To stay as single as a ladybug or pursue a lovey-dovey relationship, that is the question. How will the ladybug fare with the singles tax?
[Cindy is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Commerce and Arts at Monash University. She sports great enthusiasm towards uncovering the vast landscape of concepts found within the economics field and deciphering their correlation with society’s quality of living standards. Cindy is keen to share her knowledge with other like-minded individuals through the power of narration.]
Picture this scene: you’re a fresh graduate student transitioning from the university environment and finally entering the workforce, obviously from the fruits of your labour. But, before you can officially start your career, you’ll naturally consider various factors – will you decide to move out from your family home to live closer to the worksite, are you going to be living alone or will you relocate into a share-house with roommates, and how exactly will you budget for all these arising expenses with your entry-level salary?
In the end, you settle on leaving the main residence in search of independence and freedom. What better way to experience this so-called ‘independence’ than to live alone, or rather notoriously known as the ‘Single Income, No Kids’ or SINKer lifestyle.
Not a bad choice, right?
The unfortunate case for SINKers is that there are many opportunity costs associated with their conduct, with the most infamous one being the singles tax. This certainly isn’t a new concept that has recently originated, but it has been trending extensively during the midst and height of the cost-of-living crisis.
With single-person households projecting to account for 28% of all households in 2046, and with many paying an estimated 10-15% more than couples for everyday expenses [1], these worrying statistics raise the question:
Who are the most vulnerable Australians and what exactly is being done to address this problem?
Who is this really affecting?
Obviously, this is impacting the singletons of society (no shocker, it’s in the name!), but you might be surprised to know there is a subset of the population that this predominantly affects:
Women aged 35-44 and men aged 25-34 make up the bulk of the homelessness statistics in Australia [1].
For many women in this bracket, they have been burdened by the numerous societal expectations placed on them – from the gender pay gap and expected career breaks to undertake the role of a housewife, the accumulation of these circumstances has led to a lower retirement savings baseline for these ladies [2].
Men, on the other hand, face the challenges of equal access to ‘family-oriented subsidies and workplace flexibility’. With the expectation of them to foot the bill for dating and socialising events [2], males in this category are also feeling the pressure on their wallets.
As both genders are presented with their unique challenges, it’s no wonder that there is a trend of individuals seeking solidarity, instead. However, this means they do not benefit from economies of scale as a couple would, and consequently are forking more cash in exchange for their liberation. This explains why the homelessness data is indisputably extreme for these two groups as they strain to finance the singles tax.
Although the demographics above are the ones most overwhelmed, the reality is everyone is suffering just as brutally: single-income families struggle to compete for housing applications, university students struggle to put food on the table, the elderly struggle to pay for their healthcare costs. The better question at this point is, who isn’t struggling?
Is there anything really happening?
In 2014, KPMG reported that if the current tax system were to stay stagnant with the government rejecting to cut levies, then single people living on a $70,000 salary ‘would face a 60% increase in duties’ in 2024 [1].
With the cost-of-living crisis exacerbating this concern, there has been substantial discussions expressing the necessity for a tax reform. The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), an organisation committed to supporting the voices of those affected by poverty and inequality, releases annual publications regarding the need for a ‘long-term tax reform’.
In their 2025 edition, ACOSS covered the current state of the housing market and designed recommendations to address the CGT discount and negative gearing loopholes, with the goal of making housing more affordable for low-income households, and subsequently, SINKers too [3].
Additionally, CPA Australia published a research paper titled ‘Towards Better Tax Policy and Tax Reform’ in 2024 and a podcast named ‘How Tax Reform Can Transform Australia’s Economic Future’ in 2025 [4, 5]. They explain how the processes of a restructure should benefit economic growth, levy compliance, and lead to a more sustainable future.
After intensive dialogue about this topic, the Department of Treasury (DTF) delivered tax cuts to Australians on 1 July 2024; the objective being to ‘ease cost-of-living pressures for middle Australia, and support women and the economy’ [6]. With the DFT’s intention of alleviating hardship for SINKers, women, and middle-to-low-income families – the precise cohort of people that are distressed by this economy’s tax system – this is a step in the right direction.
However, as Dr Adrian Sawyer states, ‘tax reform [should be] a process, rather than [a proposal of] particular policies’ [4]. DTF’s duties reduction shouldn’t be treated simply as a solitary scenario but be part of a long-withstanding journey of tax reformation… a perpetual work in progress project, if you will!
What is your answer?
After uncovering the truths associated with SINKers regarding the several drawbacks and obstacles the singles tax has on other socio-economic disciplines, a grim reality has been discovered. In addition to unpacking the conversations surrounding the tax system in Australia, there is all but one question remaining.
Will you SINK or DINK?
Footnotes
[1] Dean, L. (2025, February 4). The ‘singles tax’ stings, but can you put a price on happiness? Australian Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/wealth/personal-finance/the-singles-tax-stings-but-can-you-put-a-price-on-happiness-20250129-p5l83c
[2] Bubb, A., & Sinclair, S. (2025, January 27). The ‘singles tax’ means you often pay more for going it alone. Here’s how it works. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-singles-tax-means-you-often-pay-more-for-going-it-alone-heres-how-it-works-247578 [3] Davidson, P., & Hall, J. (2025). Homes for living, not wealth creation: Tax and expenditure reforms to improve housing affordability and equity. ACOSS. https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/acoss-housing-tax-policy-paper25-1.pdf [4] Sawyer, A. (2024). Towards better tax policy and tax reform. CPA Australia. https://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/-/media/project/cpa/corporate/documents/tools-and-resources/taxation/towards-better-tax-policy-and-tax-reform_v1.pdf?rev=010f379de2cd422f832e6fda97896bb2[5] Freeland, C. (Host). (2025, January 2). With interest [Audio podcast episode]. In How tax reform can transform Australia’s economic future. CPA Australia. https://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/tools-and-resources/podcasts/business-strategies/how-tax-reform-transform-australias-economic-future [6] Department of Treasury and Finance. (2024). Tax cuts to help Australians with the cost of living. Department of Treasury and Finance. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-01/tax-cuts-government-fact-sheet.pdf
