What's the fairest way to split cost of this holiday?

[Theknittinggorilla]

Three families hiring a country cottage for a week:

Family 1: couple, no kids, 2 dogs
Family 2: couple, one baby under 6 months old
Family 3: couple, three kids (4, 2 and baby under 6 months old)

Cottage will need 4 bedrooms, one for each couple and one for the 4 and 2 year old to share. Babies will be in cots in parents rooms.

If cottage is say £3k for the week, how much should each family pay?

Seeing as it's family, definitely 1/3 each for the accommodation then you can sort out food and drink separately taking the children's ages into consideration.

I don't have kids but older siblings do, younger sibling still in 'full time' education (not full time if you don't study at home!) so no income.

If we went away and had to have an extra bedroom per 2 kids, but they expected me and DP to pay towards their kids room I'd be pissed. Maybe that says more about me or my family dynamics than anything else, but so what!

I do agree though, that each couple should pay for the extras relating to them, ie couple 1 pay any extras for having a dog, couple 2 and 3 pay for extras for cots. Obviously it would be idea if the prices all came to the same, but maybe the babies will have a travel cot from home and have no extra charges. But maybe if PIL or sibling are well off they might want to help towards making it a more equal split. No way to know without just asking.

Either
25, 25, 50% (family with kids paying more)

Or
Split it in thirds if it's close family but the family with children should be chipping in more than their share to the food to even it out a bit.

Grand we have singletons pay half. Yes they "win" by getting a room to themselves, but that is not normally by choice. They shouldn't have to pay more as a tax on singledom. Obviously if there are smaller rooms they'll tend to get those. There's often a master suite that will inevitably go to a couple, normally paying the same as everyone else!

It's about ability to pay and treating everyone kindly, not getting the most money out of your friends/family.

If you want a more generous way than just making the family that are using 2 bedrooms pay double (not saying this is wrong, just offering an alternative) you could do it based on number of people.

So family 1 there's 3 (2 dogs equal to 1 person?), family 2 there's 3, family 3 there's 5.

That means they pay:

• family 1: approx 815
• family 2: approx 815
• family 3: approx 1370

With family, I'd split it by thirds, but the family needing two rooms offer to take the smallest 2 rooms to redress the balance a bit !

Your DH is right. Everyone will be enjoying the communal areas and the general shared benefits of being on holiday.

Yes and if he does try that , I hope the childless couple invoice him for babysitting and cooking for his children.

mumzypops are you a Tory???

I would say split between the three families. It's not like the kids are going to be paying for themselves is it!

The PIL should pay the whole lot because they are baby boomers and must be punished for it.

Here here ellisandra

I would say split between the three families. It's not like the kids are going to be paying for themselves is it!

But if they holidayed separately - the childless couple would book a one room apartment, the couple with the one six month old would book a one bedroom apartment and the couple with three children would have booked a 2 or three bedroomed apartment, which would have been substantially more expensive.

If my sister (who has kids, I don't) suggested 'oh we will just split it three ways, despite her brood taking up the majority of the space, I'd think she was using the idea of a family holiday as a way of defraying the costs of taking her kids away. It is the same as the greedy bastard at a meal who has a starter, the most expensive main, a few side dishes, a dessert and a bottle of wine to themselves and then says, 'tell you what, let's just split the cost 12 ways' when the other 11 have only had a main and a soft drink.

How I'd split it would depend on the relationships, people involved, ages/spread of the kids between families etc ...

If it's family and the pupose of the trip is to go away and enjoy time together then I think we'd probably split it equally 1/3 each. What's the point in going away to spend time together then quibbling about the fact that my brother or sister needed two bedrooms because they are bringing all of my nieces/nephews whereas I'm only bringing DD8? Family 2 & 3 are both bringing 6 month olds, in a few years if you go away again then they will be able to share a room too so it would just get more complicated ... keep it simple.

If it was three friends then I'd split it per bedroom as your friends shouldn't have to subsidise your kids just to be able to go away together (and a what point would there be a cut off of childless Family 1 subsidising extra rooms ... what if Family 2 had two kids and Family 3 had 4 kids so two extra rooms were needed, is it fair to make Family 1 subsidise two extra bedrooms?)

