Money Moral Dilemma: Is it OK to let my rich friends pay for me?

TBagpuss

I think it depends on the friendship. If it is all one way, the risk is that you continue to feel increasingly uncomfortable and that they may start to feel you are taking advantage.

On the other hand, if the friendship as a whole is more equal and they are happy to do it, it's OK - for instance, what else in involved in these friendships? Are you often a shoulder to cry on? Do you help and support them in non-financial ways?

You can also think about economical ways to redress the balance - for example, hosting a meal where you cook involves an investment of time and energy but can be financially less expensive than a night out.
Offering to be the designated driver can help reduce the cost of your night out (not buying any booze!) and be convenient nad helpful to your friends.

And consider saving up so you can afford to pay from time to time - even if it is less frequently than if you were taking strict turns.

I have, in the past, had friends who would pay for me more than I could afford to pay for them, now that I am in a better position financially I have friends who I am happy to pay for, as Ienjoy their company.

I do understnad that it feels uncomfortable - one way of addressing this can be to split bills even if it isn't equal. For example, I recently met up with a friend - I know her financial position isn't great and I would have been happy to pay for her meal, but she was not comfortable with that. We ended up with me paying for the main meal and she then paid for dessert. It meant I paid about twice what she did, but we had a nice meal, a pleasant time together and she was more comfortable not having 'sponged' off me.

Perhaps you could make sure that you pay for things you can afford from time to time so that you and your friends both feel you are making contributions.

Jagraf

I don't think things are very enjoyable if you can't afford to pay for them yourself, unless its a gift or a special occasion.

For example, my budget at the moment for a meal is about £15 each in my head - so a curry or something similar. If I went somewhere that was £50 a head, whether I was paying or not, I would be thinking what I could do with that money.

We all have different interests and luxuries and budgets, but I think if you can't or don't want to pay yourself, then it takes the enjoyment out of it.

moneyistooshorttomention

I think I'd be okay with this personally - as long as I could think of ways to "pay them back" in a non-monetary way.

My mind would be turning round whether they would need a housesitter when they went on holiday/some food from my garden/helping them with some "springcleaning".

I've always taken the view that its not my fault my income is/has always been low. If I've done my bit by always holding down a full-time job (bar a couple of periods of unemployment courtesy of redundancies) then yep....the combination of low income and all the extra expenses of being single has meant I've never had much money:(.

So - I've rarely been in the position of wealthy friends wanting to treat me - but I think I'd just regard it as a "barter" type arrangement and be looking to see what I could "trade" back that wouldn't cost me money, but would help them some way.

marich

If they are inviting you along then they obviously value and/or enjoy you and your company . So just be yourself and know you are valued !

SandC

I wouldn't go to places that I couldn't afford, full stop. If I had a group of friends who earn a lot more than me (I did have 20 years ago, thinking about it), then I would go out with them to the more pricey places once in a while, when I was able to pay my way. Indeed now, as long as I have enough notice I'll go to somewhere a bit more exclusive and pricey but make sure I budget accordingly, ie. sometimes I'm happy to not go out for a month or two just because I know I've a 'big' night coming up that will cost me more.

If I was in the group of friends who had more money then I'd go on cheaper nights out regularly anyway, especially if I have pals who don't have the same disposable cash.

I would suggest different places to them once in a while and if they aren't willing to go somewhere else then I'd do as above, join them occasionally but be prepared for the friendships to fizzle out as it's clearly one sided and based on where you go and not who you're with.

PinkSue5

I think that a good friend will not think that you are beholden in any way. I have friends who I know do not have much money and only have minimum wage part time jobs, but they make time for me and always make me feel special, so when we go out I always insist on paying - I work full time and there has to be some benefit to that and treating my friends is one of them.
I also have other friends who helped us when we didn't have any money - and they refuse to do anything that isn't 50/50 so we just have to make sure that we "help" in other ways. It is really difficult when you are in a good position and someone you care about isn't and refuses to let you help.

Jagraf

To me its a bit like someone suiting a certin type of dress and then trying to get someone else to like it because you like it - generally if people can't pay their own way they don't want anyone else to either.

Paying for someone else is about you yourself feeling good.

Sometimes in extreme cases it can occasionally be very welcoming and helpful. Most of the time its awkward (from someone who was in a lot if debt whose brother kept trying to treat :o)

stmartinsdiver

A free ride once in a while maybe ok but what do your 'rich friends' get out of this one-way arrangement? Do you ever do anything for them? If not, it seems to me that the long term prospects for this friendship are you'll get a reputation as a !!!!!!!!!! and find yourself dumped. It may be 'more blessed to give than to receive' but if you're not careful the next thing you generous friends may give you is the elbow.

DKLS

Petra_70 wrote: »

Well I would definitely not let ANYbody fund me. I am no charity case, and would not ever want to be beholden to someone, who will possibly throw it back in my face at some time in the future, or 'expect' something from me, if my financial situation improved, and theirs got worse.

I would also feel that they had some kind of hold on me, and I believe (rightly or wrongly) that they would feel more powerful and somewhat superior to me, because they were paying for their pauper mate.

All I would ever do - and this would be unlikely and rare - is borrow money which I would pay back; with interest.

But no WAY would I let people pay for me, not for anything.

Thankfully its not quite as Black & White for me, Over the years I have had a reciprocal arrangement amongst friends where we help out those in the group who are struggling, if one of us couldn't afford a night out we would ensure that they could join us and not feel bad, and over the years its worked out very well and we have all had our boom and bust years for various reasons.

I know when I was splitting from the ex and despite being on a decent income I had nothing left after paying out the mortgage, bills, rent and solicitor fees I would have been in a much worse place if my friends hadn't dragged me out for meals and drinks.

Petra_70

persa wrote: »

On the flipside, I wouldn't call myself "rich", but I am better off than many of my friends and I often suggest we take it in turns to pay, but then make sure it's my turn to pay when we go somewhere more expensive. People don't like what they perceive as "charity", but I find this approach goes down okay as the inequality is less visible. I don't see subsiding "poorer" friends as controlling, rather paying it forward.

Letting someone better off pay for you is a bit like taking a compliment - many people struggle with it, even though it comes only from a place of kindness. I always go 50:50 with people in the same financial situation as me, but I would be appalled at myself if I regularly split the bill with a starving student. If I can afford to subsidise them a bit, surely that's the right thing to do? We can then enjoy the same stuff, with neither party worrying they've blown the budget.

If they don't WANT you to pay for them, then no it is not the 'right thing to do,' to insist you pay. That is what the OP is about. The OP is offering to pay, and the 'friend' is insisting THEY pay instead of the OP. It's very rude to disrespect people's wishes like this.

I would find someone insisting they pay for me, when I say I am paying myself; VERY condescending and frankly, rather insulting.