New study shows nearly 2 in 3 Americans think frugality is an attractive trait
A survey found that a majority of Americans (56%) said using a coupon is perfectly acceptable, and a further 61% said 'frugality' is an attractive trait in a partner.
In a world of tariffs, economic uncertainty, and inflation, it seems being a deal maker is far from a dealbreaker when it comes to what's attractive in a potential partner — over a quarter (28%) of the 2,000 polled went as far as to say frugality is 'sexy.'
And, flashing the cash may well be out. More than half of the respondents (56%) have been turned off by a date trying to show off with money.
5 A survey found that a majority of Americans (56%) said using a coupon is perfectly acceptable, and a further 61% said 'frugality' is an attractive trait in a partner.
cherryandbees – stock.adobe.com
The survey conducted by Talker Research on behalf of TopCashback also pinpointed that when paying for a first date, $125 is the max people are comfortable spending before feeling it's too much.
Results showed there's no stigma or offense taken not only if a date uses a coupon, but also if they use other means to save money, like redeeming points or going for drinks at happy hour.
In fact, 37% said they'd be impressed if a date used reward points to pay for a date, specifically.
When it comes to splitting the bill, almost half (48%) are happy to do this.
5 The survey also shows that 37% said they'd be impressed if a date used reward points, and 48% are comfortable splitting the bill.
zorandim75 – stock.adobe.com
However, women are much less likely than men to want a second date if the bill was split, with just a third of women (32%) happy to meet up again versus 70% of men.
'The data shows today's daters aren't looking to be swept off their feet by spending,' said Destiny Chatman, consumer expert for TopCashback. 'Thoughtful financial choices like using a coupon or redeeming cash back show planning, not penny-pinching. In this economy, frugality isn't just practical. It's an attractive sign of long-term potential.'
The survey examined whether frugality is increasingly on the minds of single Americans, with results indicating that to be the case.
Over half (60%) of those currently on the dating market said they are likely to date someone who frequently looks for deals.
5 The survey also pinpointed that when paying for a first date, $125 is the max people are comfortable spending before feeling it's too much.
The study also showed that the current economic climate is the main reason single people are finding a budget-conscious partner more attractive.
When asked how new this addition to their dating criteria is, more than half (55%) said it's become more important now than in the last five years.
Seventy percent of respondents said there is a clear difference between being frugal and being cheap.
5 Over half (60%) of those currently on the dating market said they are likely to date someone who frequently looks for deals.
irissca – stock.adobe.com
Thirty-four percent said being 'cheap' is 'when someone avoids basic spending, like tipping,' and 25% agreed being 'cheap' is 'when it affects others negatively.'
It's clear that establishing those definitions and talking about financial perspectives with a prospective partner is important — 83% of married respondents said that having similar approaches to money was a key factor for them in finding their person.
'We're seeing a dynamic shift in dating culture,' added Chatman. 'People aren't just watching how you treat the waiter, they're watching how you treat your wallet. Being smart with money isn't about cutting corners; it's about showing care, confidence, and long-term thinking, which is exactly what today's singles are looking for.'
5 The study also showed that the current economic climate is the main reason single people are finding a budget-conscious partner more attractive.
