Splitting the bill

[Fallingovercliffs]

I know this topic probably comes up every Christmas but how do people feel about this?
I was out with some friends a couple of nights ago and we all had more or less the same amount of food and drink, but when the bill came someone took out their phone and started calculating who had what and how much each person owed. A couple of us said 'Look, we'll just split it. Less complicated' but they insisted on doing the 'Susan didn't have a starter. John had a beer before the rest of us got here' stuff.
AIBU to think this is incredibly petty?
Obviously if someone wasn't drinking I'd make sure they didn't pay for any of the wine. Or if I ordered a very expensive main course I'd insist on throwing in a few extra quid. But otherwise, just split the bill!!

I heard once on the radio a discussion about this. They said that a university studied restaurant bills in Germany and England. In England the custom is to just split the bill evenly between everybody, in Germany everybody pays only for what they had. People in England were much more likely to order three courses, more expensive dishes and drink much more than in Germany.

You might say this is just because the English are greedy and drink more, I think the other more obvious reason is more likely.

*If you can't afford to go out for dinner and be relaxed about it, skip it

What a depressing attitude to have towards your friends.

There is no circle of hell bad enough for the bastards who insist on getting their calculators out and doing the "your starter was more expensive than mine and she had two glasses of wine" act. It's just cheap.

The people who "don't drink" invariably have a starter, a side salad, a pudding and two glasses of freshly squeezed orange that cost more than a small glass of house white.

I had this just last week when I went out for my best friends birthday meal. She choose a local Italian which is a lovely place, but as im currently 8 months pregnant and suffering from gestational diabetes I am unable to eat bread and pasta, which ruled a majority of the meals. I was left with a diet coke and tomato and mozarella salad while the rest of the table ate amazing looking pasta dishes, drank numerous bottles of wine and enjoyed cheesecake/chocolate pudding for dessert.

I'm definitely not one to normally bother over a few pounds but when the bill came and it was declared everyone owed £45 and my meal and drink (which left me still ravenous) cost a me a mere £11 I did speak up.

There is no circle of hell bad enough for the bastards who insist on getting their calculators out and doing the "your starter was more expensive than mine and she had two glasses of wine" act. It's just cheap.

Isn't it even more cheap to insist that someone who hasn't eaten as expensive a meal as you pays for a share of yours?

I do have compassion which is why, if I know there are people in the group who are in an extremely tight financial situation, I don't choose places that are going to stretch them to the pin of their collar

But there's no such thing as a universally cheap place for food.

I went for a meal with my team on Friday night. We went to a standard 'decent' pub. But the range of meals went from £7.50 for chicken and chips to £23 for a sirloin steak. Plus then there's the option of starters, desserts or alcohol.

I'm by no means tight but it was a pub grub team do, and I was out for 1.5 hours. I had a £9 curry and drank water (i don't like fizzy drinks and was driving). Didn't feel like a starter or dessert. So spent a total of £9. The girl next to me spent £45, with a steak, plus a starter and dessert and two glasses of wine.

We each paid for ourselves, which was the consensus from the off but I wouldn't have been happy splitting a bill with 8 others, most of whom spent £35 + each.

I know Sunday. I think for some people eating out in a restaurant and being able to relax about it is just beyond their budget at the moment. That's why, in those situations, I would suggest meeting for a drink or coming over to mine for pizza or somesuch. It's awful to put someone in a situation where they're having to scour a menu for something cheap, pretending they don't want a starter, not allowing anyone to pour them a second glass of wine etc. and then having to count the pennies at the end of the evening and make sure they've held back enough for a tip.

And certainly, in your scenario above, paying separately was the appropriate thing to do. But I think everyone on the thread has agreed that where there is a huge difference between people's meals, splitting the bill is unfair.

I certainly don't disagree that people shouldn't pay over the odds and yours is a good example NoSunday.

However I genuinely don't believe that the majority of people are doing it deliberately. It's hard enough for me to remember what I had without thinking about X down the table who just had a starter and some water - but if, before the bill is split up, X wants to say I just had this and here's my tenner, then no sweat, I'd be perfectly happy with that.

I certainly don't want someone else to subsidise my meal, but equally why should the onus be on everyone else to notice, most people aren't deliberately obtuse (apart from the fillet mignon and fine wine drinkers in a group situation).

Also as I said above, people always underestimate what they're having. I do get a bit annoyed when we do the whole split the drinkers vs non drinkers if the non drinkers have been quaffing back the diet cokes and ordering cappucinos and desserts at the end, when I've had a couple of glasses of el cheapo house chardonnay.

I vary what I do. If I'm out and we all genuinely have roughly the same amount to eat / drink then I feel it's a tad tight to worry over 'person x owes £2 more than person y' etc, so I just split it. If there's obviously a clear difference (e.g, one person has several cocktails and one is on tap water) then it's better to pay what you owe.

