'It's more expensive for us because there are two of us'

[Vlent]

I am single and live alone. I am fed up of being told that couples' lives are more expensive because there are two of them.

For clarity, in all of these examples both halves of the couple are working full time and they live together.

A couple of recent examples:

My friend lives with her girlfriend and we often have drinks in one of our houses at the weekend. We had arranged to go for a drink in the city one Saturday, and at the last minute she suggested I just go to her house instead. I said I was looking forward to going out with her for a change, and was told it was too expensive for her because there are 'two of them' and so it would cost twice than what it did for me.

To be clear, if she couldn't afford it I would of course go to her house instead, and I did so, but it's the absolute lack of logic that annoys me, and she says it quite frequently - ie. 'It's okay for you to go out, Vlent, but it will cost DG and I £100 (or whatever) because there are two of us'.

I was discussing a holiday destination with another friend because another friend wants to visit there. I said it was cheap once you got there. DF said 'I thought it was quite expensive but then there are two of us'.

Another friend lives abroad in Europe, and I've visited her several times, but I don't enjoy the place, I visit to see her. She has just invited me to visit in the New Year. I said I didn't think I could, and why didn't she try and visit where I live (which is also her home town). I was told it would be better for me to visit her, because her husband would want to come here, and it would be too expensive 'for the two of them'.

It's really beginning to annoy me. Yes, there are two of you, and so each of you carry a cost, but you're also getting two incomes into your home and halving the bills, whereas I'm paying all of my bills from a single income. It is not more expensive for them to do these things than it is for me.

Another couple this weekend were acting as one in a round of drinks too - there were five of us and I bought a round, Fred bought a round, Sarah bought a round and then James and Jess bought one between them and then back to me, and so Fred, Sarah and I were buying other people four drinks each on our round, and the James and Jess bought other people three drinks between them.

AIBU?

James and Jess bought one between them

That is just mean behaviour. Not attractive in friends. Did anyone call them out on it? (But then I hate doing rounds. I never want to drink that much)

But it won’t, if two people share a car they share petrol costs or taxi then they cost is halved.

If one person takes public transport they pay their fare, if two people take public transport they each pay their fare - of course two fares is more than one but each individual covers their own cost.

I get that reasoning and will often travel to visit couple friends. But there has to be give and take - I get fed up with always being the person who bears the cost of travel.

In that example the give and take was that everyone splits the travel costs equally between the three people so it is cheaper for all three if the single person travels.

The option exists that each individual doesn’t cover her own costs. The costs are split equally three ways. That was @ErrolTheDragon’s scenario.

Next time you think she'll say it you say it first 'ohh but it's more expensive for you since their are 2 of you...then say ohh but you have 2 incomes whereas I have one...you just need to budget better.' Hopefully that will keep her quiet.

so it is cheaper for all three if the single person travels.

im a bit confused by that logic. It’s far more expensive for the single person paying all the costs of travel. The couple pay nothing.

It’s not cheaper for all 3! The single person shoulders all the expense; the cou pool E, none.

That is the situation of @Vlent ‘s OP.

We’ve moved on from the OP’s actual case to hypothetical solutions, one of which is to split the travel costs three ways.

This thread is not about travel cost or only the cost of 3 bottles of wine. The point OP was about having 2 incomes VS one. 2 people having to travel... it still doesn't change the fact that they have 2 wages coming in rather than only 1.

The OP is partly about travel costs, and every post doesn’t have to address every issue @Endofmyteatherr

We’ve moved on from the OP’s actual case to hypothetical solutions, one of which is to split the travel costs three ways.

In my entire adult life, I have never heard of anyone offering ( or asking) to arrange travel this way! It’s theoretically possible, but highly unlikely irl.

Indeed!

I've done it a few times with single friends, where one of us travels to the other and we split the travel cost between us. More likely these days that the one who's not travelling pays for dinner/drinks/treats but we try to make it fair.

Never had this with couples, though.

Your friends are like this, and my FIL looooves to remind me and my husband that life is cheaper, because it's two of us, and he's poor divorced guy that needs to face costs alone. Yeah, but two people use twice as much food, water, gas etc. It really depends on where you stand.

Rereading your posts (@Vlent/ OP), it sounds as though the friend in Europe provides hospitality but you want her to come and stay near you with family or elsewhere. Is that right?
If you are offering hospitality then you can just flat out insist it’s your turn. Otherwise, you’re in a very weak position.

My earlier post seems to have caused some confusion, sorry if I wasn't clear. I just meant that in terms of the TOTAL cost of travel on public transport (i.e., leaving aside car travel where the cost of a second person is negligible), it is self-evidently cheaper for one person to travel than for two. HOWEVER, as I also pointed out, this doesn't mean it's fair for the single person to always have to pay for the travel.

It would be reasonable for the friend who lives overseas to say: "OP, I'd really like to see you and I know it's my turn to bear the cost of meeting up, but it's expensive for me to travel as I'd want to bring my husband with me. Would you be willing to fly out to see us if I bought you a ticket?"

It is not reasonable for them to say "It costs us more to travel, so you should pay instead."

Who is it cheaper for for the single person to travel?

It wouldn't be any more expensive for her and her husband to travel than it would be for me to travel alone. It would be exactly the same - each individual would bear their own cost.

Your scenario would never in a million years happen with this friend, and it makes no sense anyway, because there is no reason at all that her husband has to come with her. I actually wish he wouldn't.

Couples don't use twice as much gas, partly because of the standing charge and partly because warming a house, oven or water costs the same regardless of whether there is one or two of you.

Likewise with water, you still need to use the same about to wash the dishes, water plants etc.

It might not cost as much but a single person definitely does not use half of what a couple uses.

She would be more than welcome to stay here, but she'd always stay with her DM a couple of streets away.

Her hospitality is me sleeping on a sofa and our evenings being cut short so that DF can see her DH when he gets in from work. Regardless of the money, I am not going there again. Happy to meet her elsewhere if she travels alone.

You make more laundry, two people take baths, you need to cook more etc.etc. I agree it depends on the thing, but I generally don’t get this bragging both ways, almost like living as a couple was cost-free.

I should add, that I don't understand why your friends say it anyway. Almost like it's some sort of burden, there is no obligation to meet up, no need to mention that it's easier for you financially. They don't know what's going on in your bank account.

That's not twice as much, though, is it? The bills of a couple come to no where near twice as much as that of a single person. Absolutely no where near, especially when rent/mortgage is added to the equation.

You think your FIL is bragging about it costing more to be single? That isn't something anyone would brag about. Makes no sense.

He is, to prove how cheap our life is, i.e. we can handle unexpected expenses "because it's two of us, so cost splits in two". I just think it's weird to assume you can handle every financial punch like it's nothing, because you live with partner. I don't mean it in terms of drinks or buying washing up liquid.

It's a bit odd that he should bring it up a lot, but he is right. It is easier to handle unexpected costs when you're paying half a household's bills and sharing the cost of the unexpected cost, than it would be if you and DH separated and you were paying them all yourself.

I don't think there's a point in continuing this discussion anymore, because you only see your point of view, as you live on your own. Fine, you can assume married couples take big hits easily. You know, they're together so they have millions to spare, saved on bills and big packs of breakfast cereals, while you poor thing need to buy smaller packs that are expensive per 100g 💁I never said it's cheap to live on your own. I just think it's wrong to assume your finances are sorted out just because you're in relationship.