Why being single costs thousands more each year – and how it affects all of us

Published

10 months ago

February 14, 2025

admin

Valentine’s Day might be a gift-giving occasion your wallet could do without, but it’s thousands of pounds cheaper than being alone.

Being single costs £2,533 more a year, Sky News can reveal. Suddenly, that box of chocolates doesn’t seem so expensive.

Single people are forced to spend 22% more on rent or mortgages, council tax and energy, 28% more on food and 32% more on broadband and phones.

This is according to Hargreaves Lansdown analysis shared exclusively with Sky News, which found singletons have just £42 left at the end of the month – £341 less than couples.

Read all the latest Money news here

“They just don’t have that extra money, so they’re making these huge compromises in every bit of their life,” said Sarah Coles, head of personal finance at the leading investment firm.

“And people who are in couples are lulled into a false sense of security and don’t think they have to worry about it.”

But be it via divorce or bereavement, everyone becomes single again if they live long enough, she said.

A single tax?

“It didn’t even enter my brain,” said Robert Macdonald, 56, from Swansea, whose relationship ended eight months ago.

“Definitely living a single life is a lot more expensive and people who haven’t done it probably don’t understand that.”

The refuse collector said everyday essentials have become dearer now he’s unable to split the likes of broadband and phone bills.

Communication devices cost singles £828 a year on average, while each partner in a couple pays £628, the data showed.

“The renting market out there is ridiculous,” added Robert, who has become one of 8.4 million people in England and Wales living alone.

He spends 41% of his £1,700 monthly salary on a one-bed flat, 11 percentage points more than what is considered affordable.

The average rent for a one-bed was £726 in 2015 – now it’s £1,095, according to estate agent Hamptons.

And there’s no one to help shoulder the burden of heating it either.

“Frightening” is how Hazel, 71, from London, described the price of keeping warm since her husband passed away.

“The costs of gas in this country are shameful,” said Hazel, who chose not to publish her surname.

“For the most part, I dress in 25 layers and I don’t put my heating on.”

Essential housing costs – rent or a mortgage, council tax and fuel – set single people back £7,974 a year on average, whereas couples spend £6,215 each, according to Hargreaves Lansdown.

This £1,759 bill dwarfs the 25% council tax discount available to people living alone.

‘Extortionate’ food bills

Food offers no respite to singletons, who can’t necessarily take advantage of bulk-buy discounts or get through family packs before the produce expires.

Steph, 30, from London, who chose not to publish her surname, said her weekly shop cost her £20 in 2015 – now it’s an “extortionate” £50, despite cutting out meat and fish to save money.

“In the past couple of years, being single is just so much more difficult than it used to be,” she said.

“I feel like I’m a bit forgotten.”

Food costs single people £574 more a year than each person in a couple.

Holidays are no break

The single tax doesn’t stop at the border.

Since her husband Hugh died, Hazel has continued to take the cruises they once shared together to escape the loneliness at home.

But she is often forced to pay a single-occupancy fee, a supplement that doubles the cost of a room, charging her the same amount as if Hugh were there.

“It’s fiendish,” the former travel agent said.

“Literally what I pay is what people next door pay for two of them. It’s horrible – and that’s the same for every single hotel.”

Death, love and savings

With higher outgoings and one income, singles find it more difficult to save for a house deposit – which they have to fork out for alone.

Lenders also typically consider a mortgage between four and five times a household’s annual salary, putting many properties out of reach for single people.

This can mean they’re left paying rent into retirement when couples have paid off their mortgage.

“It’s a very difficult situation for single people,” said Hargreaves Lansdown’s Sarah.

“You’re going to have to build a massive pension or you’re going to have to buy.”

Just 20% of people with a mortgage live alone, according to Hamptons, and building a “massive pension” is just not an option for people like Lisa McQuoid, 44, from Colchester.

Raising her 15-year-old son on one income – £1,300 a month plus £1,000 Universal Credit – has left the single mum unable to save.

“There’s no chance of me getting on the property ladder unless I find a boyfriend or my parents die,” said Lisa, who pays £950 a month in rent for the cheapest two-bed she could find.

“I can’t see life improving that much financially, you feel like you have to be in a couple.”

The average deposit in the UK is £24,543, Hamptons says, which would take a single person 11 years to raise if they put aside £185 a month.

Retirement

“Throughout retirement, the number of other people living on their own increases,” said Simon Sarkar, head of research at the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association.

“It is something that is widespread, that people do face these changes in circumstances that we all should really think about.”

The association estimates it costs singles £31,300 a year to enjoy a moderate living standard in retirement, compared to £21,550 per person in a couple.

