large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

moneyistooshorttomention

....and then there's the never-mentioned thought of "What happens about a tip?".

Personally - in ANY circumstances where tipping sometimes happens - I take the view that tipping is for exceptional service (ie not the standard sort of service one expects anyway).

So - if I've just had very bog-standard service at the sort of price I would expect to pay then that equals no tip in my book.

On the other hand - if I think the person providing the service has under-charged for something and/or genuinely given particularly good service = then I will give an extremely generous tip.

So - very standard means that I won't be putting anything in towards tipping for a meal.

On the other hand - those odd occasions where I have thought "That was a good deal and/or particularly good service" - then I have been known to hand over a tip amounting to 25% or more.

That's what tipping is about imo.

So - I am not happy personally at any "meal organiser" putting pressure on to pay towards a tip - as I regard it as my decision to make up my mind for myself how I think the charge compares with what I regard as reasonable and how good (or otherwise) I think the service is.

So- yep I've paid £15 when asked for a £10 taxi fare for instance - purely because the service was so exceptional on the one hand (and I felt they were undercharging) but not handed over a penny towards tipping where I've not been happy/didnt think any reasonable person would be happy on the other hand.

missbiggles1

silvercar wrote: »

..and then saying you only want to pay a 1/4 of the bill!

Part of the joy of the evening is the company/ service etc but some people want to divide up the cost only according to the food consumed.

For the last 20 years I can't remember dividing up the food according to who eat what. We choose the restaurant based on what people want to pay and then split the bill equally (unless it is a family meal with children).

That's what I've been trying to say as well - you choose the restaurant on what people want or are able to pay, not worry about it once you've eaten.

missbiggles1

duchy wrote: »

So if they were feeling unwell, not so bad they needed to stay home but couldn't face food.....you'd prefer them to cancel solely because they'd be sipping water or Coke whilst you ate and that to you isn't socially acceptable?

Quite thankful my friends don't have such high expectations of me but just enjoy my company.

I wouldn't expect someone who was feeling ill to be so stupid as to go out for a meal at all. Nothing to do with what they did or didn't eat but because of the risk of throwing up and spoiling the occasion, not only for their party but for everybody else in the restaurant!

I wouldn't have so little concern for others' feelings as to take that risk.

Person_one

missbiggles1 wrote: »

That's what I've been trying to say as well - you choose the restaurant on what people want or are able to pay, not worry about it once you've eaten.

But...in most restaurants there can still be a huge difference between the cheaper and the more expensive options, and he still the possibility having fewer or more courses (although clearly you disapprove of that!)

onlyroz

missbiggles1 wrote: »

There's someone in my book group who doesn't eat (at all) during the day - she complains that nobody invites her round (or out) for lunch and can't understand why this is the case.

Sometimes you just have to go with the flow or be prepared to be a loner. (Happily for me, I can exist being either.)

My dad has to eat small portions because he had part of his oesophagus removed a number of years ago. Should I tell him he's not welcome to meals out because it makes me uncomfortable if he can only manage one course when I want two?

onlyroz

missbiggles1 wrote: »

That's what I've been trying to say as well - you choose the restaurant on what people want or are able to pay, not worry about it once you've eaten.

But you're also saying that people should eat and drink more than they want to otherwise they're some sort of Scrooge or party-pooper. It's not just about money - but even if it was, what's so terrible about somebody saying "I'd love to come but money's a bit tight so I'll just have the soup. However it'll be great to see you all".

cte1111

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But they can't enjoy social eating all that much otherwise they WOULD have the bhajis. That's all I meant.

I love eating out, but I also enjoy feeling that I look good, which I do having lost over 4 stone with Slimming World. I would have found it difficult to stick with the eating plan, if somehow I wasn't allowed to go out for meals any more, lest someone think I'm being pious and ruining their evening!

I often just have a main course and drink maybe 1 diet coke, then tap water. I didn't realise this meant that I was a killjoy. I guess I'm used to people eating different amounts, as my in laws are all small eaters, and some of my family love fine dining. Both of these are absolutely fine, I don't feel the need to judge other people for what they do / don't eat.

silvercar

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Just by these comments off you -

."..and then saying you only want to pay a 1/4 of the bill!

Part of the joy of the evening is the company/ service etc but some people want to divide up the cost only according to the food consumed."

If someone has had less than you but still pays the same amount as you then they are subsidising you.

More likely I will be the one that will have eaten less and paid more than my share of the food. But you are making assumptions that anyone wanting an equal bill split must be consuming more.

But I'm happy to pay an equal share. Same as if I went to the theatre/ cinema/ bowling. We all pay the same, hopefully all have an enjoyable evening, enjoy the company etc.

silvercar

onlyroz wrote: »

But you're also saying that people should eat and drink more than they want to otherwise they're some sort of Scrooge or party-pooper. It's not just about money - but even if it was, what's so terrible about somebody saying "I'd love to come but money's a bit tight so I'll just have the soup. However it'll be great to see you all".

If you are choosing to only have the soup because money is tight, I would prefer we go to a cheaper restaurant and you eat a full meal.

Big difference in my eyes between someone who doesn't eat because they don't want to spend the money and someone who doesn't eat because their appetite is smaller. Would rather go to a restaurant where everyone can afford to it and does eat.

Person_one

silvercar wrote: »

If you are choosing to only have the soup because money is tight, I would prefer we go to a cheaper restaurant and you eat a full meal.

Big difference in my eyes between someone who doesn't eat because they don't want to spend the money and someone who doesn't eat because their appetite is smaller. Would rather go to a restaurant where everyone can afford to it and does eat.

Why would it be up to you to decide that for your friend?