De-coupling time, money, and resources.
Now the title of this piece may lead you to believe this is going to be me moaning about being single in a subconsciously envious of couples way. I hope it won’t be that, but I guess I can’t make any promises.
This concept came up when reading some form of feminist literature over the past year (tbh there’s accidentally been so many feminist books that I’m not 100% sure which one I read it in). The idea is that it’s more expensive to be single than it is to be in a couple, as the way our world is set up is primarily for couples and blood relations. This means in various areas of life, things are made easier for couples and families through discounts, reduced family rates, and portioning that assumes the additional people. However, the singles are forgotten about, paying full price, getting more than they need or want, and having to face hurdles that are higher when facing them alone.
One of the easiest ways of demonstrating this is through renting in the UK. You’d assume it would be just as easy to rent with the same amount of choices (or lack thereof) regardless of whether you were a family or a group of 3 friends (or any other amount). Alas! Last year when looking at the options to rent as a 3, I discovered the handy House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) license that is required. This means that families of 3, or even more, are easily able to rent houses without this license, making landlords more favourable towards them as that additional charge won’t apply. If, however, you’re all just friends looking for a cheaper way to live with an added sense of community and friendship, the license is required. The amount of people in the building is the same. The risk of damage, space required, and utilities needed, are the same. Yet the singles have an added cost (we all know no landlord is going to pay for the license out of the goodness of their heart). I’ll be honest, I don’t understand why the additional license is needed anyway with the cost of council tax, bills and rent already charge humans for the luxury of not being homeless. But if it is so required, then why are families exempt?
Now, someone may crawl out of the woodwork and come up with a valid answer as to why the HMO license was created and is important. But the point stands, single people get additional taxes in small hidden ways throughout their lives. Whether that’s having to buy food in quantities for 4 people as standard (it’s more expensive to buy food items individually in a way that might be a more realistic amount for what you will eat), buying single entrance tickets for events and attractions and missing out on the group/family/couple discounts, not having additional bodies constantly in your home generating heat or contributing to the bills, having to clean more frequently using your free time, each of these things chips away at the time, money and resources single people have. All before the bombardment of media that tells you to be in a relationship – particularly at Christmas and February, being single is really seen as abnormal.
I’d add that Netflix and other streaming services moving to introduce household limitations by IP address could be another form of single tax. Rather than sharing the cost of subscription (or sponging) off parents or other family members further afield, single people will have to pay for a whole account to themselves, whereas couples and families are discounted for living under the same roof.
Whilst there are definitely ways around some of these forms of single tax, like marrying your friends to avoid HMO fees or setting up your subscriptions with them, these don’t allow for the free-flowing nature of these relationships. Whilst your housemates may be happy to club together on heating and share the cleaning, it may be that at some point someone moves out and the dynamic changes. The single cost creeps back as your situation doesn’t guarantee the stability of a family unit that our country is built for.
There’s also the social single tax. Rather than costing you in legal tender, there’s a myriad of social settings built and curated for couples and families that make it incredibly awkward for singles to enter. Places like restaurants, cafes, and bars assume you’re coming as a group. That’s great if you are, but for single people that requires a degree of organisation and joint desire to get people to go along with. If a single person does decide to persevere and go alone, for many of us that takes a great deal of pep talks and bravery to sit in a place we should be just as welcome. Sure, there are single nights and events put on by public spaces occasionally, but along with it comes an expectation that you’re open to finding new relationships to potentially get you to that ideal couple state again.
On a more personal level, you’ve also not got that one go-to person who is always open to you and actively showing you how much you mean to them. Friends play a huge role in filling this gap, but understandably, they all have priorities that often aren’t just you. That’s no bad thing, but sometimes it does add an extra step when you’re trying to find reassurance and support, in that you have to reach out first. In couples, you see each other regularly enough that hopefully you can pick up on changes in the other person to some degree.
The final area of single tax that I find most noticeable is in society’s expectations and reaction to that stage of life. There’s a sense that radiates through marketing, social media, typical life timelines, and even conversations that single is not a place that a person intends to stay forever. The end goal is always to find your someone and couple up eventually, even if we’re generous enough to recognise that you need to be single right now. Girls particularly talk about what it will be like when they get married – not if. Young adults are encouraged to get on the dating apps or head to bars to meet people, as are widows after enough time has passed. Whilst this is a common life path for many people, it’s not always so simple as that and the expectation that becoming a couple will happen eventually isn’t always helpful or kind. Often, this is done without thinking, friends talking about future double dates “when you have a partner” or joking that a trait or action is why “people aren’t interested”. What if our every waking action wasn’t a bid to find a relationship? What if it was just living our life as we are?
I think the main argument against this is that it’s all in my head and actually, there’s not half as much expectation on single people to find a pair. Unfortunately, I think if it is in my head there must be some form of subliminal messaging to put it there in the first place. Maybe it’s not all that extreme and the single tax is pennies. The issue that remains is that the bias is still there, however small it may be – families and couples do get discounts that single people can’t access and can’t always do much to make themselves more eligible for. Whether that’s in cash, or energy, or time, or some other resource they have to give away to continue existing outside of a partnership. There is a resolution to it all though, starting with changing our attitudes to singleness. It can be just as fulfilling a path as having a loving family or the ideal partner. Other relationships feed into it and are just as valuable as romantic ones. Once these attitudes really do change, the additional costs and taxes become unfair and targeted. Maybe once we get to this place, we’ll all see that the single tax has got to go.
If you enjoyed this post, you may also be interested in my feminist rants about the world not being built for women or Little Women.
Rebekah's Ramblings 
One thought on “Down with the single tax!”