Yet less than a third (31%) of singles are on track with their pension savings, compared to almost half of couples (44%), according to Hargreaves Lansdown.

Often overlooked are the costs of physical and health needs in older age, Simon said.

Singles may have to buy in services that a partner would otherwise help provide, from gardening and DIY to personal care.

“Because it’s not in your face, you might think that you’re getting by, but the lack of long-term resilience is a big deal,” said Ms Coles.

Emergency funds

The financial resilience of single people is tested throughout their lives, with 46% of them having failed to save enough to cover three months of essential spending, compared to 16% of couples.

It makes it harder to absorb the financial hits dished out by life’s unwanted surprises.

When Lisa first answered the phone to Sky News, she had just parked a car that broke down the week before, costing her £250.

When Robert picked up, he asked if the gas man was on the other end of the line, who was scheduled to fix his boiler for £170.

“Again, there you go, if two people were here it would be cheaper,” he said.

Business

Hundreds of jobs at risk as LEON moves to cut unprofitable restaurants

Published

14 hours ago

December 10, 2025

admin

Hundreds of jobs at risk as LEON moves to cut unprofitable restaurants

The fast food chain LEON has taken a swipe at “unsustainable taxes” while moving to secure its future through the appointment of an administrator, leaving hundreds of jobs at risk.

The loss-making company, bought back from Asda by its co-founder John Vincent in October, said it had begun a process that aimed to bring forward the closure of unprofitable sites. It was to form part of a turnaround plan to restore the brand to its roots around natural foods.

It was unclear at this stage how many of its 71 restaurants – 44 of them directly owned – and approximately 1,100 staff would be affected by the plans for the so-called Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).

Money latest: Big rise in pension drawdowns

“The restructuring will involve the closure of several of LEON’s restaurants and a number of job losses”, a statement said.

“The company has created a programme to support anyone made redundant.”

It added: “LEON and Quantuma intend to spend the next few weeks discussing the plans with its landlords and laying out options for the future of the Company.

“LEON then plans to emerge from administration as a leaner business that can return to its founding values and principles more easily.

“In the meantime, all the group’s restaurants remain open, serving customers as usual. The LEON grocery business will not be affected in any way by the CVA.”

Mr Vincent said. “If you look at the performance of LEON’s peers, you will see that everyone is facing challenges – companies are reporting significant losses due to working patterns and increasingly unsustainable taxes.”

Mr Vincent sold the chain to Asda in 2021 for £100m but it struggled, like rivals, to make headway after the pandemic and cost of living crisis that followed the public health emergency.

The hospitality sector has taken aim at the chancellor’s business rates adjustments alongside heightened employer national insurance contributions and minimum wage levels, accusing the government of placing jobs and businesses in further peril.

Business

Revenues of water company to be cut by regulator Ofwat

Published

14 hours ago

December 10, 2025

admin

Revenues of water company to be cut by regulator Ofwat

The UK’s biggest water supplier has been dealt another blow as the regulator decided to reduce its income.

Thames Water, which supplies 16 million people in England, has been told by the watchdog Ofwat its revenues will be cut by more than £187m.

It comes as the utility struggles under a £17.6bn debt pile and the government has lined up insolvency practitioners for its potential collapse.

Money blog: Nine-year-old set up Christmas tree business to pay for university

Overall, water firms face a sector-wide revenue reduction of nearly £309m as a result of Ofwat’s determination. Thames Water’s £187.1m cut is the largest revenue reduction.

This will take effect from next year and up to 2030 as part of water companies’ regulator-approved five-year spending and investment plans.

The downward revenue revision has been made as Ofwat believes the companies will perform better than first thought and therefore require less money.

Better financial performance is ultimately good news for customers.

The change published on Wednesday is a technical update; the initial revenue projections published in December 2024 were based on projected financial performance but after financial results were published in the summer and Ofwat was able to apply these figures.

Thames Water and industry body Water UK have been contacted for comment.

Business

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

Published

14 hours ago

December 10, 2025

admin

Why is Warner Bros for sale, what are the controversial bids – and how is Trump involved?

A huge takeover that would rock the entertainment industry looks imminent, with Netflix and Paramount fighting over Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).

Streaming giant Netflix announced it had agreed a $72bn (£54bn) deal for WBD’s film and TV studios on 5 December, only for Paramount to sweep in with a $108.4bn (£81bn) bid several days later.

The takeover saga isn’t far removed from a Hollywood plot; with multi-billionaires negotiating in boardrooms, politicians on all sides expressing their fears for the public and the US president looming large, expected to play a significant role.

