Does it cost your neighbor less at all? It costs exactly the same if your neighbor takes the same type of subscription. Only if your neighbor also officially wants to let his wife and children use it, there is an option that costs more, but not much more than if he had to pay the same subscription per person individually as you did.

Exactly, so the cost per person goes down.
For person A it costs €10, for person B it is €10, and if they start living together they can buy a season ticket for €15, so they both pay 2.50p a month. Just because they live together, while the service provided is the same.

And why is that good? Well, you could argue with that… but in my opinion that’s at least in part due to the fact that you’re always sharing physical products with your family. You also don’t have to buy a DVD or a game 4 times for two parents and two kids. Of course you can’t use those at the same time and that’s a digital advantage, but on the other hand you can’t officially lend it outside of your family what you can do with that physical movie or game so it’s a bit average.

You are confusing two things now. The discussion is purely about the number of concurrent streams.
With one subscription/account, you can start one broadcast. You can listen to this alone or with friends or family. This is the same for everyone and can actually be compared to physical products such as a DVD, a game, or even a bike or car. There is no discussion about that.

It is about when several people want to use the product at the same time. In the case of Netflix or Spotify, for example, that means simultaneously streaming content on another device. This is not possible with a single account, so multiple accounts are needed. However, when me and my boyfriend get a Netflix account, it will cost us the full amount. However, when someone lives together, this no longer costs those people the full amount (because: package discount) while they have their own account, profile, and unlimited streaming. And in the case of Netflix, the packages also increase the quality from HD to 4K.

This is just cruel. Going back to the example of a DVD or a game, we would also have to buy it twice (at full price) if it was played by two people on two machines. The same goes for the car example. Also within the family, you don’t suddenly get 25% off a second car because the car is already available at that address. This is absolutely irrelevant.

By the way, my experience is that as a single person it can be easier in other ways to be frugal with money. Childless entrants enjoy the most, of course, but these types of subscriptions are mainly aimed at families with children and the kids are incredibly expensive. I really do not envy the parents financially …

Of course babies are very expensive, we all agree on that.

I also mentioned in my first post that there should really be a different, cheaper rate for children. Just like children’s clothing, for example, is generally cheaper than adult clothing. I was only interested in adults taking advantage of this, and in some cases misusing it as well.

As a single person, you may actually have better control over expenses, but I don’t agree that would be cheaper. Just take the rent/mortgage that you have to pay yourself instead of sharing it. That’s hundreds of euros a month. Then there are other fixed costs, subscriptions (TV, internet, but also, say, newspaper) and, for example, groceries which are much more expensive in comparison. It is very normal in society to think from a family position and there is certainly something to be said for that. I just think the benefits, especially for parents who don’t already have kids, aren’t fair to single earners. I think there should be a discussion about that.