Single life, financially better off?

Dickie10

hi im a 30 yr old man, and recently I have begun to believe that being single is a serious advantage. every day I turn on the news or current affairs and listen to reports of the squeezed middle classes.Now I consider myself in the middle classes im a secondary school teacher and part time farmer,although im only temp teaching at the minute.Every time I hear these horror stories I just think , thank God im single and never bought a house, it seems a lot of my friends escaped from buying a house as well, the crash happened when we were about 24- 25 so luckily we were still living it up.Thing is most of my friends have become very wary of getting into relationships the last few years as they don't want to get the missus up the spout or something like that which they all agree would be a disaster! it seems that once you start into the family unit thing then that's the end of the disposable cash. just wondering is this accurate, to me any guy in a family set up seems to be a lot worse off than me ,muddling along on my own. what do people think??

sea_monkey

Depends on what you want to spend money on.

If you WANT a family then the cost won't be an issue.
If you WANT disposable income for yourself then the cost of a family will be an issue.

baby and crumble

It's a trade-off I suppose. You balance the benefits of being single with the benefits of having a partner/ family. I know I prefer being a little bit less well-off than I could be but being in a great relationship. Although in all fairness the fact we're less well-off right now is totally my fault as I haven't found work and am trying to get a business going... so maybe you should ask my gf this question!

leonidas83

Dickie10 wrote: »

hi im a 30 yr old man, and recently I have begun to believe that being single is a serious advantage. every day I turn on the news or current affairs and listen to reports of the squeezed middle classes.Now I consider myself in the middle classes im a secondary school teacher and part time farmer,although im only temp teaching at the minute.Every time I hear these horror stories I just think , thank God im single and never bought a house, it seems a lot of my friends escaped from buying a house as well, the crash happened when we were about 24- 25 so luckily we were still living it up.Thing is most of my friends have become very wary of getting into relationships the last few years as they don't want to get the missus up the spout or something like that which they all agree would be a disaster! it seems that once you start into the family unit thing then that's the end of the disposable cash. just wondering is this accurate, to me any guy in a family set up seems to be a lot worse off than me ,muddling along on my own. what do people think??

Tbh, thats a strange way for them to be, have they ever heard of condoms or the pill? I would imagine in monetary terms exclusively you have it slightly better off but if your 30 & have little to know experience with women or relationships that could be seen as a serious disadvantage in itself.

Give me a happy relationship or marriage any day over financial wealth & the illusion that your still loving it up in your thirties

Mossess

There are plenty of Elderly single farmers out there. How do they get on?

One other thing to consider, married men live longer. And apparently your health is your wealth. But on the flip side. If you think money has anything to do with getting married then your better off single. When the time is right it won’t be an issue. If it ever is right.

Wibbs

Mossess wrote: »

married men live longer.

Bit of a myth that one. If you include divorced men who did get married their suicide rate alone is 3 times higher than background. So maybe a happy marriage increases longevity, but maybe a happy single life(likely including successive relationships, but not for life) increases longevity. If you want to die younger, get hitched, then separate/divorce(if you're a man, women's suicide rate doesn't change), or marry a woman older than you(see below).

It also depends on the individual. Some are more codependent than others. If you're not the codependent type(male or female, though maybe more male as women have more base level oxytocin going on), then marriage may not be for you, or not for you until much later in life. If you're the codependent type then being single is gonna be crappy. Unmarried men on average have more wealth. That tends to affect happiness. Unmarried women on average have more wealth too and their longevity stats are the same as their married sisters.

One of the longest running studies of longevity(since the 1920's) the Terman life study, showed no difference for either gender between those who never married and those that married.

Indeed if you want to live longer and you're a bloke, marry a woman much younger than you.. Though as they point out this may be down to the fact that if you can pull a woman 15 years younger than you it's likely because you've got better aging genes in the first place.

leonidas83

Wibbs wrote: »

Bit of a myth that one. If you include divorced men who did get married their suicide rate alone is 3 times higher than background. So maybe a happy marriage increases longevity, but maybe a happy single life(likely including successive relationships, but not for life) increases longevity. If you want to die younger, get hitched, then separate/divorce(if you're a man, women's suicide rate doesn't change), or marry a woman older than you(see below).

