To think a couple shouldn't count as one share?

[Mimicat44]

I recently spent a weekend with two friends who are a couple. I'm single with a small baby. I paid half of the accommodation cost and when we went shopping for food I paid half. Now that I think about it though, I think everything should have been divided by three, so a share for each adult rather than them counting as one. AIBU?

Accommodation split by room (assuming the rooms are roughly equal, not one massive master + ensuite plus one boxroom) so in this case 50/50.

Food split by adult, so shared between three.

50/50 for accommodation, food split between three. I had this come up when planning my wedding. The accommodation for the venue was a little nontraditional so charged per person, rather than per room. But for a couple it worked out to the price of a hotel room anyway. One of my bridesmaids kept going on and on about how it wasn't fair for a couple/family to have to pay per person. I made the point that when a single person books a hotel room they don't have the option to only pay half the bill because they are not taking up the whole bed. Plus, couples have other advantages such as splitting bills, rent, etc so this is probably one of very few occasions when the single person is on equal footing. She couldn't grasp it though.

On holiday last year, 7 of us went (6 adults, 1 child. The 6 adults comprised of two couples and two individuals). The total cost of the house we stayed in was divided amongst the 6 adults not across the bedrooms. Yes this meant that the two individuals paid less for accommodation than the two couples but then they ended up with smaller rooms (still double beds etc) and the child had the bedroom next to parents.

For food/necessities we (adults) each put x amount into a kitty. Anything extra we wanted we paid for ourselves

I'd never argue though if they expected half for food as it's not worth any awkwardness, they're very good friends

Sorry, they cant be that good of friends if they were perfectly happy for you to contribute towards their food costs, they are either happy to take advantage of you or completely thoughtless.

If you are a couple with other couples then split by treating each couple as one unit. However when there is a mix of couples and single individuals involved then all costs should be split by head. Why should a single person pay more for their head because they don't have anyone to share their bed with (obviously can't always apply as in the hotel example above). It's not as though couples mind having to share a room with one another.

Agree with the majority that paying the same room rate seems fair but you shouldn't have had to subsidise their food. But I disagree with a previous poster's taxi comparison. Taxis charge by stop, not by person - if a couple and an individual share a cab they're each reducing the cost to the other, but I think the couple do count as one unit in that scenario.

To be fair, we hang as a group with people with no kids, two kids, one kid and we usually split the bill three ways, as three couples, even when kids with us. Which on the face of it isn't fair. The couple with no kids are being penalised, where as the couple with two are paying less. The reality is though no one gives a shit and it's easier than doing the math. Especially after a few vnos! We just chuck three cards in, or one person settles up and the rest give them the money. I also know the couple with no kids would be a bit offended if we suggested they pay less, as I'm sure we have suggested it before and they are very close to the kids.

However if it was just my husband and I and a single friend, I'd either not let them contribute or max contribute a third or token amount. I think it's taking the piss to ask for half as that's not difficult maths.

If I was the single friend, I'd pay half, but to be honest, at the back of my mind I'd be thinking the same thing as the op.

Half for accommodation, a third for food.

When we go out with friends/family with kids, the kids go for half an adult, and we pay per head. Unless we just pick up the bill for all (family). This only goes awry, when someone drinks a lot of expensive alcohol. Then we just use their credit card to pay for everything (kidding!)

Accommodation paid per room, food paid per person (half for children once they eat solids).

For the taxi though I think it should be per stop, let me demonstrate:

Couple would have paid say £10, individual would have paid £10: if they share, the total will be say £15.

• Splitting per person means the couple still pays £10 and the individual £5: why would the couple not benefit from sharing? they might as well have taken their own taxi, more space and no additional stop.
• Splitting per stop means the couple pays £7.50, the individual £7.50: everybody saves something

I'd say half for cottage, 1/3 for food, BUT to make allowance for amount of disposable income.

We've done it when we had 1 baby, and our friends had 2 kids, so they used two rooms and more food, but they had only 1 income and we had 2. It didn't make a huge amount of difference.

I think some people can be a bit blind. I've had friends saying that they want to split things per family when there's 5 of them and they need 3 rooms to everyone else's one or two.

Living - what if the couple are staying with the single person? Or it's 3 single people sharing? Just because you're sleeping with someone shouldn't mean your friends subsidise you

YANBU. Three people means it should be split three ways. To use the logic of this couple, if they both worked for the same company with each on a salary of £25,000 a year, would it be right for the company to only pay them half the amount each? They're a couple after all.

A similar thing happened to me years ago in a houseshare. I was sharing with a couple. They wanted to alternate the washing up - fair enough, I thought, I'll be doing it one day in three. What they actually meant was I would do it on Monday, one of them on Tuesday, me on Wednesday, one of them on Thursday, me on Friday, and so on. Seemed a little unfair, that.

This happens to me whenever my sister and I take out my mum for dinner (birthdays etc), she comes with her DP, I'm single and we halve the bill. I'm too embarrassed to mention it because otherwise she's a lovely generous sister (as is her DP) I just think they haven't thought about it hard enough.

Couple sense of "entitlement"?

what if the couple are staying with the single person? Or it's 3 single people sharing? Just because you're sleeping with someone shouldn't mean your friends subsidise you

If they are all staying at the same place 3-way split would be fair because they would all save. So in my example: couple alone £10, single alone £10, all sharing: total £10: £6.6/£3.3, everybody saves.

3 people sharing = 3 way split. They would also all save.

The key here is the fact that contrary to a restaurant, a taxi is paid per stop ie without sharing with anyone else, the couple are saving money by living together, why should they give away this "discount" because they are sharing with one more person.

What if the two people going to the same place aren't a couple? Do they still get treated as one?

Ok so most people are saying 50:50 for the cottage as it's per room, but what if it was three friends, none in a couple, but two of the friends shared a double bed and the other person slept alone. Maybe in a smaller room. Should it still be per room then, so the two friends in together pay half as much each as the friend in her own room?

You weren't on your own though as your baby was with you. Obviously the food should still be divided by three as they don't eat but they do take up space. If you were on your own in a smaller single room then it would be fair to split the bill 40/60.

Jiggle I would say yes.
Same for a cottage room, if two non-couple person are happy to share a room they can split the cost of the room, as a couple would.
If they each want a room then they have to pay for it - but they will get twice the space in bed and closets that a sharer would, ability to keep the light on without negotiating with someone who might want to sleep, etc.

Yes Mimi per room. Maybe with adjustment if rooms are not of equal size, with/without ensuite etc.

So if 3 people are going to the same place, they split the taxi fare equally, if 2 are going to the same place and the other is going anywhere else - even if it's 500m away, the fare gets split 50/50?

By that logic, I'd get out and walk the last bit - be loads cheaper

But by your logic the couple wouldn't share with the single because they might more or less pay the same price than if they were just the two of them.
You are ignoring my last remark: a couple already has a "discount" when they take a taxi (vs two individuals each taking a taxi) why should they loose it because a third person shares?

I think one thing that's important and so far overlooked is how the accommodation was booked/paid. Was it paid as a total property (in which case, it should have been split three ways) or was it paid for per room (in which case, each party pays for their own room)?

On the kids issue: babies and any kid small enough to share with the parent goes free (or is counted as a zero). Kids who need their own beds or rooms count as a person for accommodation, half a person for food. Teenagers count for a whole damn person because they have hollow legs!