the secret advantage
by rantywoman
I told myself I wouldn’t immediately begin dreaming of retirement after starting back to work, but here I am, dreaming again. I suppose, like the protagonist in Lolly Willowes, I want to stop having to do, do, do.
Helpful information here:
http://www.moneysense.ca/retire/going-it-alone-retirement-for-singles
To answer Diane’s question, no, you can’t just take the numbers for couples and divide by two. That’s because singles don’t have the same opportunities to share costs for things like accommodation, vehicles, and running a household. The fact is, singles will have to save more for retirement on a per-person basis than retirees who can split the load with a partner.
But before you get too depressed, many singles do have a secret advantage that tends to level the playing field. If they’re not raising children, they have far more opportunities to save during their 30s and 40s, when couples are typically up to their necks in dirty diapers, daycare costs and monster mortgages.
thebitterbabe 
Indeed, but in some countries any benefit singles have in their 30s and 40s is swallowed up by tax – a single person’s tax free allowance (amount of salary allowed before tax) is half that of a married person. I know children are expensive and I wish parents all the best but in my opinion single people of all ages are worse off economically than those who are married. If one is single by choice then fair enough but it bites harder if you’re not single by choice.
Society is parent-centric to the core. In addition to child benefit and maternity leave (entitlements for both paid and unpaid for the mother), parents also receive non tangibles such as affirmation, social status, and the love of children (who are programmed innately to love their parents). Single childless people don’t receive any of these things, or anything to compensate for them, yet we are required to subsidize the tangible ones.
NB: Lest I be accused of “hating children” or being “resentful” they I don’t have them, I speak as someone who loves children and is content with not having them, but detests parent-centricism.
Ha! they only love you till they grow up and then they continuously point out your failings to you. or maybe that’s just me 🙂
When you consider how it is often left to the single and childless to care for elderly parents (and they often do it willingly) it seems unfair that mothers get maternity leave and child benefit while there is no such thing for someone who has to take time off work to care for elderly parents. This happens in middle age and if a person leaves the workforce at this point for any period of time they may find it impossible to enter the workforce again. If they do re-enter they may have to work for considerably less than before. If a carer has a spouse the economic blow is lessened somewhat, but for a single person the economic blow can be catastrophic.
Agreed.
Elle,
Ireland’s employment law and social welfare system offers carers leave and benefit.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/carers_leave_from_employment.html
Sinead, I was wrong about carer’s leave but carer’s benefit is means tested. As far as I know maternity benefit is not.
I am not sure if “means tested” takes into account the assets of the carer or person who has to be cared for. Eitherways it seems unfair.