It also depends on the individual. Some are more codependent than others. If you're not the codependent type(male or female, though maybe more male as women have more base level oxytocin going on), then marriage may not be for you, or not for you until much later in life. If you're the codependent type then being single is gonna be crappy. Unmarried men on average have more wealth. That tends to affect happiness. Unmarried women on average have more wealth too and their longevity stats are the same as their married sisters.

One of the longest running studies of longevity(since the 1920's) the Terman life study, showed no difference for either gender between those who never married and those that married.

Indeed if you want to live longer and you're a bloke, marry a woman much younger than you.. Though as they point out this may be down to the fact that if you can pull a woman 15 years younger than you it's likely because you've got better aging genes in the first place.

Ill tell you something though, I'd couldn't give a toss about living a long life if its a miserable one alone with a bit of extra cash.

cantdecide

leonidas83 wrote: »

Ill tell you something though, I'd couldn't give a toss about living a long life if its a miserable one alone with a bit of extra cash.

It's not as simple as single= miserable, married= happy. I spent most or all of my twenties lamenting my singledom. I'll be 32 shortly, I'm still single and I've never been happier in myself (and I can assure you I don't go out partying it up and pulling yungwans every weekend- far from it!).

I'm sure if I met someone really nice and thought a long and happy relationship presented itself, I wouldn't pass up the opportunity. However, if things don't pan out that way I'll find other ways of having a fulfilling life. If the latter is the course I take, I'm sure I'll have greater financial stability and okay, it won't keep me warm at night but it's definitely going to make other aspects of my life easier.

Is financial stability on its own enough to make you rule out the chance of a meaningful relationship with someone that helps make you happy? Maybe if you're Ebenezer Scrooge.

iusedtoknow

Well financially, i am better off married. We are DINKS at the moment (double income, no kids). We live off my salary and are building up a fairly sizable nest-egg with my wife's salary. That'll change a bit when she stops working when we have kids. We could not do that if we weren't married/partner'd

I am very happily married and have been for a few years. When we lived in Spain, the thought of buying an apartment never crossed our minds. There was no need, you have long term rights in apartments there, so why double our outgoings for the sake of "our own/the bank's" place.
Then the crash happened, we could have bought a place, but didn't.
We moved to the US instead, and continue our living off my salary with disposable cash involved, saving hers. We won't think about buying here, as we like the city life. When we were thinking about settling in Spain, we would have continued to rent, and had kids in the city there as well.
I hate this idea that just cos your married, you have to move to 3BR house in the suburbs, as that's "what you do". Also...the only way to not worry about getting your partner up the spout/duff...be smart with birth control and it 99.9% won't happen.

Dickie10

ha well I didn't mean my friends were literally afraid to get there women/one night stands up the duff, but just wary of getting caught up a creek if u know what I mean! there are a few in fairness that have a theory that your financially better off married, because they don't have a house yet and pprob need the extra wage to go towards a mortgage. luckily for me im just renting at the mo as Iv inherited a house to live in, I just couldn't see the point of buying a place at the min. I do pass for 25 so maybe im just late maturing and only really got into my stride with proper women in the last 3 years, up til that it was usually young ones in coppers effort! Im prob having to good a time of it at the minute and get freaked out by these mortgage/family/squeezed middle classes stuff in the media. plus the fact that within 2 miles of my homeplace there are 6 bachelor farmers who vary widely in there antics,3 are womanising Clooney types in their late 40s, who seem to still regularly pull late 20s early 30s women! the other 3 are pretty much the other side of the coin, starting to get a bit odd already in their early 50s! basically I think once your outgoing and up for a party lifestyle single life prob suits these guys , but I think the latter 3 really prob should have got married.

cson

iusedtoknow wrote: »

I hate this idea that just cos your married, you have to move to 3BR house in the suburbs, as that's "what you do".

Ah the quintessential Irish dream; 3 bedder in a 'nice' suburb with a 'good' school.

Forever And Ever

I have a girlfriend who loves spending money

I used to love spending money when I was single, but now I'm content to spend vicariously through her!

