What is most cost effective? Make your stance for either side!
2007-12-04 17:34:36 · 22 answers · asked by Lola 2 in Family & Relationships ➔ Singles & Dating
Oh no...I am not thinking about getting married. I was just wondering because I have some married friends and they are always saying they are broke and I just wonder how if they both work making good money and have no kids.
2007-12-04 18:09:19 · update #1
It is cheaper to be married until you have children. There are so many economic benefits for couples and families, plus the ability to share the cost of things. Consequently, a lot of things will seem almost half as expensive. However, when you have children, the equation is all messed up, and you'd be better of single.
2007-12-04 17:38:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
well, most cases, being single would be cheaper.
here's the deal
being single, your cash is basically used on numerouse dating expenses, expensive cloths, and whatever your personal interests are becasue you have nobody else to tell you you're spending a lot. but soon after, when your old, you loose interest in all those things and end up just staying practically idle with you money, thus saving more.
but when you're married, in the long run, you have your wedding, kids school, more mouths to feed, family vacations, basically your money goes to the ones you love. this goes on till your kids grow up and move out of the house, which would be around 18-X years, matters on the number of kids
2007-12-04 17:41:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
When you make an initial survey you will find that being single is cost effective..but no
If you are married you are getting someone with whom you could share your private feelings..
Hiring a person for this purpose is very costly..
Marriage makes an unseen bond between you and your spouse....which is worth the cost
Problems in such a life makes you a better person everyday..
Think and calculate how cost effective is a married life?
2007-12-04 17:40:00 · answer #3 · answered by Stephen Paul 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it is cheape to be single, no kids. although if the husband and wife both work and share thingsand the bills it is cheaper.plus kids are a tax deduction. insurance companies give you discounts if you're married. divorce isn't cheap though. ifu get married makeure u too can work together. it's a two way street.
2007-12-04 17:48:03 · answer #4 · answered by Ben Z 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
well.. it is more cost effective to be married.. because then all people normally live with eachother.. which saves money on housing.. which is the largest cost in income normally.. but it is not always cheaper if person you marry outspends you.
2007-12-04 17:42:31 · answer #5 · answered by David 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you are concerned with rent, utilities etc. then obviously it is cheaper for two to live together. But when you consider you might also need 2 autos with payments, gasoline, more health insurance, food, clothing, entertainment, etc...it starts to mount up. But if you have two incomes it should in the end be less expensive for two people to live together.
2007-12-04 17:39:13 · answer #6 · answered by ScSpec 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
really depends on jobs and salaries...
personally, i think it'd be cheaper to be single. (i live off my parents and sallie mae, though...) but i am single, and work odd jobs here and there to help out.
i think married people have more to pay for... i mean, if kids are involved, or if they have to save for this or that. wheras, when youre single, you take care of yourself, you dont have to worry about taking care of another person too, ya know?
im living with my bf, who is also living off of sallie mae, and i budgeted better then he did and ive been helping him out lately.
when i lived alone, i was less maintence, i could live off of cheap food and be happy, i didnt use as much electricity (he never turns of his computer or lights) and he uses more water then me. since he's moved in, ive gotten used to (slightly) better food and my bills are higher. but he's not adding an income right now...
so yeah, thats my experience... it really depends on the person, how theyre used to living, how they budget, and how much money they make/contribute
my best friend lives with her bf, and theyve combined thier finances and bicker a lot about what they spend. he just spent like 60 bucks on some tangent thing in a gaming realm and she was P*SSED.
as for the dating topic people have been bringing up... it really depends on how you date. maybe its just cuz im a girl, but i dont feel like i spend that much on dating... i dont do a lot of bar hopping, and didnt even when i was single. and im fine with a date that just rents a movie and orders pizza. so i dont think the dating thing is as big a factor as others are making it out to be
2007-12-04 17:46:36 · answer #7 · answered by MRose 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
For me it was cheaper to be single. Mostly because my wife's income is less than mine. But now it's cheaper to stay married than to go back to being single.
But I really hope this isn't your deciding factor. (For the sake of your partner.)
2007-12-04 17:39:08 · answer #8 · answered by BigBrain 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am single but it is cheaper to live married , sharing expences two incomes if the other one works.....
2007-12-04 17:38:37 · answer #9 · answered by Confused 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it is cheaper to be single. You don't have to share your money with anyone and can buy what you please. You may not have two incomes unless you were married, but then you don't have all the headaches that go along with that. The He pay/She pay deal.
2007-12-04 17:38:48 · answer #10 · answered by PurplePeace 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