less wear and tear on the roads. My husband and I have one family car that serves the needs of three people. We’re putting less pressure on the road systems round us than our three single neighbours who each have a car of their own.

So... it’s not that simple. Single people get some discount, which is fair, but they clearly don’t use half the resources of a couple, so a 50% discount would be too much (and would leave councils cripplingly underfunded).

*axes

@Bizawit but that’s not the point of the OP. Most of the issues being discussed like having to pay extra for stuff is the same whether you’re single at 20 or 50. Housing costs are a different matter but again it’s because someone is low income and has only one salary. That’s a mathematical effect of prices and not because of discrimination.

The child benefit is completely unfair. My friends family has nearly double my income and are entitled to housing benefit but I’m not (I earn just over the threshold and they are combined just under with a joint income of nearly 100,000). Completely unfair.
Single room supplements. Unfair.
Family discounts at attractions are for families of four or lour. I have 2 kids and never get a discount, though arguable need it more
Presents giving arsed me off - and couples always bring one bottle of wine between 2, I bring one between one. Same with pot locks.
Dividing costs in shared holidays - by family - two adults family pays the same as single adult family

Child benefit not housing

[quote TheLastLotus]@Bizawit but that’s not the point of the OP. Most of the issues being discussed like having to pay extra for stuff is the same whether you’re single at 20 or 50. Housing costs are a different matter but again it’s because someone is low income and has only one salary. That’s a mathematical effect of prices and not because of discrimination.[/quote]
That’s a fair point, but the majority of people in their mid 20s are in the same situation / it is the norm. It’s when you start getting older and there are so many ways in which you are financially penalised if you remain single- meanwhile the majority of people are partnered - that you start to feel/ experience the sense of discrimination. Even stuff like antenatal/ birthing classes etc.. you just end up a lot poorer if you are single!

But both these scenarios involve having someone you can do that with - I can't just conjure up a partner, or a single close friend who's up for committing to such an arrangement. It's not a choice.

It is a choice for council tax. You could live in a house share - it doesn’t need to be a partner or close platonic friend, many people live with strangers for the exact financial reasons you outline. It may not be a choice you want to make, but it’s still a choice.

And even if it isn’t a choice, it’s still nothing to do with who you are, the way that your race is. Nobody is born inherently single and friendless. It’s not an inalienable characteristic requiring legal protection.

Re council tax, I'm sure there are ways to cover the second home/empty property issue that don't involve me paying 50% more tax than my next door neighbour.

@bizawit There's no such thing as "being in your 20s privilege".

You can maybe say that someone who's in their 20s hasn't had the experience of being single in your 30s and 40s (where you're no longer reflective of your peers), but that's not a privilege. It's a lens.

@BoxHedge

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.

The "discrimination" is on the basis of statistical evidence. If the rate of loss from car theft averages out at £100 per customer in City A, and £150 per customer in City B, then the insurance company has to make the commercial decision to charge the higher premium to customers in City B, otherwise they will make a loss. If you forced insurers to charge the same to both, then they would probably veer to the City B rate for everybody (because they can't predict what proportion of their customers will come from B or A, so they need to mitigate the risk). It might perversely result in everybody paying more.

Interestingly, this is what happened with sex-based pricing in insurance. The EU made it illegal, even where insurers had evidence for differences by sex. So, insurers have to charge the same premium to men and women, even though I believe women drivers have lower claims.

So, the question is, if the statistics show that single people average higher motor claims than married people (everything else - mileage, location, age... - being equal), why is that? More likely to be driving at night? (that's just a tentative suggestion...)

@SuziQuatrosFatNan

Re council tax, I'm sure there are ways to cover the second home/empty property issue that don't involve me paying 50% more tax than my next door neighbour.

Why should their though? It's already been explained multiple times that council tax is 50% the property, 50% the occupants, and that why single people get the discount they do. Unless we started evicting people from houses they don't fill (which massively contributes to this countries house crisis btw, but I doubt would be popular) why should single people get even more of a discount when they're taking up the same amount of property (because council tax is already banded) and already get a discount based on occupancy.

I accept the fact that council tax pays for more than just the bins

It doesn't even pay for the bins.

You've already paid for the majority of local services through your contribution to central taxation.