Wibbs

leonidas83 wrote: »

Ill tell you something though, I'd couldn't give a toss about living a long life if its a miserable one alone with a bit of extra cash.

Like I said some people are more codependent in personality and there's nothing wrong with that. More power to them, but equally there are others who are less codependent so being married has much less of a draw for them.

It's like having children, many if not most want kids, but again there are people out there for which having kids is not on their to do list and simply don't want them.

As for being alone? Just because someone is not in a long term romantic relationship doesn't mean they're alone. I've known enough men and women in very mediocre long termers who had no friends outside the relationship and who were "alone"(men in particular can fall into this).

quad_red

cson wrote: »

Ah the quintessential Irish dream; 3 bedder in a 'nice' suburb with a 'good' school.

There is a reason for that.

The thought of moving to the burbs filled me with horror in my twenties. Always thought the cost/benefit made no sense. Then had a child and the whole good school/nice area/space issues came home to roost with a vengeance.

I wouldn't want to be an old person living in the city centre. And I wouldn't want to raise kids in there. But for my twenties and early thirties, I wouldn't have been anywhere else.

As for the OPs question - if you think being single is a serious advantage for you, then stick with it lad. I've gone down the whole marriage and kids route. And I love it. But my brother is a 40 year old confirmed bachelor. And except for when he feels the nagging guilt that he 'should' be having kids and shacking up, he is happy out with his life.

Do what sorts you. People will usually defend/promote their choices because that's obviously what they believed in enough to follow them.

drumswan

Its not mandatory to have kids if you are in a relationship you know.

Dickie10

Dickie10 wrote: »

thank God im single and never bought a house

You seem to be conflating two things there. House buying has nothing to do with relationship status. Many single people buy houses. Many couples do not.

I am not seeing much in your post to suggest that being single makes one financially better off. Perhaps a better title for your thread would have been "Not being a home owner, financially better off?" and for many people that is indeed true. Or "Not having children, financially better off?".

Relationships however - leaving home buying and children aside for a moment - are quite often financially better. Especially if all partners are earners. Simply due to Economy of scale.

Two people do not use more light bulbs in the living room than one. Doubling the size of meals does not always double price. Doubling the number of people in an apartment or house does not double the rent.

Many expenses in other words do not always increase in proportion to the income that is coming in to pay for them.

Are some people worse off? Sure. But I would not rush in your position to declaring that it is the rule of thumb by any stretch.

All that said - I would hate to think that decisions in life about love and relationships are made purely on financial basis. Ideally people would enter relationships (or not) or have children (or not) because they want to - and it is the right choice for them - not because they did a Profit and Loss budget and found it to be financially beneficial.

Sleepy

It depends on who you marry / are in a relationship with tbh.

I had a lot more disposable income as a single man because I was renting a room in a house-share and once my rent and share of the bills was covered, my salary was my own.

Now I'm married with two kids and my other half is a stay-at-home mother, I'm supporting a family on a salary that's not much higher (given the tax increases in the past 5 years or so etc.) so obviously my disposable income is much lower than before.

I've friends who married and had children with women who earn high salaries and they'd have significantly more disposable income than us. Others who've married and are child-free who'd have more cash to enjoy than either had before they married.

If a high level of disposable income is something that matters to you it all comes down to finding a partner that wants the same things in life as you do. It may never have crossed the minds of many feminists but equality means that a woman's income and/or financial security may become as much a factor in her desirability as a man's has traditionally been. (Then again, the old jokes about a woman with land / frontage / a pub may indicate that this has been a factor in the Irish psych for quite some time).

Galwayguy35

I'm 38 and single, have a mortgage but it's not a huge loan compared to what other people have to deal with so I can still afford to take a holiday once a year.

I put alot of money into the house but I see it as an investment because I have no intention of selling/moving.

I'm a saver though and if I was to remain single would probably be fairly comfortable as the years go on but I always saw my future as being settled down and having a few kids.

As 40 is coming over the hill fast I'm not too sure if the kids part will happen but personally I'd rather be happy in a relationship than be alone and rich in the future.

iptba

drumswan wrote: »

Its not mandatory to have kids if you are in a relationship you know.

