Living alone is tough financially

[Addictedtofizzydrinks34]

If you have a mortgage or rent a home alone..maybe different if you're mortgage-free or perhaps only renting a room or something.
You have to make sure you can afford everything each month. If anything breaks/needs repairing, you foot 100% of the bill. All renovations are paid for solely by you.
You have to make sure you have money aside for various things.
Living alone has many advantages, but financially it's tough and I'm not sure I can do it for much longer. It's stressful unless you have a lot of savings I think.

Incredibly tough.
I'm a single parent, working full time.
Constantly worried about money.
I live very frugally to ensure I have (sadly very small) savings for those unexpected bills.
It can feel overwhelming, knowing that the buck stops with me, no one to fall back on
Following my marriage ending after many years together, I would never want to live with anyone again, but it's a tough road

I always think that the marrieds who say living alone is a "luxury" must really, really hate their spouse.

It's bizarre, isn't it?

"You're so lucky, you don't have to share!" As if they resent sharing with loved ones. Rather than realising they are lucky to have these loved ones.

It's also odd, as @daliesque points out, that single people are "dismissed as second-class citizens", and can be shut out socially, yet somehow at the same time envied as free and living in luxury. If they think that we should all be living in bedsits and lose coupled up friends, they could at least have the decency to feel sorry for us!

The closest I ever came to being part of a family was amazing. It wouldn't have necessarily been plain sailing (involved would-be step-kids) but being part of a family, looking after them and being looked after in return, was the loveliest, happiest thing.

um, no, quite often people do chose to live alone, actually. Even if it wouldn't be the preferred option (e.g. they would prefer to be in a relationship but haven't found the right person), they are still exercising discretion over the other options available to them (living with parents, in shared housing etc.)

Equating being (often happily) single an "unfortunate circumstance" in the same vein as death and domestic violence is a bit of a reach, not to mention insulting.

again, 30 percent of households in the UK are single adult households
They can't all be victims of unfortunate circumstances

A lot of single adult households will be older adults whose children have flown the nest and they are either widowed or divorced. It's highly unlikely someone in this age group will be able to live with parents or in shared housing

do you have any actual evidence to back this up? Or is it based on your experience of knowing maybe one person?

Official ONS stats have single person households ten times more common than households with 2 or more unrelated people in them (i.e. houseshares).
Households comprised of unrelated adults are comparatively rare (the second least common in the UK - and bear in mind this will include people for whom house-sharing is short term, like uni students, refugees, homeless people, young adults in care, etc.

A couple or lone parent living with non-dependent children is also significantly more common than unrelated adult households.

So actually, if you are single you are most likely to live either alone, second most likely (probably dependent on age) to live with your parents, and comparatively unlikely to live in a shared house.

Yep. Every one of my friends who lives alone is divorced or widowed and has adult children.

And rather than being sad lonely victims of unfortunate circumstances as some seem to think, all of them happy living alone. Even the ones with partners choose not to cohabit.

There definitely seems to be a lot of older women out there who find their own space preferable to living with anyone else, including a partner.

All of my friends living alone do not have children.

Yes, it is tough. I have no one to share any costs with at all. I don't work and live off UC, so my income is very low anyway. I am in my mid 40s so house sharing can fuck off (and my MH Issues would mean it would never work anyway).
My DP is on not a great wage. His rent is half his take home pay. He can't get help either. He can't live with me as my UC would be stopped.

When I worked (in a NMW job), I was entitled to no help at all as I did not have kids.

My DB lives alone on a low income, and is entitled to no help. His rent has just gone up £100pm. We end up on suicide watch every year as he simply can not cope with it anymore.

Another point is mortgages.

Much more difficult to get a mortgage as a single person than as a couple (especially if self-employed, like myself).

In some areas of the country, it can make the deposit required for a 4x single salary mortgage prohibitively high (due to the cost of housing). This can mean that singles are trapped in the expensive and unstable private rental market for much longer.

Many mortgages don't allow you to take in a lodger and I have no idea where all these convenient friends and family are that you might buy jointly with (and be happy doing so).

^ This, exactly.

In my area (NW) most of the new housing that is, fair enough, being built is 3+ bed typical family' houses. One and 2 bed apartments are available but their price is disproportionately high for their size.

I know a number of older folks who would love to downsize to a two-bed bungalow - opening up the market for larger homes for younger people - but there are none being built, so they're expensive.

Smarter policy making around stamp duty for youngsters is needed - special mortgage deals and council tax relief for younger buyers etc., plus we need good-quality 1-2 bed bungalows to free up houses.

