Is single life more expensive?

[Chloe88]

I read this on the BBC news website and want to know what other people think?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43372694

 

[wavewall]

I'd say it varies. When I make more than my partner, life as part of a couple is more expensive because I cover more of the expenses. Likewise, the opposite is true when I'm with a partner who makes more.

 

It would help me save on rent if we cohabitated, though.

[Randomchaos]

The only thing I could find in a quick search that was credible (imo) was this: 

Mutchler, J. E., Lyu, J., Xu, P., & Burr, J. A. (2017). Is Cost of Living Related to Living Alone Among Older Persons? Evidence From the Elder Economic Security Standard Index. Journal Of Family Issues, 38(17), 2495-2511. doi:10.1177/0192513X15606773

 

They said this about people 65 and older 

"we find that higher cost of living is related to a lower likelihood of living alone net of personal resources."

and this 

"Expanded analysis reveals that cost of living independently slightly moderates
the effect of personal resources, such that persons with higher incomes
are affected by cost of living at a somewhat lower level. However, the most
important results identify main effects of income and cost of living that are
both substantial: Both personal financial resources and cost of living in the
area of residence shape likelihood of living alone."

 

So yeah, when I tried to look it up that was the only thing that popped up on the site I was using.

(Just so people know what I used to search  

 

"Is single life more expensive" or "what effects cost of living" or "What determines living cost" or "cost of living"

 

Is what I put in the search bar.

[InfiniteNull]

With the exception of single people who choose to do things that are different from couples (therby invalidating the sameness of the samples) the way to describe this is not that single life is more expensive... rather that single life includes less income. 

 

If a business were to be spending $4000 per month to lease an office, and was only servicing about 500 customers per month at an average profit per customer of $8 per month they'd cover their expenses. If another company had the same office but serviced 1000 customers per month, we wouldn't say that their expenses are higher, we'd say that their revenue is greater. 

 

I think any of us who refuse to adhere to amatonormativity probably have considered how it would be nice to have a second income in the household unit if we don't have one. Along with that could come sex and romance and stuff that isn't worth the extra revenue though  

[Dreamer23]

Well yeah, it is, although the numbers from Loughborough University quoted in that article seem rather high. 

Found a studt on the National Institute for Health website that said an additional adult adds a cost factor of 0.7 - which sounds reasonable, though the methodology seemed flimsy at best. 

 

However, the question is: what are you really interested in? Even if you are just interested in the money dude if things, I'd say you most likely wanna look at "cost of living / household income", and I'm not sure single people get the short straw here, given the different income dynamics. (Though you'd also wanna normalize for some more factors like age. Pretty sure both income as well as household size are correlated with age) 

[daveb]

I would guess that it is. Just thinking of something like housing - 2 1 bedroom apartments will cost more than 1 2 bedroom apartment (and a couple may be just as likely to rent a 1 bedroom apartment, so they could basically halve the cost for each person). Since housing is one of the biggest expenses for most people it would make sense to me that it would have a large impact on cost of living. Then there are other things that are cheaper when the costs are shared, as well as things that will remain constant no matter whether it's borne by one person or two (or several). I don't think there are many things that would increase in cost with 2 people who are together (vs 2 separate individuals).

[GloriaA]

Another thing, when you're single buying food is more expensive. When you buy in stock, it's way cheaper than buying for one, also you tend to cook more instead of buying already prepared meals to heat up (less healthy and more expensive). Then there are appliances that you can share the cost with when you first buy them. Or bills

From my personal experience I say that where I live it's way cheaper to live with another person than to live alone.

[Laplace]

You will save more on fixed costs (rent/house and, to an extent, some utilities) when you’re living with another person cause those would be split, assuming the costs are split evenly. You also may save proportionally on food and stuff cause, like others have noted, it’s relatively less expensive to buy/cook in bulk and less goes to waste. However, your collective income is taxed at a higher rate, and income differences can make it proportionally more expensive for one partner or another. It’s also easier to just manage just your own finances.

[Guest]

I think it depends on how you choose to live, either way.

 

I don't think I could trust someone else to not potentially make really unwise financial decisions. My cousin's ex-husband took money out of their savings and bought two motorcycles. They had been together for 5-10 years before he did this.

[Dreamer23]

11 hours ago, Laplace said:

However, your collective income is taxed at a higher rate, and income differences can make it proportionally more expensive for one partner or another. It’s also easier to just manage just your own finances.

Oh man, reading this just totally blew my mind - I thought that can't be true.

In Germany, your collective income is actually taxed lower for a couple, so I figured it'd be the same in the US.

