MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Janet pay for John?

hoppypoppy_2

Hang on a minute...
has anyone whcked whether Janet is claiming the meals on expenses
or if John is taking doggy-bags "home"
???

iain1775

of course she should pay but perhaps they should alternate with cheap 'greasy spoons' cafe's when John can pay or John could cook for her - nothing more romantic than loving stares over a plate of egg and chips!!

Dave_the_Ginger_Cat

westernpromise wrote:

People on 6-figure salaries pay well over half their income in tax as it is. How much more would you like them to pay?

Adding to the previous donation suggestion:

Perhaps out of her take home pay, she herself could direct some funds to a charity, even the one he works for. She could choose this every so often as an alternative to eating out, or as a trade off for eating at a less expensive establishment. The tax relief on this is reclaimable at higher rate, so £100 to her means a much larger amount to the charity. (Arithmetic excluded due to ungodly hour and long drive back from city-type job)

To me this represents a fair offer and compromise in the short term.

I do find it likely that the differences between them may add pressure to a fledgling relationship. Whilst exceptions may exist, largely such things prosper where there is common ground in many areas, certainly those areas which a person values.

Night all

gingercordial

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.

I find this very offensive. :mad:

I am a woman working in the City. I have a high salary - not quite as much as our Janet yet but if I choose to stay in my current profession I will get there soon enough. I would not describe myself as a "high earning city slapper" and I don't know many women like that amongst my colleagues, no, not even the ones who earn seven figures.

My OH is a scientist working to save the environment, and he earns much much less than me. I am not dating him for any kind of "caring credibility". I have plenty of other things to talk about at dinner parties. I have no intention of getting bored and running off with a lawyer, after five very happy years together so far.

I love eating out and yes, I have had many meals at £100+ a head, and very nice they were too, and in my opinion generally worth it. And usually if I've chosen to ask my OH if he wants to go to that sort of place, I've paid. We're both happy about it - I don't force it down his throat, and he doesn't have a chip on his shoulder. We just enjoy a meal out together. And of course I would rather be with him in Maccy D's than in Gordon Ramsay with anyone else.

Most of the time we don't eat at expensive places, of course, so we split it. When I do my grocery shopping, I'm mad for coupons, the reduced shelf, clubcard points and old-style home cooking. And I'm ever so happy when we eat out on two-for-one deals at Wagamamas etc, as I really do love a bargain! I don't waste money day-to-day, and so I'm happy to splurge on a really good meal from time to time, as I can afford it and it won't put me in debt. A night out like that could come from my stoozing profits, or from savings from switching my utilities, all from this site. And I do give to charity as well.

So anyway, being in that kind of situation, I think provided both people are well-adjusted grown ups then there's nothing to get worked up about. After all, the reverse was the norm for generations. I just think there is absolutely no need to start name-calling just because a woman earns a lot.

Edit: quick re-read of the original question - if he doesn't want to go there for dinner, of course she shouldn't force him. But they really should have a discussion about whether that's because he feels emasculated (in which case, he needs to get a grip) or whether he thinks the money should be used some other way (in which case, they may not be wholly compatible but this is not necessarily her fault).

cardiffste

Money can be a huge issue in relationships and so can the issue of equality (both being /feeling equal in a relationship). Equality is about mroe than money - it is about what people contribute to a relationship. Many people are in relationships where their salaries are unequal but are still able to maintain a releationship because of the mutual respect and understanding (and love) for one another.

If john is finding it hard to deal with now, how would he deal with it if the relationship develops further?

I completely take the point raised by anotehr moneysaver about time and money: maybe he should cook for her every now and again - maybe they should even share in her love of good food by cooking together.

Where John works versus her spending on expensive meals is a personal ethical issue and, taking janet to a shelter is hardly likely to make her change her mind about eating out - however if it did, would it make her a different person to the person John went out with in the first place? They both have personal interests and, they either have to respect each others interests, or agree that they are fundamentally so different things just wouldnt work out in the long term.

tallullahbelle

My bf has (considerably!) more money than me. We go to nice restaurants and he pays because he wants to go there, and he wants to go with someone- me! In return I cook for him, or I will choose somewhere more within my budget and then I pay. I still pay 50% of the time, just not 50% of the cash.

sluggy1967

gingercordial wrote:

I find this very offensive. :mad:

I am a woman working in the City. I have a high salary - not quite as much as our Janet yet but if I choose to stay in my current profession I will get there soon enough. I would not describe myself as a "high earning city slapper" and I don't know many women like that amongst my colleagues, no, not even the ones who earn seven figures.

My OH is a scientist working to save the environment, and he earns much much less than me. I am not dating him for any kind of "caring credibility". I have plenty of other things to talk about at dinner parties. I have no intention of getting bored and running off with a lawyer, after five very happy years together so far.

I love eating out and yes, I have had many meals at £100+ a head, and very nice they were too, and in my opinion generally worth it. And usually if I've chosen to ask my OH if he wants to go to that sort of place, I've paid. We're both happy about it - I don't force it down his throat, and he doesn't have a chip on his shoulder. We just enjoy a meal out together. And of course I would rather be with him in Maccy D's than in Gordon Ramsay with anyone else.

Most of the time we don't eat at expensive places, of course, so we split it. When I do my grocery shopping, I'm mad for coupons, the reduced shelf, clubcard points and old-style home cooking. And I'm ever so happy when we eat out on two-for-one deals at Wagamamas etc, as I really do love a bargain! I don't waste money day-to-day, and so I'm happy to splurge on a really good meal from time to time, as I can afford it and it won't put me in debt. A night out like that could come from my stoozing profits, or from savings from switching my utilities, all from this site. And I do give to charity as well.

So anyway, being in that kind of situation, I think provided both people are well-adjusted grown ups then there's nothing to get worked up about. After all, the reverse was the norm for generations. I just think there is absolutely no need to start name-calling just because a woman earns a lot.

Edit: quick re-read of the original question - if he doesn't want to go there for dinner, of course she shouldn't force him. But they really should have a discussion about whether that's because he feels emasculated (in which case, he needs to get a grip) or whether he thinks the money should be used some other way (in which case, they may not be wholly compatible but this is not necessarily her fault).

Well said, The Lone Voice clearly subscribes to the opinion that women sleep their way to the top. Funny that, isn't the gap between educational achievement of girls and boys growing wider? Clearly we are all slappers unless we stick to looking after children or low paid, crap jobs.

MJay

In this day and age, I wonder why the question is even asked...... Of course she should pay and not put on any patronising airs...... If John was OK with that.... I regularly eat with my ex who earns far more than me but I insist on paying occassionally so maybe John could do the same...?

Martin_Edney

My partner and I have fairly different incomes, so to keep both parties reasonably happy and know where we both stand, we split bills in proportion to income.

This simple principle means we can both do the things we want to, are both contributing according to our means, without the less well paid of the pair feeling undermined.

Zed42

I've read through the replies, thought my thoughts, and finally wittered to my DH ....

meals is meals ...

relationships is relationships...

they're all different.

When we first got together we were both final yr students who earned diddly.
Then we graduated, DH earnt twice the amount of me.
Somehow we muddled through ... equally.
I remember a lot of spreadsheet activity.
I then got made redundant etc etc.
12yrs later and a lot of inequality on both sides, yes, he's had no money and lots of debts too, LOL .... we still carry on ....

I don't think it's money which makes or breaks a relationship ... it's so much more than that, so consequently I can't answer the question.

I still enjoy lots of meals which are £100 + (however, with a 3yr old and no baby sitter, they don't happen so much) ... and do you know what ... I really enjoyed the chippie we all went to last Friday which cost £2.