large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

SingleSue

Person_one wrote: »

If I was in a 'split the bill evenly' situation I would feel really guilty about ordering more than others, and would probably order cheaper/less just to avoid being subsidised!

That is exactly what I would be like. I like steak and quite often that comes at an extra cost, I would feel far too guilty and restricted to order that steak in a split the bill evenly situation.

SingleSue

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Where we going then?

I sometimes order two starters too. Sometimes there's so many appealing choices that I'll prefer them to the mains and so have a couple.

I don't mind the sharing the food thing if they're dishes in the middle of the table with individual spoons to serve, but can't abide the sharing off each other's plates or forks *shudder*

Foxriver, personally I wouldn't calculate exactly to the penny. I was talking about bigger differences.

Me and two of the boys will share from a central point (not off each others plates or forks though) but youngest absolutely will not. Mind you youngest also will not eat from a buffet because others have touched the food before him (he's autistic) or might not have picked food up in order and touched the shellfish/nut items before picking up a cocktail sausage (he is very very allergic to shellfish and nuts). At family parties where there is a buffet involved, he either goes first at the buffet or we put food by in a seperate area for him to help himself to.

Homeownertobe

Person_one wrote: »

The cinema analogy makes absolutely no sense. It costs what it costs, unless you're a child/pensioner/student etc. There aren't lots of different options to vary the cinema experience or choose your own budget!

Erm... when was the last time you went to the cinema? Normal seats, premium seats, gallery, snack choices, wine, beer, Ice Blasts, popcorn, 2D, 3D, IMAX, blockbuster release or older film, matinee or evening screening etc. There's plenty of choice.

Person_one wrote: »

I think a lot of people who just want to 'enjoy the experience' and 'not stress about money' are underestimating the stress their attitudes can cause to their fellow diners. Sometimes, for some people, a few pounds really does make a big difference. Let people spend their own money according to their budget, please don't try to spend it for them!

Equally I think those who insist on 'just having the soup' at a decent, and relatively expensive restaurant because they want to enjoy the ambience, are underestimating the embarrassment caused to those of us who would like to return to said restaurant without the skinflints.

It's time some people accepted that if they can only afford the soup at a nice restaurant, then they should go to a cheaper one where they can afford to eat properly and let their better off friends not face the awkwardness of the situation.

Homeownertobe

Person_one wrote: »

To get out of the house and see their friends, or to join in a social occasion they've been invited to, to make a change from sitting in the cold eating beans on toast!

Honestly, check your privilege.

Check your reality. If someone is so poor they can scarcely afford to eat at home, they have no business eating out at an expensive restaurant. None.

That is reality. What breathtaking entitlement from some people!

coolcait

Homeownertobe wrote: »

...

Equally I think those who insist on 'just having the soup' at a decent, and relatively expensive restaurant because they want to enjoy the ambience, are underestimating the embarrassment caused to those of us who would like to return to said restaurant without the skinflints.

It's time some people accepted that if they can only afford the soup at a nice restaurant, then they should go to a cheaper one where they can afford to eat properly and let their better off friends not face the awkwardness of the situation.

I've already confessed to being gluttonous and bibulous. I'll add 'adventurous' - in food terms.

Some of the people I eat out with on a regular basis only ever order the soup, because that's what they like. They don't like 'fancy stuff' - as they term it. And they have soup for lunch every day, because that's what they like.

When I go to a restaurant, I'll usually order something that I wouldn't normally eat.

Either because it's something that I've never eaten before, or something that I won't make at home because it's too much of a faff, or no one else will eat it, etc.

I love eating out with the friends who only ever order soup. They are warm, witty and wise. They are - and always will be - far more than the foods they order.

They are not 'skinflints'. They don't cause 'embarrassment' or 'awkwardness'. They may well be 'better off' than I am!

Why do you see it so differently?

Homeownertobe

pigpen wrote: »

that would mean losing your arm in my family!!! ... disgusting practice.. one does not touch anothers food.. ever!! I wouldn't take my partners food and he knows better.. if someone stole some of my food from my plate I would not eat the rest.. absolutely not a bite.


The only comments made about the food are usually if it is nasty... we have far more interesting things to talk about!

Seriously? You wouldn't share a bite of something with your own family?

And you don't talk about how good the food is? Where on earth do you eat? I'm assuming not actual restaurants.

BarryBlue

PasturesNew wrote: »

But you can't .... and not everybody eating together is a friend.