If there was a big disparity between group sizes then my friends and I always split it by person - with every adult counting for one "share" and every kid counting for half a "share" ... so in your case Family 1 would pay 2 shares, Family 2 would pay 2.5 shares and Family 3 would pay 3.5 shares. That way a single person wouldn't be penalised for going away with a couple with three kids and it would be the fairest split.

No way should it be put bedroom.
If it was £750 for a couple & 2 dogs
£750 for a couple and a baby
And £1500 for a couple, a baby and 2 small kids.
Then 2 adults, a baby and 2 small kids would be paying the same as 4 adults, a baby and 2 dogs.

That doesn't make sense.

I don't think you can be totally fair about something like this. What the dog owners should pay will depend a lot on the dogs. If they are big ones the kids can't be around too much then they should probably pay a bit more than just for 1 bedroom and the pet deposit. If they are small dogs and the kids will spend hours playing with them and being entertained then maybe the dog owners should be subbed by the children's parents! The couple with no kids or dogs should technically pay the least, but if this were me I'd be expecting to pay 1/3rd because I can't face the idea of a holiday like that where everyone is bean counting, and besides, it's a holiday to be with these people so I'd want to facilitate that, not just my accommodation. But we're very comfortably off and it wouldnt really make a difference to us. It's another story if there is a big disparity in wealth because often the people with the least are already stretching themselves for something they don't really value as much.

So fair is difficult to evaluate on just the number of people and bedrooms. Better I think to talk about what everyone would be happy with.

Thirds

If its anything else, you don't really all want to go on holiday together.

Thirds

If its anything else, you don't really all want to go on holiday together

Nonsense. There's plenty of people I wouldn't mind going on holiday with, very few that I'd want to subsidise their holiday for them.

Personally I think in a family situation you should definitely go three ways! Assuming everyone is reasonably well off. Maybe tackle it up front and offer to pay "a bit extra" as you'll be needing an extra bedroom as a gesture of goodwill and see how it goes down with the others? Let them stress about how to divvy it up without looking tight!

PIL should pay for everyone

Just share it out.
Holiday time is too important to eek about.

It's gonna look horrible if a bunch of friends and family try to squeem a penny or another out of another one.

If the people you choose to be with are decent then there's not an issue.

Ooh @akkakk yes. But then again how do you make sure it's an exact like for like? It's a cottage, not a Butlins appartment.

I say 3 thirds. Unfair that family with 2 children should shoulder some of the cost of the communal rooms. They've already paid their 3rd of the communals.

Where are the dogs going to sleep?

So. Say. If not going thirds but work out cost for communal bits by calling that half of a third of £3000. So. Each couple's communal cost is £500.
Then that couple with the children have already paid for their communals paying £500 so take off £500 off theirs 2/4 price and divide that by the 3 and add on to each couple. So, they are only paying for extra room. Not extra communals.

Family with 2 children pay (£3000x1/2) - 500 + (£500/3) = £1167
Family 2 dogs pay (£3000x1/4) + (£500/3) = £916
Family 1 baby pay ditto = £916

Total £3000.

How's that?

Surely they are all friends and can work this out between them?
If they can't then they shouldn't be holidaying together.

I'm beginning to think I don't want to go on this holiday with these people. I think it's too many people for one cottage unless it's huge!! Just realised the 2 child family also have a baby. It's not going to be very restful for those with no/one child. And those dogs!! What breed are they? Have we established that? What if it rains and you all have to stay indoors together? Are those with less children the types to help out with those with more or are they going to be huffing and puffing at shouting children when they're trying to get their PFB to sleep.

I don't think you've thought this through OP.

Your husband's argument is ridiculous unless the four bed home has an entire floor of reception rooms, a swimming pool and landscapes gardens, while the three-bed option has a tiny kitchen-diner with no sofa. In which case it is likely the three-bed wouldn't ever have suited anyway.

I hate hate hate with these things how people who are actually the ones to benefit financially call others tight for not splitting equally when they are the ones using more resources, as per the restaurant example above. It's actually the person who doesn't want to pay their true share and wants to be subsidised by others that is the mean one, in my opinion.