I think a lot of men wouldn't have had kids when they did (and some wouldn't have had them at all) if they had had a proper choice. I think a lot of men don't get a proper choice (probably some women also).

iptba

Some men who decide to stay single use the acronym, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way).

Dickie10

Dickie10 wrote: »

hi I'm a 30 yr old man, and recently I have begun to believe that being single is a serious advantage. every day I turn on the news or current affairs and listen to reports of the squeezed middle classes.Now I consider myself in the middle classes I'm a secondary school teacher and part time farmer,although I'm only temp teaching at the minute.Every time I hear these horror stories I just think , thank God I'm single and never bought a house, it seems a lot of my friends escaped from buying a house as well, the crash happened when we were about 24- 25 so luckily we were still living it up.Thing is most of my friends have become very wary of getting into relationships the last few years as they don't want to get the missus up the spout or something like that which they all agree would be a disaster! it seems that once you start into the family unit thing then that's the end of the disposable cash. just wondering is this accurate, to me any guy in a family set up seems to be a lot worse off than me ,muddling along on my own. what do people think??

The love of money is a terrible way to live your life, you do realise you are living embodiment of the typical stereotype of the Irish farmer and his love of his money and the fear of some woman getting her claws in to him.

pwurple

It all depends. You'd be better off living with someone who earned more than you, together in your mortgage-free(?) inherited house, pooling your separate piles of cash into one giant pile.

Finding a person who earns more than a temp secondary teacher wouldn't be needle in haystack territory I'd say.

You'd be worse off living with someone who didn't work at all, and you had to support.


Nothing to do with being single or not. It can go either way.

Of all the people I know the best off financially are middle aged couple with grown up children, their mortgage paid off or nearly paid off and both are working.

Emme

I moved to a rural area some time ago and I notice a trend among farmers and other rural men in their late 30s/40s/early 50s. After years of playing the field/propping up the bar in their local they have a child with a woman in her 20s and she claims all the allowances for a single mother. There are few other career options locally for a woman who doesn't want to travel for work. The men ostensibly live at home with their parents but unofficially live as a married couple with the mother of their child. It seems to be a win:win for all concerned.

Except the taxpayer.

Sleepy

mariaalice wrote: »

Of all the people I know the best off financially are middle aged couple with grown up children, their mortgage paid off or nearly paid off and both are working.

That's as much a generational thing as an issue of whether a couple are married or not. Those in their middle years are the generation who gained most from the Celtic Tiger and while some may have sustained losses from poor buy-to-let investments, many others didn't. This is the generation that bought their houses in the 70's/80's and experienced massive capital gains of their primary residences during the 90's.

Dickie10

I don't stinge money away I have a good time, 2 or 3 holidays a year, albeit smallish ones! a week skiing in jan, galway in summer and a few days in spain November, so I don't have too much of a cash pile!

PucaMama

yeah because women spend all the money :rolleyes:

Forever And Ever

PucaMama wrote: »

yeah because women spend all the money :rolleyes:

Where did anyone say that?

PucaMama

Forever And Ever wrote: »

Where did anyone say that?

eh the bit about being wary of getting into relationships and getting her pregnant. those women! making babies on purpose and taking all your money :rolleyes: terrible!

Forever And Ever

PucaMama wrote: »

eh the bit about being wary of getting into relationships and getting her pregnant. those women! making babies on purpose and taking all your money :rolleyes: terrible!

Quotes please..........

PucaMama

Dickie10 wrote: »

hi im a 30 yr old man, and recently I have begun to believe that being single is a serious advantage. every day I turn on the news or current affairs and listen to reports of the squeezed middle classes.Now I consider myself in the middle classes im a secondary school teacher and part time farmer,although im only temp teaching at the minute.Every time I hear these horror stories I just think , thank God im single and never bought a house, it seems a lot of my friends escaped from buying a house as well, the crash happened when we were about 24- 25 so luckily we were still living it up.Thing is most of my friends have become very wary of getting into relationships the last few years as they don't want to get the missus up the spout or something like that which they all agree would be a disaster! it seems that once you start into the family unit thing then that's the end of the disposable cash. just wondering is this accurate, to me any guy in a family set up seems to be a lot worse off than me ,muddling along on my own. what do people think??

