To hate splitting bills at restaurants?

[AtticusFrost]

We socialise a fair bit but do not have a high income. We do this by being careful about how we spend our money. So I absolutely hate it if in a restaurant at the end of the night someone says forcefully we should just split the bill.
No! I know it is easier. But myself and DH have chosen cheaper options so we can afford this. And it always people who have spent loads who say this.

Also if you are the one insisting on this - then you should be the one at the end of meal calculating it out for everyone. Don't be the person who says, I only had a lasagne and a Diet Coke, here is my share and leave it to someone else to figure it out.

Erm, why? If the prices are published on the menu, then it's your responsibility to plan ahead and work out how much your order is going to be surely?

But everyone else can just split the remaining bill if they want to.

What amazes me is that people go out in groups and don't discuss how they are going to deal with the bill before or during ordering.

The default in our group has always been pay for what you have.

The only time when I've been somewhere and the bill was split equally was at a work night out and we had tapas, fair enough. It did work out a lot more than the dishes I'd ordered given they were vegetarian, and I only had one glass of wine, but I didn't mind then.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll Honestly I would not say "I can't afford to treat you this time' - it sounds horrendously passive aggressive. If someone said this in response to splitting a bill I would think they were a massive dick and wouldn't want to go out with them again.

Just be honest, say - I don't want to split the bill - I prefer to pay for my share if that is ok, I will work it out and add a share of the tip. Just be up front and straightforward.

Yes exactly. It’s shows that you have been sat there watching what everyone has ordered and looking at the price of it. Clocking who has had a starter and who hasn’t. Who had a coffee, one more glass of wine. CFs!!

If you are on a tight budget then say upfront. That you’ll just pay for what you are ordering. (And make sure you add on the service charge). Don’t be embarrassing and passive aggressive at the end of the meal - it kind of ruins the atmosphere.

If anyone we are eating out with is not drinking/ clearly only had a salad then this would be adjusted down for them.

Yes exactly. It’s shows that you have been sat there watching what everyone has ordered and looking at the price of it

It's pretty obvious if everyone else but you has three courses to your one though. I doubt very much that the person in question is scrutinising what everyone else is eating.

DH and I always ask for a separate bill as soon as the waiter comes over to take the order. Then we can splash out if we want or eat cheaply if things are a bit tight. Either way, we don’t leave at the end of the night feeling resentful that we’ve subsided someone else’s dinner or worrying that we’ve overspent and annoyed people. Absolutely nothing wrong with just paying for what you had.

Yes and in that situation the bill can be adjusted down.

But that rarely happens. A few have a starter, but cheaper mains, a few coffees, some people drink a bit more wine than others. Or order an expensive cocktail. Nobody ever orders the same amount and it never occurs to me that I’m ‘treating someone’ or being swindled by splitting the bill.

I hate people that do that. I once went out with DH, DS and DH’s friend. Me, DH and DS had a meal which cost around £30 as it was early bird. DH put in £35, so a small tip. The friend went to pay at the same time as DH went to the loo. The friend used the £5 tip towards his meal!! The real kicker was he was getting me meal on expenses so doubly cheap. We were fuming.

Honestly I would not say "I can't afford to treat you this time' - it sounds horrendously passive aggressive. If someone said this in response to splitting a bill I would think they were a massive dick and wouldn't want to go out with them again.

To be honest, it's meant to sound passive aggressive, really. It's a slightly more subtle and less scene-causing alternative to the reaction that I think would be fully justified.

That's the point, too - that the CFs make out that the person who doesn't want to sub them is the massive dick, when the exact opposite is the truth. They're doing you a favour if they go off in a huff and refuse to allow you to to be in a position to be grifted by them again another time.

To be clear, I'm only suggesting this when somebody is hugely taking advantage and is shameless in their very deliberate attempts to fill their boots and then guilt/shame everybody else into massively subbing it for them. I am not talking about people who have had broadly the same/equal value food and drink and where the discrepancy isn't likely to be significant.

To be honest if I found myself in a situation where someone was regularly taking advantage (filling their boots) and then trying to split the bill - I would avoid going out to dinner with them again.

This has honestly never happened to me - or so rarely I can't remember. Every group I go out with - if their is an obvious discrepancy then the group takes care of it without the person concerned having to ask.

