large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

Kim_kim

onlyroz wrote: »

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.

I just don't get it.

It's the free loader being miserly, in any other circumstance nearly 100% of people would agree.

Why when it comes to food & drink is it suddenly miserly to want to pay your own way & not miserly to want to leech off others?

Jagraf

Kim_kim wrote: »

I just don't get it.

It's the free loader being miserly, in any other circumstance nearly 100% of people would agree.

Why when it comes to food & drink is it suddenly miserly to want to pay your own way & not miserly to want to leech off others?

IN many instances people pay the same or similar, despite what they use. I pay the same council tax as next door but I create more rubbish, so he's subsidising me. Some use schools, some don't, or roads, more than others.

Generally it equals out in the end.

NewShadow

BarryBlue wrote: »

We apparently have links to statistical sites now. How loopy is that!:rotfl:

Sorry if you think it's loopy, and I am in no way saying you're wrong.

I am just wondering in your specific non-overlapping arrangements how a change in dynamic could be accommodated and you seem to be indicated a lack of belief such a change could occur.

The sourcing things is an occupational hazard. If you cared to look you might notice I post links with most of my posts when I'm referencing facts rather than giving opinions.

NewShadow

Jagraf wrote: »

IN many instances people pay the same or similar, despite what they use. I pay the same council tax as next door but I create more rubbish, so he's subsidising me. Some use schools, some don't, or roads, more than others.

Generally it equals out in the end.

Can we please not get into a conversation about how the single mum with 12 kids and a disability gets more out of the system than a young professional couple with no kids?

This thread SO doesn't need an extra 50 pages...

Pollycat

Kim_kim wrote: »

I just don't get it.

It's the free loader being miserly, in any other circumstance nearly 100% of people would agree.

Why when it comes to food & drink is it suddenly miserly to want to pay your own way & not miserly to want to leech off others?

I wouldn't call the American colleague miserly.

I would refer to him as inconsiderate (if he didn't realise that he was putting the visiting guy in the position of having to pay for a good portion of his own consumption)) or plain rude (if he did realise).

Either way - not a very kind way to treat a visitor - and he'd have found me much more vocal at the first meal and he'd have had to put his hand in his pocket for the extra $30 that his meal had cost.

Georgiegirl256

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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.

Well if your friends wouldn't think that, then what's the problem?

I certainly wouldn't think anything of you having a pudding if I wasn't having one.

Ames

I think this thread is nearly obsolete anyway.

In future everyone will go to whatever restaurant/pub/cafe they can afford, all at the same time, and chat online using phones and tablets.

No arguing about what each person has, how long they take to eat each course, odd eating habits...

Vegetarians aren't faced with a risotto or caramelised goats cheese tart, carnivores don't have to feel bad about their T-Bone steak...

There can be a shared account which everyone who wants to split the bill can put £50 in, and everyone else can pay their own bill to the penny.

Surely it's the way to go?

BarryBlue

Ames wrote: »

In future everyone will go to whatever restaurant/pub/cafe they can afford, all at the same time, and chat online using phones and tablets.

What a truly gruesome prospect!:eek:

Andypandyboy

Person_one wrote: »

that's not really asking though, is it? No pressure in that wording at all! :rotfl:

Why not just be prepared to pay for what you have, and if it turns out that everybody orders similarly and there's not much in it you could suggest splitting the bill then, once it's obvious nobody will be taken advantage of or taking advantage by doing so?

So, wrong for asking, wrong for not asking then? How odd. Yes, it is asking the question and it is also explaining what is the norm for the group. Or are you of the opinion that the way of doing things should be changed for one person if six others have done it that way for the last 30 years?

I can see both points of view and mine is that you should do whatever suits you and your friends. That is what we do and it works for us, both when we eat out as a couple and when we eat out separately with friends (which we do a lot).

What truly amazes me is that those who insist on splitting the bill seem to have had some horrendous experiences of being taken advantage of, all which are outside my personal experience. Like Barry and others said it is not something that has ever come up in any of the friendship groups we have, either as a couple or as indivduals. I wouldn't continue to count as friends anyone who would behave that way.

Person_one

Andypandyboy wrote: »

So, wrong for asking, wrong for not asking then? How odd. Yes, it is asking the question and it is also explaining what is the norm for the group. Or are you of the opinion that the way of doing things should be changed for one person if six others have done it that way for the last 30 years?

Ah come on, the way it was worded, it may as well have had "or would you prefer to be really awkward and annoying and never get another invite from us?" on the end. :rotfl:

Yes, I do think that if a new person from the group only wishes to pay for what they had, they should do just that, the others can split the remainder equally if they choose, I suppose, but no group of nice, welcoming people would think it ok to bully, cajole or compel someone new into paying more than their fair share against their will, would they?