Date-flation meets the ‘single’s tax’ debate, reshaping advice conversations

As Valentine’s Day spending creeps into budgeting season, two new reports are putting relationship status squarely on the financial planning map — and not just as a lifestyle footnote.

One set of data spotlights the accelerating price tag of dating itself; the other reframes the economics of living solo, suggesting the “singles tax” is real for some but far from the whole story.

From BMO’s Real Financial Progress Index, the headline number is straightforward: the average “all-in” date now costs $189 in the US, up 12.5% from $168 last year, including extras like grooming and gas. Over the past 12 months, respondents said they spent an average of $2,323 on dates.

But the planning implications split quickly depending on whether a client is unattached or partnered.

BMO found that rising costs are changing behavior with half of respondents saying they’ve cut back on dates or chosen cheaper activities, while the average number of dates fell to about 12 from roughly 14 a year earlier. Among singles, cost fatigue is pronounced with 47% stating that dating simply isn’t financially worth it.

Meanwhile, Ally Bank’s report, “The Cost of Singledom,” adds a different dimension, that singledom may be financially harder in practice, but it isn’t always experienced that way emotionally or psychologically.

While 61% of singles say they cover all their expenses on their own, only 33% interpret that as a “singles tax,” with many describing solo responsibility as empowering and aligned with personal values.

Ally’s findings show the strain beneath the confidence though with singles more likely than coupled respondents to report anxiety (34% vs. 29%), overwhelm (30% vs. 26%) and worry (29% vs. 26%). Three-quarters of singles said they worry about money at least several times a year, compared with 69% of those in a relationship.

For those in committed relationships, BMO’s survey points to a sharp increase in financial reliance with 58% of respondents in serious relationships saying they’re financially dependent on their significant other, up from 40% a year earlier. At the same time, 65% of those in serious relationships said they try to split costs evenly.

Ally’s report helps explain why cost-sharing can help. Adults who are married or in a committed relationship are nearly three times as likely to report household income of $100,000 or more and about twice as likely to have at least $50,000 in household savings compared with singles, giving partnered households more flexibility when unexpected expenses arise. But Ally’s findings caution that higher household resources don’t automatically translate into lower stress, underscoring the importance of planning and communication regardless of relationship status.

BMO described a widening split in how Americans are managing the higher cost of going out: more people are landing at the extremes, either spending nothing on a typical date or spending $300+ which is a pattern the report likens to a “K-shaped” dating economy.

Ally also found clear differences in financial priorities. Adults in relationships were more likely to focus on longer-term, family-oriented goals, including saving for retirement (54% compared with 35% of singles) and saving for children’s education (26% versus 9%). Singles, by contrast, were more likely to prioritize near-term, individual goals, such as increasing income (39% versus 33%).