large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

NewShadow

BarryBlue wrote: »

That's not how it works with our friends at all. If we all go for a blow-out meal we just go, and we have what we like. We aren't worrying about the bill and neither are they. We are talking about people we've been dining out with for years here. They can all afford anything they wish from the menu.

Our 'poor' friends are in a different circle, if you like, so we go to a BYO curry house with them where the menu is a tenner. They aren't part of the group that dines expansively and I would not embarrass them by suggesting they come along. It works for them so it's fine.

Barry (specifically, as I'm curious), in your circles, what would happen if someone went through a divorce or was made redundant and so that friend was suddenly a little more aware of their outgoings?

Would the whole circle go somewhere cheaper, the payment arrangement be changed, or that individual no longer invited to 'blowouts'?

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

And as I say, there is nothing wrong with me offering. They are free to refuse.

SDW, similar question - If they wanted to come out, but didn't want you to sub them, would paying as ordered be acceptable in those circumstances, or would you be uncomfortable with them eating their 'scrape' and not invite them in the future?

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But most groups of 'friends' don't do that. (Overindulge at someone else's expense in such a way). It's only the people PN eats with who appear to.

I think several people gave examples, not just PN.

I recall a daughter's boyfriend and a friend's student child, but also accounts of couples taking advantage when eating as a group.

Georgiegirl256

onlyroz wrote: »

In that case I'm having the lobster to start, the fillet steak for my main, and the fancy fruity liqueur thingy for pudding. Oh, and olives and garlic bread too. I'll also have a bottle of wine to myself, a few cocktails, and an Irish coffee to help the digestion. You don't mind splitting the bill equally do you?

Of course not! Just don't sit anywhere close to me with your stinky garlic bread! :rotfl:

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

In fact, if most of the group I am with don't want a pudding, I won't either, so it's usually the other way round, someone depriving themselves because they don't want to eat while others have an empty plate.

But why? If you want a pudding, have one. Life's too short to deprive yourself of a pudding if you fancy one!

onlyroz

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

In fact, if most of the group I am with don't want a pudding, I won't either, so it's usually the other way round, someone depriving themselves because they don't want to eat while others have an empty plate.

Unless you've all got to dash off somewhere I don't see why it would be a problem for you to have a pudding if you wanted one. Most people are happy to sit there chatting for a while longer, or perhaps to have a tea or coffee instead.

pollypenny

duchy wrote: »

So there was a trade off -because you helped him in other ways in your eyes it balanced out - but what if there was nothing to trade it off with ? Someone eats less for medical reasons but is independent of needing any assistance from you in any aspect of their life ? Should they pay more just because it grants them your company ?

Sorry, I don't see your point. I was answering someone.

I, and others, have reiterated that friends share and do things for each other.

Do friends count a trade off? Gosh, I wouldn't know where to start. And don't want to!

onlyroz

There was a thread recently about somebody who was visiting the US on a business trip (I think they were an academic at a British university). They were given strict instructions about how much they were allowed to claim for each meal (something like $20 I think, and they had to buy their own alcoholic drinks). They were then appalled when their American colleague proceeded to knock back the cocktails and fillet steak, and then expected everybody to split the bill equally resulting in a $20 dinner costing $50.


At the next meal they announced in advance that they wanted their own receipt for the meal, and they were then accused of being miserly.

BarryBlue

NewShadow wrote: »

Barry (specifically, as I'm curious), in your circles, what would happen if someone went through a divorce or was made redundant and so that friend was suddenly a little more aware of their outgoings?

Would the whole circle go somewhere cheaper, the payment arrangement be changed, or that individual no longer invited to 'blowouts'?

The short answer is I've no idea, we are all people of 'more mature' years who have known each other for years. So - what would happen? Nothing, presumably. None of us have any worries about the cost of a meal. It really isn't an issue for us, although it clearly is for some people on this thread!

I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm in this discussion with mostly women. I have already said that the female attitude to this situation is usually different from the male perspective. It's all quite amusing though, with the imaginary scenarios. I'm waiting for the one where a member of the table is abducted by aliens before ordering their pudding!:D

NewShadow

BarryBlue wrote: »

The short answer is I've no idea, we are all people of 'more mature' years who have known each other for years. So - what would happen? Nothing, presumably. None of us have any worries about the cost of a meal. It really isn't an issue for us, although it clearly is for some people on this thread!

I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm in this discussion with mostly women. I have already said that the female attitude to this situation is usually different from the male perspective. It's all quite amusing though, with the imaginary scenarios. I'm waiting for the one where a member of the table is abducted by aliens before ordering their pudding!:D

In 2011, nearly 9,500 men aged 60 and over got divorced (ONS).

I'm not sure why you assume divorce or other financial restriction wouldn't effect any individuals or couples in your circles at some point in the future.

It's already been noted that retirement or acquired disabilities can have a major impact on income.

You've said that in your 'well off' circle no one worries about the bill or what they order.

If individual circumstances change, that lack of concern could also change.

Are you saying that individual would still be expected to spilt the bill equally, and - if they couldn't afford to do so - be excluded from such future gatherings of their long time friends?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/older-people-divorcing/2011/sty-divorce.html

missbiggles1

BarryBlue wrote: »

The short answer is I've no idea, we are all people of 'more mature' years who have known each other for years. So - what would happen? Nothing, presumably. None of us have any worries about the cost of a meal. It really isn't an issue for us, although it clearly is for some people on this thread!

I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm in this discussion with mostly women. I have already said that the female attitude to this situation is usually different from the male perspective. It's all quite amusing though, with the imaginary scenarios. I'm waiting for the one where a member of the table is abducted by aliens before ordering their pudding!:D

Don't worry, it's mainly women who are agreeing with you as well - we don't all have short arms and long pockets!:)

seven-day-weekend

NewShadow wrote: »

Barry (specifically, as I'm curious), in your circles, what would happen if someone went through a divorce or was made redundant and so that friend was suddenly a little more aware of their outgoings?

Would the whole circle go somewhere cheaper, the payment arrangement be changed, or that individual no longer invited to 'blowouts'?



SDW, similar question - If they wanted to come out, but didn't want you to sub them, would paying as ordered be acceptable in those circumstances, or would you be uncomfortable with them eating their 'scrape' and not invite them in the future?



I think several people gave examples, not just PN.

I recall a daughter's boyfriend and a friend's student child, but also accounts of couples taking advantage when eating as a group.

They would of course be welcome. I personally would be uncomfortable, because I'd be aware of them having to 'scrape' and not enjoying themselves, but I suppose that is my problem and not theirs. I would also feel uncomfortable eating more than them. So it would in a way spoil my enjoyment, but that is something I would have to deal with.

I might be tempted to go out somewhere different without them (not to an event I would normally go to with them), just so that I could eat what I wanted without feeling as though I was pushing their 'hard-up-ness' in their face.

seven-day-weekend

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Of course not! Just don't sit anywhere close to me with your stinky garlic bread! :rotfl:



But why? If you want a pudding, have one. Life's too short to deprive yourself of a pudding if you fancy one!

Because, as can be seen from this thread, if they are not having one , some people are quite likely to think me a greedy pig for having one.

Although I know my friends would not think that.