'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?

Oh of course. I just meant having teens is an extra expense whereas having a partner is not.

I think we're both on the same side, I just made a throwaway irrelevant point that I clearly expressed badly.

She sounds like a right tight ar$e

YANBU

Also the couple going out but not each buying their own rounds. What a pair of CFs.

@Vlent

YANBU at ALL. Of course things are cheaper as a couple. There are 2 incomes but only one set of bills going out. I mean, yeah, the bills will be a bit higher, but only the food/washing powder/shampoo/shower gel/soap etc will cost virtually double, as 2 people are using them. All the utility bills will be virtually the same, or a fraction higher. (Gas, electric, broadband internet, water rates, council tax, rent/mortgage.) I would guess that a couple cost roughly 20% more to live overall. But they have 2 incomes.

In some ways it's all relative. I mean, a single person with no children, will probably be better off financially than a couple with two children, or even one child. But a couple with no children will be significantly better off financially than one person with no children.

Single parents with children, and people living on their own (single, and divorced people maybe aged 35 or older,) I see struggling financially quite a lot.. (Must admit I have never seen a poor widow though!). However, I very rarely see couples actually really on the bones of their arse. I mean, I'm sure they exist, but I think there's far more poor single people.

Of course, some people are going to come on here and say 'I'm single, and have been for 30 years, and I'm on £80,000 a year, and my mortgage was paid off 15 years ago and I'm absolutely rolling in.' Someone always comes and says something like this. But the type of single person I describe, is far more common than the ones who are incredibly solvent. Let's be honest.

How is it more expensive for two people? You literally half most of the bills etc. can’t do that when your a single person. Most random excuse I think I’ve ever heard. I’d rather people just be honest

Your friends have not though this through!
A single person pays 100% rent/mortgage, couple 50% each.
A single person pays 75% council tax, couple 50% each.
A single person pays 100% electricity/gas bill, couple 50% each and possibly it's 20-50% more due to extra showers and devices, maybe cooking twice. The standing charge is the same and heating will be the same.
A single person pays 100% of the water bill, a couple 50% each, they may use twice the water, but the standing charge remains the same and is often MORE than the usage, especially for a single person.
A night in a hotel without breakfast is often the same for a single person as for a couple, so again, it's half the price for a couple.

If they can't work these things out, maybe you need to explain it to them.

Just make it clear that your bills are twice as expensive because there’s only one of you.
I don’t buy rounds because I can’t afford it. My friends offer but I tend to ask for a glass of water and nurse it for 3 hours. Hate being beholden.

That is tight as fuck with the rounds, fuming on your behalf. However, why didn’t you say anything? Also, there’s not much that’s actually ‘cheaper’ about living alone. A single person council tax allowance I guess and having full decision making over the heating spring to mind. Other than that, you pay full internet/tv licence/mortgage etc whereas they split it. People are weird.

No YADNBU.

When I lived alone for quite a while it's obvious everything is more expensive on one wage rather than two pooled wages e.g. mortgage, council tax (single discount is only 25%), bills.

Also say if you earn £70k alone, you pay a lot of tax on this. Yet with a combined income if £70k across a couple you actually take home much more...

Yeah that makes no sense, it costs the exact same per person

I think YABU. It pisses me off, this idea that because you're in a couple life is cheaper. It's perfectly possible for a single person to earn more than a couple e.g. if the single person is an IT professional in a job with great pay and perks and the couple both work in the arts and are freelance.
People IRL citing the holiday single supplement thing really annoys me. Paying for two flights/meals/entry fees to attractions etc adds up to a lot more than paying a room supplement.
Unless you know all the ins and outs of someone's finances, you just cannot pass judgment on who is better off.

I mean, a single person with no children, will probably be better off financially than a couple with two children, or even one child. But a couple with no children will be significantly better off financially than one person with no children.

This really does depend on incomes. A low-ish income couple (each earning around £20k) will get significant help from the state, particularly childcare (quite rightly) whereas a low-ish income single person gets nothing at all. At those levels, the increased cost of 1 child are easily offset by having double the income each with separate personal tax allowance.

At the other end of the scale, though, my sister and I earn the same £40k ish. I am single with no kids and she is a single parent to 2 kids (whose father switches jobs every other month to avoid maintenance). I have way more disposable income than she does.

I think you need new friends.. :-(

They're also not factoring in that they are buying two tickets from two incomes, whereas OP is buying one ticket from one income. So it is not more expensive for them.

But a couple with no children will be significantly better off financially than one person with no children.

No. You just can't say this as a blanket statement.

People IRL citing the holiday single supplement thing really annoys me. Paying for two flights/meals/entry fees to attractions etc adds up to a lot more than paying a room supplement.

See the post from @AryaStarkWolf immediately above your own.

They're also not factoring in that they are buying two tickets from two incomes, whereas OP is buying one ticket from one income. So it is not more expensive for them.
That depends entirely on what the incomes are. Obviously a single person earning £85K has a better income than a couple who each earn, say, £20K.

But that isn’t costing the individual more, is it? Two flights for two people doesn’t cost the individual any more than one flight for one person. But a single occupancy charge does cost the single person more as an individual than a couple sharing.

This is an example of the mindset that some couples get that they are now one entity unfairly being expected to pay for two people instead of two individuals paying for two people.

A. But that isn’t how socialising works. Everyone is equal.
B. The excuse that things are more expensive because they are a couple still doesn’t hold. Their incomings may be less but their outgoings are not more.

But that doesn’t make the cost of two glasses of wine more expensive for a couple than one glass for an individual.

’We can’t come because we can’t afford it’ is absolutely fair enough, but that is completely different to ‘it’s more expensive for us because there are two of us’.

The cost is the same.

OK.
A couple earn between them £35K.
A single person earns £85K.
I'm treating the couple's finances as joint, as many couples do. So looking at the overall cost of the thing bought, not the cost per person.

Identical 7-night holidays.
Couple pay for two flights at £250 each = £500.
A double room at £100 a night = £700.
Total £1,200.

Single person pays for one flight at £250 = £250.
A single room at £100 a night + supplement of £10 a night = £770.
Total £1,020.

I get annoyed because I see a group of 2 couples, 1 single and me once a week, they seem to assume that the buying of rounds should be every 4, couple, couple, single, single rather than every 6 person and that's not considering that they drink every round and I don't!

’We can’t come because we can’t afford it’ is absolutely fair enough, but that is completely different to ‘it’s more expensive for us because there are two of us’.

The cost is the same.

I think that's just semantics. I do agree saying it that way will likely get people's backs up (it has on here!), but it is the same as just saying, 'We can’t come because we can’t afford it (because our joint income is too low, believe it or not).’

@DameHelena
You come close to demonstrating that two can live as cheaply as one. It’s very close in this example.

Are you kidding? Couples do not become one entity. They are two separate individuals. In your example each member of the couple would spend £600. The single person would spend £1020.

Income is entirely irrelevant. People earning less money can’t afford to do as much as people earning more. That’s obvious. But the cost is not more because they are a couple - if the couple in your first example split up, they’d still have the same income but now be paying £1020 for the exact same holiday.

This argument ONLY makes sense if the single person earns more than the couple combined.

As most of my friends are those I've met through my industry, we're all on pretty much the same salaries. If anything, their partners are the ones earning way more than us.

Generally speaking, life costs more to a single person.