irissca – stock.adobe.com
SIGNS YOU'RE BEING CHEAP INSTEAD OF FRUGAL
When someone avoids basic spending (e.g., tipping, quality items) (34%)
When it affects others negatively (25%)
When it affects the individual negatively (13%)
When someone refuses to spend on experiences (12%)
Survey methodology:
Talker Research surveyed 2,000 Americans; the survey was commissioned by TopCashback and administered and conducted online by Talker Research between April 17 – April 21, 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
27 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows Countries That Don't Allow Dual Citizenship
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Data mapped by Newsweek shows which countries do not allow dual citizenship. Why It Matters A recent Harris Poll survey revealed that 42 percent of U.S. adults have thought about or intend to move abroad to enhance their lifestyle or financial well-being. This figure climbs to 63 percent among Gen Z adults and 52 percent among millennials. What To Know According to Henley & Partners—a U.K.-based investment migration consultancy—at least 39 countries do not permit dual citizenship. In Africa, these include Botswana, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Eswatini, Guinea, Libya, Mauritania, Senegal, Tanzania, and Congo. In the Americas, Cuba and Suriname do not allow dual citizenship; in Europe, these include Andorra, Estonia, Monaco, and San Marino. As for Asia, Henley & Partners says countries that prohibit dual citizenship include: Azerbaijan Bhutan Brunei China India Indonesia Iran Japan Kazakhstan Kuwait Laos Malaysia Myanmar Nepal North Korea Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Singapore Uzbekistan Countries that ban dual citizenship typically do so to preserve national identity, ensure loyalty, and avoid legal complications, Henley & Partners said. Key reasons include concerns over divided allegiance, potential security risks (like military conflicts or espionage), legal complexities related to taxation and rights, and fears that dual nationality may dilute cultural or political cohesion. Notable examples include China, India, and Singapore. China fully bans dual citizenship, citing the importance of loyalty and safeguarding national unity. India disallows it to maintain legal and administrative clarity, offering Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) status instead, which grants limited privileges without full citizenship. Singapore upholds a firm one-citizenship rule, stressing national allegiance and requiring proof of renunciation of other citizenships before granting naturalization, the firm said. What People Are Saying Tim Osiecki, director of thought leadership and trends at The Harris Poll, previously told Newsweek: "For most of modern history, the American Dream was rooted in one place: America. But that's shifting," "While dual citizenship used to be reserved for retirees, the wealthy, or those with strong family ties abroad, it's now a growing goal for middle-class Americans who want more control over their future," he said. "It marks a real mindset shift—less about pledging allegiance to one nation, more about staying agile in a world that feels increasingly unstable." What Happens Next "This isn't about a mass migration overnight—but we are at a tipping point," Osiecki said previously. "One in five younger Americans say they're seriously considering moving abroad, and that kind of intent matters. So, while it may not be an exodus yet, it's certainly a movement, and it speaks volumes about how people are feeling about life in the U.S. right now," he said. "The American Dream may not be ending—it could simply be relocating."
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Senate marches toward passing Trump's $9B clawback bill after dramatic late-night votes
Late-night dramatics and surprise defections capped off the push to advance President Donald Trump's multibillion-dollar clawback package through procedural hurdles, but now lawmakers are nearing the finish line. Lawmakers cruised through hours of debate on Trump's $9 billion rescissions package Wednesday morning and are now entering into another vote-a-rama, where both sides of the aisle can offer an unlimited number of amendments to the package. At stake are clawbacks that would yank back congressionally approved funding for foreign aid programs and public broadcasting, which Senate Democrats, and some Republicans, have admonished. The president's rescissions package proposed cutting just shy of $8 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and over $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the government-backed funding arm for NPR and PBS. Republicans have broadly lauded the targets, arguing that they are scraping back funding for "woke" programs that do little more than to gird the government's spending addiction. Like the preceding debate, Senate Democrats are expected to push numerous amendments intended to derail the legislation that are unlikely to succeed, but will drag out the process for several hours. Ahead of the vote-a-rama, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would highlight several areas of the bill that cut funding through the amendment process, and accused Republicans of having "no idea how the [Office of Management and Budget] plans to apply the cuts." "Senate Democrats, however, know that our job in this chamber is to govern, is to legislate, not simply eat dirt from the executive and ask for more, which is unfortunately what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing," he said. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., fired back that Senate Democrats were doing nothing more than defending their penchant for wasteful government spending. "I've heard Democrats fearmonger about this bill. Let me set the record straight. Republicans are protecting emergency alert systems here at home," he said. "Democrats are protecting and promoting electric buses in Africa. In November, Americans rejected wasteful Washington spending. This week, Republicans are delivering on that mandate." Before the vote, Senate Republican leaders agreed to carve out $400 million in cuts in global HIV and AIDS prevention funding that leaders hoped would win over holdouts. But it didn't work for all. A trio of Senate Republicans defected – Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. – forcing Vice President JD Vance to cast his sixth and seventh tie-breaking votes of the year to keep the package alive. He will likely be needed again later Wednesday to pass the bill, once lawmakers complete another vote-a-rama, where both sides of the aisle can offer unlimited amendments to the bill. Murkowski argued on the Senate floor that the rescissions package was effectively usurping Congress' duty to legislate. "We're lawmakers, we should be legislating," she said. "What we're getting now is a direction from the White House and being told, 'This is the priority we want you to execute on it. We'll be back with you with another round.' I don't accept that." Collins contended that lawmakers actually knew little about how or where the clawbacks would come from, and accused the Office of Management and Budget of not painting a clearer picture on the issue. "I recognize the need to reduce excessive spending and I have supported rescissions in our appropriations bills many times, including the 70 rescissions that were included in the year-long funding bill that we are currently operating under," she said in a statement. "But to carry out our constitutional responsibility, we should know exactly what programs are affected and the consequences of rescissions." McConnell similarly blamed the Office of Management and Budget, but noted that he might not be against the package when it came to a final vote. "I'm not going to predict where I am at the end, but I want to make it clear, I don't have any problem with reducing spending," he said. "We're talking about not knowing that they would like a blank check, is what they would like. I don't think that's appropriate. I think they ought to make the case."