“Whichever way this deal goes, it will certainly be one of the biggest media deals in history. It will shake up the established TV and film norms and will have global implications,” Sky News’ US correspondent Martha Kelner said on the Trump 100 podcast.

So what do we know about the bids, why are they controversial – and how is Donald Trump involved?

Why is Warner Bros up for sale?

WBD’s board first announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October after a summer of hushed speculation.

Back in June, WBD announced its plan to split into two companies: one for its TV, film studios, and HBO Max streaming services, and one for the Discovery element of the business, primarily comprising legacy TV channels that air cartoons, news, and sports.

It came amid the cable industry’s continued struggles at the hands of streaming services, and CEO David Zaslav suggested splitting into two companies would give WBD’s brands the “sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today’s evolving media landscape”.

The company’s long-term strategic initiatives have also been stifled by its estimated $35bn of debt. This wasn’t helped by the WarnerMedia and Discovery merger in 2022, which led to it becoming Warner Bros Discovery.

What we know about the bids

The $72bn bid from Netflix is for the first division of the business, which would give it the rights to worldwide hits like the Harry Potter and Game of Thrones franchises – and Warner Bros’ extensive back catalogue of movies.

If the deal were to happen, it would not be finalised until the split is complete, and Discovery Global, including channels like CNN, will not form part of the merger.

Paramount’s $108.4bn offer is what’s known as a hostile bid. This means it went directly to shareholders with a cash offer for the entirety of the company, asking them to reject the deal with Netflix.

This deal would involve rival US news channels CBS and CNN being brought under the same parent company.

Netflix’s cash and stock deal is valued at $27.75 (£20.80) per Warner share, giving it a total enterprise value of $82.7bn (£62bn), including debt.

But Paramount says its deal will pay $30 (£22.50) cash per share, representing $18bn (£13.5bn) more in cash than its rivals are offering.

Paramount claims to have tried several times to bid for WBD through its board, but said it launched the hostile bid after hearing of Netflix’s offer because the board had “never engaged meaningfully”.

Why are politicians and experts concerned?

The US government will have a big say on who ultimately buys WBD, as Paramount and Netflix will likely face the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, a federal agency which scrutinises business deals to ensure fair competition.

Republicans and Democrats have voiced concerns over the potential monopolisation of streaming and the impact it would have on cinemas if Netflix – already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share – were to take over WBD.

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren said the deal “would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market – threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk”.

Similarly, Representative Pramila Jayapal, who co-chairs the House Monopoly Busters Caucus, called the deal a “nightmare,” adding: “It would mean more price hikes, ads, and cookie-cutter content, less creative control for artists, and lower pay for workers.”

Netflix’s business model of prioritising streaming over cinemas has caused consternation in Hollywood.

The screen actors union SAG-AFTRA said the merger “raises many serious questions” for actors, while the Directors Guild of America said it also had “concerns”.

Experts suggest there’s less of a concern with the Paramount deal when it comes to a streaming monopoly, because its Paramount+ service is smaller and has less of an international footprint than Netflix.

How is Trump relevant?

After Netflix announced its bid, the president said of its path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision.”

And while Mr Trump himself will not be directly involved, he appointed those in the DOJ Antitrust Division, and they have the authority to block or challenge takeovers.

However, his potential influence isn’t sitting well with some experts due to his ties with key players on the Paramount side.

Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire (and world’s second-richest man) Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.

Additionally, Affinity Partners, an investment firm run by Mr Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, would be investing in the deal.

Also participating would be funds controlled by the governments of three unnamed Persian Gulf countries, widely reported as Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar – countries the Trump family company has struck deals with this year.

Critics of the Trump’s administration has accused it of being transactional, with the president known to hold grudges over those who are critical of him, however, Mr Trump told reporters on 8 December that he has not spoken with Mr Kushner about WBD, adding that neither Netflix nor Paramount “are friends of mine”.

John Mayo, an antitrust expert at Georgetown University, suggested the scrutiny by the Antitrust Division would be serious whichever offer is approved by shareholders, and that he thinks experts there will keep partisanship out of their decisions despite the politically charged atmosphere.

What happens next?

WBD must now advise shareholders whether Paramount’s offer constitutes a superior offer by 22 December.

If the company decides that Paramount’s offer is superior, Netflix would have the opportunity to match or beat it.

WBD would have to pay Netflix a termination fee of $2.8bn (£2.10bn) if it decides to scrap the deal.

Shareholders have until 8 January 2026 to vote on Paramount’s offer.