That belief lasted as long as it took me to find the income tax table for the US (so like 5 seconds after reading your statement)

How come the US - the pro marriage, super Christian US - disincentivizes wedded people? Seems kinda crazy... (not complaining of course, with me being single and all! xD)

[daveb]

Actually, in the US couples can file jointly or separately, and which is better depends on the situation (how much they each earn). But in either case I don't think they pay more than singles (assuming the couple chooses the option that works best for their case). At most they would probably pay the same as 2 single people filing their own returns. But I'm not a tax expert so I could be wrong (what I could find through googling seems to back up what I said, but I didn't dive very deep).

 

People with dependents also get tax breaks.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

Looking in the local shops, food is parcelled up in larger batches than I want to buy and vegetables that used to be sold loose, so that you could pick just what you need, are now vacuum packed in quantities for a family. that means buying too much then having to store/cook /freeze what you didn't want to but in the first place. That's before even mentioning that anything in a parcel for one, is much more expensive than BOGOF.

[Skycaptain]

If we assume that a cohabiting couple or  one single person live in a same sized property, which if its a one bedroom then basic housing costs will be the same. The extra cost of metered water heating and utility costs will be offset by reduced council tax. So effectively two single people living separately will have to pay twice as much as a couple to keep a roof over their heads. 

Things like holidays etc often incur a single person supplement. 

 

An observation is that a single person's state pension in Britain is more than half that of a married couple, so the government understands that on a per capita basis being single is more expensive than two people sharing a property 

[Guest Deus Ex Infinity]

I don't think so. I'm perfectly fine with being single. It's much easier to track and keep your life expanses on low level unless you consider yourself as particularily fanzy or sophisticated.

[Laplace]

8 hours ago, Dreamer23 said:

Oh man, reading this just totally blew my mind - I thought that can't be true.

In Germany, your collective income is actually taxed lower for a couple, so I figured it'd be the same in the US.

That belief lasted as long as it took me to find the income tax table for the US (so like 5 seconds after reading your statement)

How come the US - the pro marriage, super Christian US - disincentivizes wedded people? Seems kinda crazy... (not complaining of course, with me being single and all! xD)

I guess my statement was somewhat flawed in that there’s mainly a penalty for couples who have similar levels of income. Overall, if one partner’s income is significantly higher, it MAY be beneficial to file jointly cause the total income may be brought down to a lower tax bracket. Also, couples don’t have to file jointly, but I believe an overwhelming majority do so, whether it’s beneficial for them or not. I feel like it’d be a knee-jerk reaction for couples after being married. But, filing jointly with someone else makes you liable for all the financial information on the return, not just your own. So, if your partner makes a mistake or is withholding info, you’re on the hook too, and it’s not easy to claim ignorance. The US may like it’s religion a lot (even though we claim to be a secular govt.), but it likes money and confusing paperwork a lot more.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

Good one @Laplace, think her in UK, single people are thought to have less outgoings (no kids...) so there's the  assumption that we can pay a third more for something, just because you need one portion instead of two.

[Rosendust]

29 minutes ago, Laplace said:

I guess my statement was somewhat flawed in that there’s mainly a penalty for couples who have similar levels of income. Overall, if one partner’s income is significantly higher, it MAY be beneficial to file jointly cause the total income may be brought down to a lower tax bracket. Also, couples don’t have to file jointly, but I believe an overwhelming majority do so, whether it’s beneficial for them or not. I feel like it’d be a knee-jerk reaction for couples after being married. But, filing jointly with someone else makes you liable for all the financial information on the return, not just your own. So, if your partner makes a mistake or is withholding info, you’re on the hook too, and it’s not easy to claim ignorance. The US may like it’s religion a lot (even though we claim to be a secular govt.), but it likes money and confusing paperwork a lot more.

Even though I have been raised Christian, I have to agree with the last sentence of your post, especially the Money & Paperwork issue.

[Janus the Fox]

Totally depends on individual lifestyles, can be expensive even for singles or couples.  There's a few things in terms of tax incentives for couples or families, but that's probably little of anything dependent on lifestyle, environment, local economy... various factors that to me, generally don't make singles or couples are better or for worse off.

[Alejandrogynous]

I'd say it definitely is. I might save on some small expenses, but overall it is much cheaper when two or more people share income. Especially since couples (as opposed to roommates) traditionally share a bedroom, so rent literally costs twice as much for me to live somewhere alone than it would with a partner. And having two people using utilities would make certain ones go up a little, but rarely enough to double, so that is more expensive alone as well.

 

14 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

Things like holidays etc often incur a single person supplement.

This too. Travel deals on sites like Groupon will hit you with extra charges for going solo, usually enough that you might as well pay full price at the source. I know that's not necessarily a single person problem because friends are an option I guess, but it's still a hit against solitary people, lol.

 

To go deeper, single people have been known to be passed over for promotions and raises because they don't seem as rooted in their careers as those with families. I don't know how common it is but I know it happens, so if you're unlucky, being single could mean you make less money in the first place.