"But there's no such thing as a universally cheap place for food." but the point is - if you choose a place that is £30 a head and then order £200 of alcohol to the table and expect a person who was only planning on paying £30 a head to contribute to everyone else's drinking bill then that's really mean

sorry - I am Agreeing with your point BTW.

there's no such thing as a universally cheap place for food no but there are restaurants with set menus or one price buffets, I generally pick these when organising a group meal, much less stress all round as then the extras do just come down to amount drunk.

plecofjustice People won't necessarily have "forgotten to put in 12.5% on top for their tip" - people may have chosen not to (or may not be able to afford to). There's no compulsion to tip at all, and certainly no expectation to tip 1/8th of what you've spent.

Then that's something they have to discuss and be upfront. To be honest, I have absolutely no problem with splitting, or itemising the bill or whatever, but if you're not going to tip, and you come to the meal with no intention of tipping, I want to know in advance so I can cancel or go for a drink instead. If you can't afford or are too cheap to tip, then we need to go somewhere where it's not required.

I collar people who leap up and try to weasel out of tip. I was once at a large office dinner with one staff out of paying at all by producing a cheque book. His supervisor took the cheque.

Group tipping is a real minefield and probably a separate AIBU in it's own right.

I would never dream of not tipping - it's how I was brought up - but I tip 10% as that's what I thought was required in the UK and it's a lot easier to work out than 12.5% .

I agree I hate people that don't put in 10% and find it awkward going out for meals with my SIL's family for that reason, I try to reason with myself that not all people leave tips, so at least if we leave 10% overall they'll get around 5%, but generally we tend not to eat out with them or go to fish and chip shops where you pay at the counter to avoid the problem.

I certainly don't want someone else to subsidise my meal, but equally why should the onus be on everyone else to notice, most people aren't deliberately obtuse (apart from the fillet mignon and fine wine drinkers in a group situation).

But surely some of the comments on here give you a little insight into why people feel uncomfortable doing this? People like DreamingofSummer who think it's cheap to tot up what you had and Wiltingfast who thinks that those who aren't prepared to subsidise their dining companions shouldn't go out make it awkward and embarrassing for people who want to pay their fair share and no more.

No I can understand why people feel a bit uncomfortable saying it, but the alternative is expecting other people (who may or may not have had a few glasses of wine ) to either:

a) have noticed on their behalf - don't know about you but if there's a big party my usual modus operandi is to order from the middle - low priced section of the menu and drink the same as everyone else, I don't see it as my responsibility to keep a watch out on everyone elses menu order

or
b) keep a running tally of what I have ordered so we can split it out correctly. Happy to do that if I know it in advance and if the wine is correctly apportioned.

I would have no objection to someone saying at the start that they want to pay for what they have or for people to pay for their own share preferably with a non drinker working out the calculations or indeed the person who wants that to happen - that strikes me as right and proper, but it does need to be stated in advance otherwise it just gets messy.

Don't think I've ever been out for a meal where people have paid individually for their food. We always split it equally and then make a rough adjustment if anyone was entirely teetotal, for example, whilst the others were knocking the wine back. We don't adjust if Person A had 2 glasses of wine and Person B had 4. That just seems wrong and contrary to the spirit of a night out with friends.

We do have one woman in our office who always moans about how the bill is split when we go out and sits there with a copy of the menu and her calculator to work out to the penny what she owes. She's not coming to our Xmas do this year and no-one's sad about it!

I don't think one person wanting to pay just for what they had means that everyone has to - if most people are happy to split then one or two people (at either end of the spectrum, although it does usually seem to be those who have consumed less who would rather just pay for themselves) putting in for what they have had doesn't mean that everyone else can't split the remainder.

As I said upthread - those who are 'cheap dates' are stuck between potentially having to pay a lot more than their meal cost, and having people berate them for being cheap or telling them they shouldn't come out if they can't afford to subsidise others. It can be difficult to decide whether you'd rather be embarrassed or poor!

JohnCusacksWife - maybe she isn't coming because she can't afford it. She might be sad about it.

DoJo, she can afford it. She doesn't do it because she can't afford it - if that was the case we'd sort it for her (as we used to when we had an office junior who earned bugger all). She just grudges paying 1p more than she has to.

I think it's about balance. Clearly if there are notable differences in what people are ordering then it makes more sense to pay what you owe, but if its roughly the same then it's easier to split. Some people are just a bit tight though. My Mum is awful - she likes to work things out to the pence. A couple of weeks ago I paid for mine and DH's share for a family meal out. She tried to give me back 2p as she said I had 'overpaid' and given 2p too much. She seemed surprised when I said I didn't want the 2p. She also never really tips. So we had a £80ish bill once on a family meal out (no service charge included). She thought she was being generous leaving a tip of 40p (we had offered her enough money to leave a tip as well). It can be cringeworthy.

if most people are happy to split then one or two people (at either end of the spectrum, although it does usually seem to be those who have consumed less who would rather just pay for themselves)

Yes very good point. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they've eaten and drank loads so should pay for themselves so everyone else isn't subsidising them.