large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

onlyroz

DesiBadBoy wrote: »

Lol why do people go in big groups for meals if you're going to cheap out and pay for you're own only. If you can't afford to socialise (in big groups) then don't

There's no shame in not going because you can't afford (or not smart enough to order more so its all relatively fair - I'll seal it off with a coffee, dersert and a night cap) .

But we're talking about people who *can* afford to go if they are careful about what they order. Your solution is for such people to stay at home. My solution is for them to go along and only pay for what they eat. Which one sounds like the more "friendly" solution?

duchy

DesiBadBoy wrote: »

Lol why do people go in big groups for meals if you're going to cheap out and pay for you're own only. If you can't afford to socialise (in big groups) then don't

There's no shame in not going because you can't afford (or not smart enough to order more so its all relatively fair - I'll seal it off with a coffee, dersert and a night cap) .

In the group I'm discussing often we are away from home so not participating would mean missing out on part of the social occasion and going back alone to their hotel.
I don't judge my friends on what they can afford to eat - I enjoy a meal with them because they are funny or thought provoking or just good company and for us a meal is about far more than the food . If your only reason to eat is for fuel rather than about the people then I can see why you'd view it differently though.

I'd be genuinely mortified if anyone felt they had to exclude themselves from part of the party (and when we are away it IS a party) because they couldn't afford the full three courses plus wine.

Maybe though it is different with newer friends -the core of the group probably goes back fifteen years although some are much newer . Perhaps we've just worked it out over time .

Peter333

I think this thread has outlived its usefulness now. It's crazy long, and has just descended into a myriad of people who think they're right and everyone else is wrong.

Fact is, people should be allowed to eat what they want, and only pay for what they have have eaten. And I can't believe anyone would say or think any different.

onlyroz

Jagraf wrote: »

My MIL has a really lovely friend who drives her to hospital appointments and in return my MIL buys her lunch. Taking people to hospital costs money (probably more than the difference in meal consumption).

She would still take her to hospital though.

That's a totally different scenario though - one favour is directly reciprocated by another. However, people were suggesting that the person with the reduced appetite is in some way obliged to subsidise their fellow diners because favours have been received. Presumably then, if this person had paid for a taxi to get to hospital then it would be perfectly fine for them to pay less for their smaller meal.

missbiggles1

duchy wrote: »

I think this is where the division starts ......
Miss Biggles has been stating her case from the assumption that everyone dines out routinely as couples whereas for many people that simply isn't the case. I eat out with my partner, we eat out as a couple with friends sometimes but we don't have a joined at the hip social life and both have seperate as well as a joint social life. I was chatting with friends last night and making plans to see some concerts -My partner would rather stick pins in his eyes than see this artist Most of my friend's husbands and partners feel the same so we are often a bunch of single women with the occassional man in the group. The dynamic is simply very different when we dine as a group. In the same way that dining with a group of work colleagues is different again. The reason why so many people disagree is because often they are comparing different social situations at a meal.

The one thing we didn't share was a taste in music so I simply went to gigs on my own. I don't get the idea that you have to round up people to do things with - some of us are happy with our own company and don't feel the need to surround ourselves with all and sundry every time we step outside the house.

Jagraf

onlyroz wrote: »

That's a totally different scenario though - one favour is directly reciprocated by another. However, people were suggesting that the person with the reduced appetite is in some way obliged to subsidise their fellow diners because favours have been received. Presumably then, if this person had paid for a taxi to get to hospital then it would be perfectly fine for them to pay less for their smaller meal.

No it isn't directly reciprocated at all - one is more expensive than the other (its also half a day of the friends time) but they don't add up their costs separately.

Jagraf

Peter333 wrote: »

I think this thread has outlived its usefulness now. It's crazy long, and has just descended into a myriad of people who think they're right and everyone else is wrong.

Fact is, people should be allowed to eat what they want, and only pay for what they have have eaten. And I can't believe anyone would say or think any different.

Lol. The irony :T:T

BarryBlue

Person_one wrote: »

Ok, I don't get it. Please explain to me how splitting the bill equally when what people have actually ordered varies in cost doesn't result in some paying too much and some paying too little.

Clearly not! There is absolutely nothing to explain. When we go out for a meal we eat, drink and enjoy ourselves. We don't bother picking the bill to pieces, we just pay it and leave. It wouldn't occur to any of us that someone might have had an extra bread roll or whatever - it just doesn't matter to any of us.

If it matters to you and your friends, that is up to you. But why criticise others when they are happy to just get on with life without all the fuss?

pollypenny wrote: »

We had this with one guy. He didn't eat as little as in your example, but not his normal tucking in, plus three red wines!

He didn't hesitate about splitting the bill. Maybe it was because we, his friends, we're driving him to hospital appointments, doing jobs for him etc.

It's what friends do, as Barry said.

Edit to add: now he's recovered, he still eats and drinks the most. Am I subsiding him? No, he's a good friend.

Exactly the point, which seems to be missed by some people. It's just what friends do, at least in my social circle, and I see no problem. Worrying over a quid or so either way is not what we do!

onlyroz

BarryBlue wrote: »

Exactly the point, which seems to be missed by some people. It's just what friends do, at least in my social circle, and I see no problem. Worrying over a quid or so either way is not what we do!

Again, you have missed the point. Nobody is quibbling over a "quid or two", and nobody is counting how many bread rolls each diner has eaten.


I see you have totally ignored my scenario involving a friend with a medical condition. How about imagining that you lost your job. Would you expect your meal invites to stop? Or would you perhaps say to your friends of 20+ years "Sure I still want come out with you, but due to my reduced income I'll be going easy on the wine and sticking to one course."

mumps

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I think exactly the same as you do and I'm surprised nobody's said this earlier.

For some people illness means a significant reduction in income. For my husband he was still in his 40s and we still had 3 dependent children, one a new baby, and one at university so maybe fairer to say 3 and half dependent children. We were lucky as he was in a good pension scheme and I could earn a good living but if we had been in financial trouble don't you think it would have been horrible if our circle of friends had demoted us to the bottom division i.e. suitable for cheap restaurants or just a coffee? We already missed out on alot, particularly my husband, is it only me who thinks real friends wouldn't want to exclude you. I'm not saying you have to invite everyone to everything but if you were in a group that went out for a nice meal once a month or every couple of months you would just be dropped?