[Divide By Zero]

Based on my experiences, I would say being single is more expensive. Some examples:

• Housing costs (rent or mortgage) is a lot less for couples because they can split the cost.
• Food is often sold in large quantities and single people often can't use all the food so it goes to waste.
• As the article mentioned, the dreaded single supplement on package vacations. Which is why I don't go on package vacations. When I travel I usually go camping or sleep at a youth hostel. Of course, camping and hotel rooms are cheaper for couples because they can split the cost like housing.

[Snao Cone]

It's very likely more expensive, and also very likely worth every extra penny (for me). In addition to the qualitative satisfaction I get from my living situation, I also don't have the common risks of joining financial resources with another person. I hear so many stories about people who really really want to be in relationships being easily taken advantage of, financially. Many people have had their financial situations ruined because of a partner's habits.

[Purple Wanderer]

I go out nore now I'm single. But still seem to have more  money

[Éadweard]

Yes, it’s more expensive. 

[Zyden]

Are you worried about the cost of being single? Don't be.

 

As a couple, you do spend a smaller portion of your income on fixed bills, like a mortgage or insurance, as it's shared between you.

 

Of course that is assuming the partner is going to pay half of everything. Reality is different. A lot depends on how financially-minded the other person is. I'm always shocked by how crap most people are with their money XD

 

I found my utility bills would sky rocket when another person was in my home. I think it's because they were so wasteful: leaving lights and electronics on, putting the heating on all night and day, running taps on full blast, boiling enough water for 8 mugs of tea when we only wanted 2, thermostat whacked up high, front door left wide open on a freezing cold day ; generally just wasting gas and leccy. I'm quite an eco-nut, so I notice the waste and realised it was me who was "stingy." But by gawd, when I'm living solo, my utilities are so much more affordable. 

 

Groceries were not cheaper. As a single person, I might rarely use the buy one get one free offers, but if it was likely to go off before I could eat it, I would not buy into the "deal." Not getting suckered into that false economy can save a small fortune. Grocery shopping has become a fine art, and I can do a weekly shop and not waste a single cornflake. As a couple, the grocery bill seemed to be out of  control!  There was always far too much food in the house. We were always running out of this or that, popping to the shop, then returning with all sorts of "deals." It adds up!

 

Activities cost the same, unless your partner treats you. But we all treat our friends now and again, or go Dutch. 

 

Of course, being single affords you a lot more freedom and peace, and I find that to be priceless.

 

 

[Zoaea]

If you rent a room instead of a whole apartment it would be cheaper as a single. If you buy a home instead of renting you'd have more vaule/person as a single. Also, couples frequently end up having children at some point and those things are dreadfully expensive.

[Snao Cone]

12 hours ago, Zoaea said:

Also, couples frequently end up having children at some point and those things are dreadfully expensive.

Not if you put 'em to work early!

 

 

 

(that's a joke, please don't subject children to hard physical labour at an early age )

[arden_jay]

I just think life is more expensive now anyway...

[Sibemarie]

In my country Portugal single life is more expensive indeed.

Most new jobs offer salaries around 500 - 600 euros. 700 if you're lucky.

Home: minimum you can find for an 1 room small flat: 300 euro

Food, Water, electricity and heating (depends but maybe 300 euro)

Transportation (bus, train, etc) + Internet : around 50 euro

Car (depends on how much you drive and the car, but honestly is impossible to have a car and live alone with such salaries)

Then obviously you need savings in case something breaks, or you get sick, etc. 

So you see.

Impossible for a single person who is trying to start a single life on their own around here. 

With these tiny salaries, maybe a childfree couple or 2 friends can manage but it will be a low life quality: Barely a dinner out, very few trips, no vacations, no gymns, just...existing to survive. Dreams are over.  argh, nope!

Those who did not succeeded in job market before the crisis hit harder around 2009, like me, are f*cked up .

Here lots of single people have to stay with parents untill their 30s, 40's or forever. 

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

Oddly enough, I was speaking to a riend who has 2 children recently and she said 'when I was a kid, only my dad went to work and we were comfortable-  now it takes two parents working just to break even'....hmmmm....maybe it's just becoming tough all round.

[ryn2]

This is actually one of my big concerns as a long-married ace whose allo partner is likely going to insist on a divorce.  I’m in my 50’s and am (and always have been) the larger earner.  If I had always been single, I would have made different choices and probably found it cheaper.

 

However, in my present situation I’ll be taking on all the things - house, pets - I presently share across the two incomes myself... along with giving up whatever percentage of what I currently own (including funds for retirement) the court deems fair.

 

Going forward single I would also be able to make different choices and live less “expensively.”  Still, I’m old enough/late enough in my working life that I will likely never undo the damage and get back to where I am.

 

tl;dr - one person can live as cheaply as he/she/they choose(s).  However, two people who share housing, pets, and associated expenses spend less money in total than would the same two people living similar lifestyles (e.g., with two houses and two sets of pets) alone.