Unless you're unemployed when you probably get provided with a one bed flat at the very least, paid for by the taxpayer.

Not sure why single workers are expected to share but single unemployed can be eligible for their own flat.

People who work can apply for social housing too. It is not limited to just the unemployed.
And an unemployed person under 35 would be expected to share.

In my area (NW) most of the new housing that is, fair enough, being built is 3+ bed typical family' houses. One and 2 bed apartments are available but their price is disproportionately high for their size.

The other thing is that when 1 or 2 bedroom places are built, they are generally all over much smaller. I have always lived in big houses with more bedrooms than I need because I want the big rooms & high ceilings. These tend to only be available in 3/4 + bedroom houses. And that's Victorian/historic houses as well as new builds.

I wish there were apartments or houses with 2 bedrooms & high ceilings, sitting room & dining room. Not just pokey dog boxes with a kitchen-diner-sitting room, 1 double bedroom & a box room, masquerading as a second bedroom.

Luckily, I can afford to live in a big house, but the short-sightedness of developers & planners still irritates me!

Social housing is like unicorn poo though. Vanishingly rare, especially if you could afford private rent (which is more expensive and will eat into the possibility to save a deposit for a place of your own).

Many MNetters talk about having a household income of £100k plus, so let's say you've got a single person on £50k, £50k x 4 is £200k (not a mortgage size I'd be willing to have in mid life) but a 20% deposit on that is then £40k.

In many areas of the country, £240k will not go that far and in many single person households a £50k salary is a pipe-dream.

Simple fact, if you have 2 incomes you can afford a better standard of living than if you have one.

Look at the number of posts on here where women ignore poor treatment/abusive behaviour in marriages because they are worried they won't be able to afford to maintain their current standard of living.

I’m lucky enough to be able to buy a reasonably priced house with a spare bedroom and an office (or technically the space for those as I’ve had to get them renovated and insulated. I have friends round the corner - a couple and it does strike me now and then how much more spare cash they must have, in the same sized house and two incomes.

And then it comes to holidays and whenever I start to look at hotel prices for singles I wilt. It’s pretty much the same for a room (with breakfast included) whether there’s one of you or two. I can see why it’s often the case. Most hotel rooms are set up for two people and servicing a room with a double bed takes exactly the same time whether there were two people sleeping in it or one. I guess with a twin room, arguably there’s likely only one bed to change, but there’s still a bathroom to do.

I do find it painful though, because with only one income, I’ve a lot less spare cash than my married friends. I guess I could find a friend to go away with, ut sharing with your spouse or partner is very different from sharing with a friend.

The world is set up for couples and families with two children. My ex and I had three children, and that was a pain too, in the same way. The reality is, for many things in life, you are better served if you are in a common demographic. I mean, I know there are a lot of singles about, but it’s still more common to be in a couple, whether you live together or not.

You mean CAN be tough, not IS. There are plenty of financial independent people who can easily finance their own lives.

Simple fact, if you have 2 incomes you can afford a better standard of living than if you have one.

Hear hear. This simple fact is why a family on one income is going to have it tougher than a single person on one income.

Not round here. A single unemployed person’s UC housing element is just below the cost to rent a room in a HMO or bedsit. If they are only eligible for JSA, they can’t afford any where and will be living under a bridge or in a tent.

Again, no. A single income of 80k is still better than two incomes of 30k.
Also a family has far higher costs than a single person, obviously.

The ONS stat of “2 or more unrelated people” only accounts for a few houseshares:

“Living in a house share
Many young adults live in what they describe as a "house share" or "flat share". This is not a concept we use in our official household statistics. The closest category of household type we do use is households containing "two or more unrelated adults".
"Two or more unrelated adults" households do not contain either a couple or a parent with their child. Typically, such households may consist of a group of friends or students but could consist of two siblings or cousins, for example.
If there is a couple in the household or if someone lives with their child, they are considered to have formed their own family. This means that some instances of those living in "house shares" or "flat shares" might be captured as other household types such as a couple or lone parent family household. If there is more than one couple and/or family living in a house or flat share they will be classed as a "multi-family household" (defined earlier).”

Some of the comments on here suggesting singles should just get a housemate make me laugh in the context of the other thread on parent guarantors and the nightmare housemate situations!

How can you assume that a single income must be higher than the combination of two incomes?

If we apply your assumption consistently, then it would follow that single people have it way easier than dual income couples because they’re on £80k a year and the couple is only on £60k combined and have higher costs.

Where did you get those stats from?

Not when talking about gross income.