There usually isn't an obvious discrepancy - as people tend to match each other in my experience. Have starters if everyone else is. Drink wine if everyone else is.

There is nothing subtle about 'Sorry I am not able to treat your his time' - it is a very aggressive way of dealing with a simple situation.

I have no problem with saying that I’ll be paying for just what I’ve had plus service charge divided and I’ll add into the tip. It’s like going to a cafe and paying for your lunch and coffee at the counter. We all pay individually and this is normal to do.

When the bill came she’d always ensure she was the last to pay and everyone else had overpaid so there was a tip (so if theirs came to £18 then they’d put £20 on their card) but she would just pay the rest off the bill (usually just a few pounds) and there’d be no tip left and she’d got an almost free meal. I wish I’d called her out at the time.

The lengths that tight fuckers will go to to save a quid or two never ceases to amaze me.

There is nothing subtle about 'Sorry I am not able to treat your his time' - it is a very aggressive way of dealing with a simple situation.

Good for you that you've never had to have a meal with colleagues, friends-of-friends or other groups that you wouldn't otherwise actively choose to dine out with. Not everybody is that fortunate.

Are you saying that, when somebody (not close to you) knows very well that they have eaten and drunk far more than you and is insisting to the point of aggression that you need to pay 'your share' (i.e. subsidising them by a considerable amount) - and then loudly shaming you and claiming that YOU are trying to rip off everybody else and/or berating you for coming out for a meal when you 'can't afford it' (i.e. you can afford your own bill, but not to subsidise a free-spending random epicure) - that it's up to YOU to 'be kind' to this person and not try to call them out on their behaviour or prevent them from walking all over you? How come THEY don't have to 'be kind' (and not try to grift you) as well?

....Do you seriously think that they've somehow made a mistake in not noticing how much they've been consuming compared to you - and that they aren't thus expecting you to 'treat' (i.e. pay for/subsidise) them?

Even if they find it bemusing, nobody who genuinely believes that they aren't taking advantage will get angry and insistent that you must split equally, when another diner says that they want to just pay for their own.

If anything, happily allowing this will vindicate them in their belief that they were right and you are petty, when the bill is calculated and there's only a pound or two difference - especially if it turns out that theirs was actually cheaper. If, however, it does transpire that their meal cost three times as much as yours did.... THAT is the reason for their insistence, anger and gaslighting.

In my friend and family groups we just pay for what we have - order drinks at the bar to keep them off the food bill, keep a running total and add a bit extra to cover tips. No one has any issue with this.

TBH I don't really care about it that much when it's people I don't know or work colleagues/work event.

I care it about it more when it's people who are supposed to be my friends who are constantly trying to rip me off and make a big deal about it if something fair is proposed - "we can't be bothered to add things up", "it's too tedious", "it spoils the evening", "you are tight".

I'd like to know exactly how adding a few numbers up or letting people have their own separate bill "spoils the evening".

My experience of friends that would nit pick a bill to the nearest penny were also the ones that would forget about service charges/ tips and any other discrepancies and be reluctant to increase their share appropriately.

They were also people that never organised events/ parties putting less money or time into the social group and tended to be late to commit/ bail out at short notice. They were happy to sort their own lives out, but not put back in to the group.
In the end I got fed up of inviting them and the friendships dwindled rapidly because they didn't invest anything back into the friendship.

This was before it became easier to split bills and get them itemised or pay by card. It was also a ballache on group holidays dealing with language barriers and hidden charges like the bread on the table.

No one should be ripped off, but a bit of flexibility helps the evening end far better.

@BogRollBOGOF my experience is similar. I have no objection to people only wanting to pay their exact share - but my experience is that they are not typically upfront about it e.g. they do it fairly surreptitiously at the end (here is my 20 quid for what i had) - inevitably leaving others out of pocket who then just pay the difference so as not to cause a scene.

I would be fine with it - if it was more upfront at the start (or at least volunteering at the end to work out everyone's share and make sure the pot is not short).

they do it fairly surreptitiously at the end (here is my 20 quid for what i had) - inevitably leaving others out of pocket who then just pay the difference so as not to cause a scene

but if they are paying for their share (including contribution to tip), why are others out of pocket?