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
FIRST ON FOX: Red state investigating M&Ms and Skittles manufacturer for ‘deceptive' practices
Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton is launching an investigation into M&Ms and Skittles manufacturer Mars for alleged "deceptive and illegal practices" regarding the company's use of artificial dyes in its candies. In a statement sent to Fox News Digital, Paxton's office tied the investigation to the attorney general's effort to be a "nationwide leader in fighting alongside" Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and President Donald Trump's Make America Healthy Again initiative to "help Americans get healthier by holding accountable big food companies who violate the law and deceive consumers about their ingredients." Paxton's office is asserting that Mars' alleged misrepresentation of artificial dyes in some of its candies, including M&Ms and Skittles, constitutes deceptive trade practices that run afoul of Texas consumers' rights. The attorney general further pointed out that while Mars continues to use artificial colors in its products in the U.S., it has stopped doing so in Europe. America's Dairy Farmers And Ice Cream Producers Agree To Quit Using Artificial Colors "While we do not comment on active proceedings, all Mars Wrigley ingredients are manufactured in compliance with strict quality and safety regulations established by food safety authorities, including the FDA," a Mars spokesperson told Fox News Digital. Read On The Fox News App In 2016, Mars committed to removing all artificial colors from all its human food products, which at the time it said was "part of a commitment to meet evolving consumer preferences." The company said that though it believed "artificial colors pose no known risks to human health or safety," it was making the change because "consumers today are calling on food manufacturers to use more natural ingredients in their products." Mars said that "against this backdrop, Mars will work closely with its suppliers to find alternatives that not only meet its strict quality and safety standards, but also maintain the vibrant, fun colors consumers have come to expect from the company's beloved brands." In a later update, however, Mars said it had found that "many of our consumers across the world do not, in fact, find artificial colors to be ingredients of concern" and "for that reason, we will continue to prioritize our efforts to remove artificial colors in Europe — where consumers have expressed this preference — but will not be removing all artificial colors from our Mars Snacking portfolio in other markets." Fda Commissioner Backs Maha Push To Improve Food Safety In Paxton's statement, his office said that "Mars also falsely claimed that 'artificial colors pose no known risks to human health or safety,' which could not be further from the truth as these dyes have been linked to a number of negative health outcomes, including Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), autism, and even cancer." The statement said that Paxton has issued a Civil Investigative Demand to obtain documents from Mars as part of the investigation. "Mars must remove toxic artificial dyes from its U.S. food products not only to honor its public commitment and ensure that it stays on the right side of the law, but also because it's the right thing to do," Paxton said in a statement sent to Fox News Digital. "It's clear that the movement to remove artificial colorings from our food supply is making incredible progress, and it's time for Mars to follow the lead of other companies like Nestle and Hershey by removing synthetic dyes from its products," he went on, adding, "For the health of Texans and all Americans, Mars must fulfill its 2016 pledge to get rid of these toxic ingredients." White House Responds To Reports Of Mars Inc Pushing Back On Eliminating Food Dyes White House Senior Advisor on Make America Healthy Again Calley Means has slammed Mars for refusing to remove artificial colors from its products, saying, "this is commonsense" and "these are petroleum-based dyes that have no nutritional value." This follows Paxton launching a similar investigation into General Mills, after which the company committed to removing artificial dyes from its products. The Texas attorney general has also targeted Kellogg's for allegedly violating the state's consumer protection laws by claiming to have removed dyes in its foods. Paxton is currently running to unseat Republican Sen. John Cornyn. Last week, Paxton's wife of 38-years, Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton, announced that she had filed for divorce on "biblical grounds."Original article source: FIRST ON FOX: Red state investigating M&Ms and Skittles manufacturer for 'deceptive' practices Solve the daily Crossword
