Recently went to a meal where I didn't know everyone well. I had a £21 main course and drank tap water. Another person, who I didn't really know, had an £11 salad, so when the bill came insisted in paying less. BUT, she'd had three cocktails and when I said "but I didn't drink if you want to be like that" she told me I should have drunk cocktails. My £21 main course cost me £38!
Utterly shameless. Why was it your poor planning for not having the expensive drinks that you 'could have' had and getting your money's worth; but it wasn't her poor planning for not having the expensive meal that she 'could have' had?
There are clearly people with a deliberate agenda who will fill their boots, having decided (without insulting anybody else) that the bill will be split; then, (as we've already seen on this thread), they will try to publicly shame the less well-off people for 'not being able to afford to socialise' when they themselves are clearly the ones who can't afford to socialise to the extent they want to, without being subbed by others. "Don't come out if you can't afford to pay for half of my big meal as well as your own".
Actually, that's a bluff, as they rely on poorer/more moderate diners for their big bargain meal. I wonder if some of them even deliberately seek out less well-off acquaintances to eat with, safe in the knowledge that they will thus cut their cloth and so be a perfect mark for subbing theirs, when they demand to split, with a side-order of shaming if you protest. If you also can/will push the boat out as much as they do, there's no saving for them to make.