I thought that was an interesting comment. Certainly whenever we visit a restaurant we go with friends if it's not just the two of us. I would have no desire to share a dining experience with people who were not friends. On that basis we always just divide the bill between the number of people, usually 4 or sometimes 6. We generally have similarly priced meals anyway and if someone has had something costing an extra quid or two - so what! If there were people who took advantage we wouldn't be dining with them at all. We would not expect to visit a restaurant with anyone who couldn't afford to eat there.

This topic has been discussed several times before, of course, and it always goes the same way. It seems to me that it goes down gender lines. The ones who whip out their calculators are normally women. Blokes out for a curry just chuck money on the table and never worry about it. Couples who know each other as friends surely cannot seriously sit there working everything out to the penny. Life's too short for that!;)

Homeownertobe

coolcait wrote: »

I've already confessed to being gluttonous and bibulous. I'll add 'adventurous' - in food terms.

Some of the people I eat out with on a regular basis only ever order the soup, because that's what they like. They don't like 'fancy stuff' - as they term it. And they have soup for lunch every day, because that's what they like.

When I go to a restaurant, I'll usually order something that I wouldn't normally eat.

Either because it's something that I've never eaten before, or something that I won't make at home because it's too much of a faff, or no one else will eat it, etc.

I love eating out with the friends who only ever order soup. They are warm, witty and wise. They are - and always will be - far more than the foods they order.

They are not 'skinflints'. They don't cause 'embarrassment' or 'awkwardness'. They may well be 'better off' than I am!

Why do you see it so differently?

I was referring to the people on this thread who said they would go to an expensive restaurant and just order soup because they didn't want to pay for a full meal, but they still wanted the experience.

duchy

Homeownertobe wrote: »

Equally I think those who insist on 'just having the soup' at a decent, and relatively expensive restaurant because they want to enjoy the ambience, are underestimating the embarrassment caused to those of us who would like to return to said restaurant without the skinflints.

.

What complete and utter rubbish !
Ever eaten at the Ivy ? (I assume that fits your criteria of a good/expensive restaurant). It's full of real and supposed celebrities (as well as far richer and more successful people unknown to Hello magazine) -many of whom have to keep their weight down (telly adds pounds) or have bodyimage issues. Plenty of these people won't have more than just the soup -or just a starter. No-one bats an eyelid as they tuck into their own overpriced but rather nice meal.

If you are embarrassed - it says far more about you and your lack of social confidence than it does about the person who has the confidence to order exactly what they want to eat -whether that is one course or four or five. In fact the higher class the restaurant the more accustomed they are to "eccentric " ordering. The rich and successful order exactly what they want and don't care what the "little people" think be that the staff of the establishment or other customers.They are paying to get exactly what they want in terms of both food and service - and often pay handsomely for it.Not to be confused with the wannabes who spend loudly and conspicuously in the hope that it will impress people - and of course it doesn't LOL

(Of course if your idea of a "good" and "expensive" restaurant is a Harvester then perhaps you are judged by the sort of staff such places employ-it's all relative after all)

The genuinely successful are never embarrassed by someone getting exactly what they want -in fact it's a trait they admire.

Homeownertobe

PasturesNew wrote: »

Nobody said a restaurant has to be expensive.

If you can't afford to eat at home, any restaurant is expensive.;)

PasturesNew wrote: »

It's not that people can't afford to eat out - it's that they've calculated that they can afford to eat out, if they pay their way. What they can't do is be robbed at the table, in a way that makes them look like the wrong-doer.

The person in this example quite clearly could not afford to eat out.

PasturesNew wrote: »

Take out £20 for what should be a £10 meal and £2 drink .... and then get Mr King Prawns & Big Steak Guy glaring at you as he wants you to pay out £40 for the split bill.

Could you please update your repertoire? If I have to imagine someone ordering King Prawns and steak again, I may scream and never stop. Next you'll be talking about that newfangled dessert, tiramisu.

PasturesNew wrote: »

Richer people should stop robbing the poorer people who have managed their finances fine and have enough money with them to pay their bill.

Or poorer people should just stop trying to pretend that they can fully enjoy certain parts of life that cost money and stick to their own areas?;)

PasturesNew wrote: »

It's THOSE people that have "no business eating out at an expensive (or any) restaurant".

I would tend to agree that anyone who tries to steal from others should stay away, but I'm afraid I don't see someone who wants to split the bill as a thief.

I very rarely split the bill and I eat out once or twice a week, but the sheer venom directed at people who would prefer to split it, is breathtaking.