'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?

I think it is probably partly this also they are more likely to be saving to buy somewhere (because unafordable for single person) and they are accountable to another person, so there is someone else saying 'are we going out with Sarah again? We only went out with her last month and Bob and Sandy have suggested we meet up on Saturday night too so it would be a really expensive weekend.'

You are totally right OP it is more expensive for you but there are other dynamics for them.

We just have family money, no mine and his, we are on a low budget at the moment so often if we are invited out only one of us can go cos the pot can't stretch to both. But that's down to our individual finances and if DH left me and I was single I'd not be able to go out at all ever!

Yes my brother does this. His line is “oh we still have childcare costs though” my response “yeah I used to to but if you can’t afford them don’t have them.”had a weekly cleanse though . Go figure .

Weirdly I have 2 friends (who are not a couple) who do this. They live very near each other, in the northern town where we all grew up. I now live down south.

They buy me one birthday present between them. I have to buy them a present each. When we arrange to see each other it's a halfway meeting point - which is fine but they split the petrol and driving whereas I obviously do it myself. They never recognise or acknowledge it but I find it so weird they act as a couple and me the single!

It's a tricky one as to point it out each time is wearying for you but you are not wrong to feel as you do!

They sound stupid! It’s pretty simple, the outgoings are of course higher for 2 people than for 1 person - but the cost per person works out lower as some costs are shared between the 2 people. Plus single people can end up with hidden premium charges such as single occupancy charges for holidays.

I used to get this in reverse in my flat sharing days years ago. The then bf and I would be allocated the same fridge storage space as the single people, although there were two of us.

There was a man recently at the food bank where I volunteer wanting to take more than his allocated number of items because there were 5 in his family. But he'd only paid the fee for one person.

Is it poor maths, being a chancer, genuinely believing 'two become one' or what?

I used to get this in reverse in my flat sharing days years ago. The then bf and I would be allocated the same fridge storage space as the single people, although there were two of us. did you pay rent per room or per person?

Yes this is what I was trying to get at. If this is what's happening then they are explaining it incorrectly though.

That's ridiculous

The PP probably means a couple is more likely to have overstretched themselves financially eg by buying a house//having DCs.

If you have joint budget as a couple then of course it is cheaper for only one of you to do something. I am going on a trip soon and we decided it was too expensive for dh to come too. I can go on a weekend with friends and share a room making it much more cost effective than if dh and I were paying for the whole room. But that’s different from saying that someone on a single budget would find something cheaper because that doesn’t make any sense.

@TheRealMummyPig I have a friend that has tried this, slightly different as it involves kids, but she has 4, I have 1 and she expects to split a restaurant bill 50/50

I think that the thing is that some/most couples stop thinking of themselves as individuals and start thinking of themselves as a unit, and subsequently everyone else is a unit.
You can see this when you get takeaways, going out for a meal, or even on holidays and they split the cost 50/50 and it also explains the buying drinks in rounds.

In some are even worse when they have kids.

WHAT? Madness

I’ve never heard anyone say this- because it makes no sense! Obviously it’s all more expensive for the single person ffs

The opposite is known to be the truth!

There are two of them so there are two incomes?

I'd bring up that you have to save for your future/ save more as you've nobody else's salary to fall back on if you're ill. Or rather than bringing it up, I mean use it as the reason you can't go to their cities. ''I need to look after myself and start saving!''
(I'm sure you're already looking after yourself, but ykwim)

Whatever you have left, don't spend it revolving around couples convenience. You don't have to announce your feelings in a manifesto but just say you can't make it and put the money you would have spent in to your savings.
xx

I have said this a couple of times but in the context that it's not more expensive than for you as a single person because that's obviously not true. But for two of us to go out/go away/go to an event does take more out of our budget.

If we're a bit skint and a friend invites us on a night out, sometimes one of us will go instead of both. Maybe they just can't afford it so are trying to find a way to cut the costs.

I just can't imagine the cheeky effery of somebody just announcing the rules on how the bill will be split! I brought my daughter but the rule decided by me is that you pay for half her meal!

How do people have the nerve!?

I hate the rind thing. Often I'd go light with 2 couples as a poor single parent. They were both really well off couples and yet I was buying 5 drinks every 3rd round

It's clearly more expensive being single!!! Most people know that. I think your couple friends are very cheeky.

I get the food thing and would always split a bill based on how many people, ie in the takeaway scenario the friend should have paid two thirds.

But if a couple come round for dinner they should bring two bottles?? Bringing one is really just a thanks for having us, it's not contributing to the cost of the dinner! I would find it very weird if a couple brought a bottle each. Also one bottle could cost more than two, so would you rather they brought two cheap bottles than one nice one?

I see dinner invites as something where hopefully you'll reciprocate with an invite at some point, not something where you need to pay your way.

Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?
After tax one person on £45000 would take home 34,217.02.
If each person in the couple earns £20000. They each take home 17529.52 which means the couple actually take home an extra £1k. The only times I can see it not working in the favour of a couple is if one person works and the other doesn’t or one earns less than the personal tax free allowance.

Some of this is noise - as others have said, the argument you are making here is about differences in (household) income which is a separate point.

The idea that a single person's proportionately higher rent/mortgage, council tax and utilities bills may be offset by... erm.... a couple needing a bigger fridge than a single person? beautifully illustrates how ridiculous the concept is.

BTW, to take your specific example of incomes, you'd have to be talking about a post-tax income rather than gross salary for it to be true. A couple earning £20k gross each will take home more than a single earner on £45k. Run the maths on a tax calculation website if you don't believe it.

Cross-posted!

@Kamia no that's not true. For a start a single person only has one tax free allowance whereas the couple will have 2. So if both of the couple are working they will be paying less tax proportionate to income so on 40k compared to 45k could well be bringing home more each month.