MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Janet pay for John?

Junidruim

Janet should get used to dining in less costly establishments, if not John should ditch her!!What a terrible selfish snob to not take his feelings into account!!

tedsloan

I would have no hesitation in allowing Janet to pay. This is just one of the pleasures of equality.John shouldn't feel in the slightest guilty as if the positions were reversed Janet would be happy enough accepting a freebie. Now if John found himself flush on an occasion then I would expect him to take his turn and pay.

I am only sorry that Janet wasn't in my life fifty years ago when I was then "on the prowl"

beezel_bug

Why does John feel uncomfortable? perhaps because he works for a homeless charity and see £110 on a meal for two wasteful when many people are homless and have much less than that to spend for a month on everything.

1. Both need to respect the others feelings.
2. Is John a hypocrite to accept the "waste" of money.
3. Its early days and this could be the divide.

brekiuk

Yes, I think she should. You cannot have your cake and eat it. She knew what kind of financial situation John was in when they started dating. Expensive dining is her 'hobby' and if she has the financial back-up to fund this expensive hobby, of course, she should pay for it. She gets silly money for working just as hard or as little as anybody else in 8/10 hours a day.

Actually, thinking about, why would or how could anybody in their right mind spend 100GBP on 2 meals?! It is insane and a nonsense! My husband and I just about spend 200 GBP on grocery shopping for the 2 of us a month and we do get everything we need. Thanks for Tesco, my home cooking and home made sandwiches for lunch.

So yes, if she wants to go to dine at expensive restaurants at 100GBP for 2 at a time is crazy, but if she has got the money and feels she is entitled to this little luxury and her boyfriend is 'only' a charity worker, she should,of course, pay for it. No question or doubt about it. Lucky her!

faithless

The_Loan_Voice wrote:

Why bother asking? A high earning city slapper like Janet won't hang around for long, she's only dating John for something to talk about at dinner parties and for a little "caring credebility" once the novelty/ fashion wears off she'll ditch him and start dating a lawyer. The only money women share is yours.
John should pimp off her for as long as he can, then do runner

...right, because you're not bitter and twisted *at all*.:rolleyes: She's a slapper because she earns a lot of money, or because she works in the city?

---

I really have no idea why people are so hostile towards 'Janet'. She has every right to spend her earnings however she so chooses, whether her salary be four or six figures. So what if she spends £100 on a meal out; it is up to her - if she enjoys the experience of fine dining and is willing to pay that much for it, then it evidently isn't a waste of money to her.

To get it into perspective:
say she earns £100k pa, about £64.5k after tax and NI, and that she spends £100 for a meal once a week every week; £5200/£64500 accounts for about 1/13 of her income.
That's roughly the same percentage of income as someone earning about £12k pa (£10k after tax/NI) spending £15 per week on cigarettes - about 10 a day, or £15 per week on booze.

---

I don't see a huge issue if she wants to enjoy his company whilst doing something she likes, and is happy to pay for him; he can pay when he takes her out on dates - they don't have to be expensive to be fun, and it's not as though she's refused to eat anywhere except in the poshest restaurants - as has already been mentioned, he can spend the time making her somehting nice to eat.

I also don't see why she should give any of it to the homeless that he happens to work with - she worked for it and earned it, it's hers to spend.

sluggy1967

westernpromise wrote:

You're forgetting consumption taxes. Of every £100 a TRT earns, £41 is taken in tax and NI. The remaining £59 is then spent, but on things that either include tax (VAT) or actually are a tax (such as council tax).

In brief, £100 earned = £59 to spend, and of that £59, more than £9 is actually spent on more taxes.

Hang on!!! Don't we ALL pay consumption taxes? and consumption taxes are regressive, so proportionately hit the poor far harder! VAT is charged on sanitary items which poor women have to buy, yet is not charged on School Fees, so sorry, but my heart is not going to go out to high earners. (Which, as I pointed out earlier, I do not have a problem with, good luck to them).

westernpromise

sluggy1967 wrote:

Hang on!!! Don't we ALL pay consumption taxes? and consumption taxes are regressive, so proportionately hit the poor far harder! VAT is charged on sanitary items which poor women have to buy, yet is not charged on School Fees, so sorry, but my heart is not going to go out to high earners. (Which, as I pointed out earlier, I do not have a problem with, good luck to them).

Sure, but although they hit the poor harder, they don't equalise the rate between top and basic rate taxpayers. They reduce it, but not to zero. A TRTP still pays more tax than a BRTP.

It is also inaccurate to suppose that if people on £100k a year paid more tax there'd be more tax collected. It would fall, because plenty of people in that bracket have access to all sorts of tax schemes - becoming resident in Monaco, for example. If you want more tax to be collected you need to reduce tax rates, which Bush was excoriated for doing in the USA a few years ago but which has resulted in an increase in what the US government collects.

The tax structure in this country is not contrived to maximise government revenue. It aims, rather, to entrench poverty and benefit dependence (the poor vote Labour, so best keep them poor); to impoverish the middle classes so as to appease the envy of the poor; and to enrich multi-millionaires, so they will gratefully donate money to the Labour Party and enable it to become financially independent of the unions.

The first is working well, the second less so (the envious will always be with us), and the third has today earned Mr. Blair a visit from the police.

JayD

I think if you are in a caring relationship with someone (or at the beginning of one), it is important to consider their feelings. John has expressed discomfort with the situation and Janet should show some respect for his feelings - regardless what the area of discomfort was. It happens to be fine dining at high prices but it could be anything and it wouldn't matter what the gender of the person who was feeling, and expressing, their discomfort. No one should brush aside another's discomfort in order to continue pursuing their own pleasures. Time for compromise, methinks.

swinstan

Perhaps they should try a cheaper meal, enjoy each other's company and donate the excess to a charity feeding the homeless. Maybe then Janet would enjoy this compromise as much, if not more, than spending it all on the two of them. John obviously has a social conscience and if she doesn't the relationship probably won't last anyway.

hoppypoppy_2

I reckon that regardless of this petty matter the relationship will deteriorate rapidly due to conflicting entertainment needs, social circles and if it reaches co-habitation first, shopping habits.

Lets test things with a Picnic:

Through the challenge of christmas queues and empty shelves we will find John imaginative and resourceful, accustomed to adapting unsuitable combinations making the most of what's available. Janet meanwhile would buy something ready-made (therefore more expensive) and complain throughout the picnic about her shoes getting dirty.

Poor old Janet is being given a hard time here - I'd like to hear that she has a rags to riches story. We all know that if this were the case she wouldn't want £100 meals and would be quite happy with a jacket potato - no, I don't mean instead of john! If he looks around him he's likely to find someone more suitable.

I earn more now than I ever have ever before, but I still save wherever possible and check around for best prices. I ress from charity shops, making donations instead of throwing things away and my freezer is stocked from the reduced fridge.