Forever And Ever

PucaMama wrote: »

End of 'Disposable cash'

You did say 'yeah because women spend all the money'...

No one said that!

You spend the 'majority' of it

PucaMama

Forever And Ever wrote: »

End of 'Disposable cash'

You did say 'yeah because women spend all the money'...

No one said that!

You spend the 'majority' of it

oops did i forward you my bank statement this month? i dont think so. i dont spend a lot. whats said in the op is irritating. and sad too, that someone would stay alone all their lives just to avoid spending money. (or to have more to themselves)

Pat Mustard

Wibbs wrote: »

It also depends on the individual. Some are more codependent than others. If you're not the codependent type(male or female, though maybe more male as women have more base level oxytocin going on), then marriage may not be for you, or not for you until much later in life. If you're the codependent type then being single is gonna be crappy. Unmarried men on average have more wealth. That tends to affect happiness. Unmarried women on average have more wealth too and their longevity stats are the same as their married sisters.

When I read that first, what I saw was oxycontin.

Experts say that because the drug is more potent and more addictive than heroin, the potential for misuse is almost limitless. The small white tablets can be swallowed whole, crushed and snorted or mixed with water and injected. Each tablet costs £5 to £20 depending on its strength. The most expensive are at least 10 times more powerful than anything else on the market.

Please carry on.:D

October Swimmer

Rubylolz

This is actually funny, staying single so that ya can have more money!!! Will ya cop on, Spend it! ya cant bring it to the grave!....

ciarak7511

I did a degree in sociology and read many studies showing women are better off single and men are better off married when it comes to suicide rates and depression. so it's something you want to consider apart from the financial. Kids on the other hand, cost loads!

The Big Smoke

ciarak7511 wrote: »

I did a degree in sociology and read many studies showing women are better off single and men are better off married when it comes to suicide rates and depression. so it's something you want to consider apart from the financial. Kids on the other hand, cost loads!

I did a degree in life experience and concluded I'm financially better off single.:D

Gehad_JoyRider

ciarak7511 wrote: »

I did a degree in sociology and read many studies showing women are better off single and men are better off married when it comes to suicide rates and depression. so it's something you want to consider apart from the financial. Kids on the other hand, cost loads!

Single or married with kids you can still have depression it just requires a lot of hard work to keep your head on shoulders...

Dickie10

Rubylolz wrote: »

This is actually funny, staying single so that ya can have more money!!! Will ya cop on, Spend it! ya cant bring it to the grave!....

eh I do that's my point! 3 holidays a year! marriage doent cost much but kids bloody hell!

I can do 3 good holidays a year on the dole, it's not difficult :pac:

ongarboy

Just curious as to the ultimate answer the OP is looking for. Is it that he thinks financial well being rates above happiness in all other aspects of life? I'd rather have just enough money to get by and derive my happiness from all other aspects of my life (partner, kids, satisfying job, genuine friends, health etc) then being single, loaded and lacking in other aspects of life (loneliness, stressful job, uncertainty about the validity of friendships etc). Of course some people are happier being single and I don't belittle that but if they chose singledom purely for financial reasons, it rings a very hollow bell in my opinion.

As someone posted earlier, planning your life's well being via a form of profit and loss statement is a very misguided approach to happiness and makes you miss out or overlook what's important. Give me an average industrial wage, kids and partner that will you love and they love you back unconditionally any day to a lottery win (and the sudden influx of interested parties that surround you knowing your wealth).

Emme

Deleted User wrote: »

I can do 3 good holidays a year on the dole, it's not difficult :pac:

Really? I hope that Enda Kenny or Micheal Noonan isn't reading this. Otherwise the dole might be for the chop in the budget.

I know this is off topic but how do you manage 3 good holidays a year on the dole? I'm working full time and I couldn't afford one holiday this year. Not even a weekend away to Ballygobackwards. I know other people working full time who couldn't afford one either because we're squeezed with bills, mortgage, taxes etc. And we're single.

