the quantifiable burden of being single

I suppose you can say being single isn't easy. I think from many different aspects it's hard to specify exactly what's so difficult about it...after all it is a person's natural state for most of growing up. But i think a person always wants to have someone else to share in life's joys and struggles. There seems to be a certain burden of being single. But I will be the first to admit...I'm absolutely horrible at talking about the feelings and all that stuff. I'm more of a numbers person, so I like things I can quantify. For the feelings stuff, maybe check out someone else's blog. Instead, we're going to look at singleness from a societal point of view. So today's topic isn't going to be matters of the heart, where feelings and stuff rule. We're going to look at quantifiable aspects, and see where society's bias is pitted against the single person.

Recently I came across an article in the atlantic that detailed the costs of being single in this country. The point of the article was to spell out the bias that is generally given toward married couples. The numbers did not look pretty for a single guy in his latter-twenties. Essentially, the point of the article was to say that society in general is geared in favor of married couples, which I can understand. After all, I believe that God created marriage as something special, and I believe that marriage is sacred and something society should do to protect. I don’t know if I can agree with apportioning societal benefits toward married folks that single people like me are blocked from receiving. We’ll call this the single tax.

The single tax is levied across the board. It’s a well-documented fact that there are certain income tax benefits to being married. A married person filing jointly will pay less than a single person. But it’s not just income tax related. Hotel rooms are cheaper when it’s for couples than for individuals in a single room. Vacation packages are cheaper for two, healthcare is cheaper for dependents, even Costco memberships come in twos (btw they specify that it’s for couples or family). So what’s a single guy to do? We pay more for that vacation, we dole out more for health insurance, and we get that Costco membership for two (even though it’s for one). And of course, we file individually on our tax return and pay more than our married counterparts. Yes, this is the single tax that society levies on regular hardworking single folks like me.

Now, we get to the fun part. I remember blogging about the veil of ignorance a while back. The implication is that we must block out our own socio-economic standing when designing any kind of social structure. Basically, John Rawls says that in order to get social equality, one must don a veil of ignorance. So let’s apply that principle here: imagine you are not yet born – you have no idea whether you will be married, or if you are destined to be single for life – now, design a social structure based on that view.

Now let’s look at it from a different point of view. Let’s look at the downstream impacts of societal benefits given to married individuals. Instead of calling it a single tax, let’s view the societal benefits of marriage as marriage incentives. Should society be in a position to dole out marriage incentives? Marriage should be a sacred thing, one created by God between a man and a woman who love each other. Does incentivizing marriage achieve that? I would think no. I think getting married for the wrong reasons is destructive, and we shouldn’t do anything to encourage marrying for wrong reasons. As a single person, I think I will be ready to marry when the time is right, and there shouldn’t be any outside factors even remotely coming into play. I certainly shouldn’t be penalized for taking longer to marry than another person.

Having societal benefits for married couples and a corresponding penalty for being single can be viewed as downright discriminatory. Granted many people will marry, but they don’t all do it at the same age and some don’t marry at all. Are they destined to pay more for their singleness? I know I may not be persuading many people with this argument, but I leave you with this parting observation. I am 5’10”, and according to studies, the average American male stands at 5’9½”. Suppose we are feeling a bit generous and offer a tax break to all males that are 5’8” and over. You may eventually get to 5’8”, and at that point you will get the tax break. If you never reach 5’8”, well, that sucks i suppose. Doesn't seem fair does it?