It's cheaper to be single!
Robert Powell hits the streets to get your take on whether having a partner is a pricey practice!
The financial benefit of finding love probably isn’t something you think about that often.
Yet as unromantic as it sounds, having a partner does change what you spend money on.
But does it change how much you spend? Or in other words, is it cheaper to be single or in a relationship?
Is it cheaper to be single or in a relationship?
According to figures from Santander, of the 1.6 million Brits who made finding a partner their 2011 New Year’s resolution, one in three of them expect their search to cost them an average of £724.
The stats also show that out of the people who aimed and succeeded in finding a partner last year, 11% said it had definitely cost them money while 9% said it had saved them money.
While most of the people I spoke to thought the initial dating part of a relationship was usually very expensive, a few believed that it would get cheaper the longer you stayed with a partner.
An issue one person brought up was living together.
Are housing costs cheaper if you’ve got a partner?
Most of the people I spoke to today thought that housing costs are cheaper if you have a partner – as you can split the rent or mortgage repayments.
But despite popular belief, couples who are not married or in a civil partnership are barely recognised by the law and have very few rights – even if they do live together.
If you live in a house that is owned or rented by your partner then you’ll have no right to stay in it if you do split up.
Likewise, if you only live with your partner and they die, you won’t automatically inherit anything from them.
Married couples and civil partners also receive certain tax breaks.
Should married couples and civil partners get tax breaks?
Married couples and civil partners who are both under 75 do not currently get any income tax breaks – but Prime Minister David Cameron has spoken of his plans to introduce such relief by 2015.
However there are two types of tax breaks that married couples and civil partners are eligible for.
Married couples or civil partners can transfer assets which are ordinarily subject to Capital Gains Tax between them without paying any tax.
And if you are married or in a civil partnership you are are exempt from paying Inheritance Tax on anything your partner leaves you if they die – and you can also use the remainder of their Inheritance Tax allowance to increase your threshold.
So if you are able to share tax allowances when married or in a civil partnership –would you also share a bank account?
Would you share bank accounts if you got married or were in a civil partnership?
Research from Norwich and Peterborough shows that 61% of Brits have had a joint account while in a serious relationship, with most of these people opening one to pay bills and keep track of their finances.
Of those Brits who have never held a joint account, one in four said they were too territorial over their money to share an account while 11% saw it as too much of a commitment.
It’s easy to get carried away and lose grip of your finances when you meet a new partner.
But this is probably more to do with your own attitude to money than the effect of being in a relationship.
After all, when cupid fires his bow he doesn’t usually ask to see your bank account details first.
More: How-to » Get married | Five silly blunders lovers make | Five things to do before you get married
Most Recent
Comments
-
I would never share a bank account ever. I don't care how much I loved someone. My money is mine. Whahaha! I know those Jimmy Choo's cost more than my Loakes or Grenson's, so get your own money pit. ;-) joking aside... I would have a seperate joint account one for bills etc, so x amount goes in from both parties and it is only used to pay bills nothing else, only for direct debits.
REPORT This comment has been reported. -
I can tell you though, if you get divorced, being single willl save you 10's of thousands! lol
REPORT This comment has been reported. -
I was left as a single parent although my children are now grown up. In the first year I benefitted by only having to pay one lot of Poll Tax, but when that was abolished, my Council Tax increased by 50%. Under the much reviled Maggie Thatcher, I had a Single Parent Tax Allowance as an equivalent to the Married Man's tax allowance, but Labour abolished it. They also reduced my Job Seeker's Allowance during the periods when i have been unemployed to take account of a very small widower's pension that I received from my wife's pension fund. I had nobody to provide a second income. When I was working (which was was most of the time), I was not eligible for Child Allowance because that is payable up to an income of £60,000 for a married couple, but only up to £40,000 for a single parent. I paid higher rate income tax on my single income, but a couple earning my salary divided between them would not have done so. They would also have had two personal tax allowance whereas I only had one. I did not even receive one full allowance because as a higher rate tax payer, interest on my savings was taxed at higher rate which was taken by reducing my tax allowance. A couple would have received both their tax allowances in full. As I have no partner, I will not be able to protect my children from Inheritance tax, so they will have their future living standards reduced. I also have to pay surcharges on hotel accomodation and got no reduction on the amount that I had to pay for my children's tuition fees, which was based on my previous year's income even when I was unemployed in the current year and my JSL did not even cover my Council Tax. As an involuntary single male parent, I was certainly not better off than if I had been married.
REPORT This comment has been reported.
Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature
18 September 2011