Rubylolz

Deleted User wrote: »

I can do 3 good holidays a year on the dole, it's not difficult :pac:

Likewise I'm interested to know how you manage this??? Feel like a mug, same as pervious poster I can hardly manage one holiday a year an thats working full time!

Frank Black

My wife earns quite a bit more than me, so marrying her was one of the more prudent financial decisions I've made.

drumswan

Emme wrote: »

I know other people working full time who couldn't afford one either because we're squeezed with bills, mortgage, taxes etc.

Theres your problem. Plenty of people go off travelling for months and years on end with peanuts in their pockets, its easy enough if you dont get caught up in the rat race.

It's handy enough when ya don't have a social life. :P I'm in my last year of college and live with my parents so I could do what everyone else does and piss what I have up against a wall or have experiences I'll remember forever. Over the summer I had basically nothing to live on and finished up owing out a lot of money. Also the holidays involve camping and staying on friends' sofas/floors and the like. If I was seeing someone and had to go halves on a hotel stay on a "proper" holiday a weekend a year would be all I could afford.

OnTheCouch

To answer the question very simply: yes. Every time I have had a girlfriend and bear in mind I would always go for ladies who offered to pay their own way, I found that I would end up spending more.

I think it is simply down to doing more things together, attending parties (often people hold dinner parties for other couples more so than singletons), eating out, cinema, trips to various places and so on. Even splitting the difference means you're going to be spending a lot more than if you were single and spent a lot of the time at home with no one to go places with.

The Corinthian

Firstly the amount of judgemental projection here is a bit breathtaking. Not everyone needs a relationship to be somehow fulfilled. Many are quite happy, if not more so, remaining single. Others, as Wibbs suggested, do 'need' to be in relationships and are happier settling down. Also, on a lesser note, there's been a propensity in posts to equate settling down into a relationship with marriage; the two are not synonymous.

So there appears to be a lot of judgement rather than analysis here where it comes to the subject, fuelled by how people have been programmed to believe what is expected of us.

Secondly, the opening thesis of this thread is flawed. Single life does not make you financially better off. Single parents are typically not 'better off'. A childless, married couple, both earning salaries, are financially better off than as two single people with the same salaries (due to the tax breaks associated with marriage). Actually, even a cohabiting couple, again with both earning salaries, are also financially better off as they pool their resources - there's not one but two paying the rent or mortgage, for example.

So it's not down to being single or not, but down to any dependants in the prospective relationship.

Once anyone has dependants, they become a financial drain and naturally will affect one's financial situation. It could be a child, a stay-at-home-mother/father, an unemployed husband/wife; all require that the previously 'single' person starts bankrolling for someone other than themselves. So ultimately, it's not down to being single or in a relationship, but the type of relationship you're in.

Finally, there's another, historically well-known, case that disproves the notion that being single is financially more advantageous, and that is 'marrying up'. If someone on a lower income, enters a relationship with someone on a higher income, then very often (proportional to the difference between their incomes) they will see their financial situation improve as a result of the relationship.

So as a caveat to the above point about dependants being the determining factor, whether your financial situation is affected positively or negatively is generally effected by whether you are the dependant or not and whether, even as a dependant, you too have dependants.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Finally, there's another, historically well-known, case that disproves the notion that being single is financially more advantageous, and that is 'marrying up'. If someone on a lower income, enters a relationship with someone on a higher income, then very often (proportional to the difference between their incomes) they will see their financial situation improve as a result of the relationship.

More women marry up than men do. Hypergamy is one word used to describe this.

Similarly when break-ups occur, last time I heard, 99% of those paying maintenance to their ex-spouses are men. Some of this can be to do with children but not all.

pwurple

Deleted User wrote: »

It's handy enough when ya don't have a social life. :P I'm in my last year of college and live with my parents.

Since when did full time students living with their parents qualify for the dole?

iptba wrote: »

last time I heard, 99% of those paying maintenance to their ex-spouses are men. Some of this can be to do with children but not all.

Last I heard 99% of statistics are made up on the spot. Spousal maintenance and child support are two different things.

The economies of scale happen when you live with someone else. Whatever gender that other person happens to be is irrelevant.