Birthday bill split

[KnickerlessFatWoman]

Last weekend was my mother’s birthday, so we - that’s me, my parents, sister and BIL and their 12 year-old son - went for Sunday lunch. Unfortunately the food wasn’t great, and they ended up taking my main off the bill.

My dad is someone who always wants to treat everyone, so my sister and I decided this time it was our turn and we were going to treat him and our mum instead. When the bill came, BIL asked if we could split it over two cards, but they said they could only take one payment. He paid and I said I’d transfer my share. For the sake of keeping the maths simple on this thread, let’s say the bill was £210, or £35 per head.

Both BIL and sister are crap at responding to messages, so it took me until midweek to get the bank details. I sent over £70 to cover me and one of my parents.

I heard nothing in response, but I was chatting to my mum earlier and she said “Oh, by the way, Katie said you got the money wrong - it was £210 and you only sent £70”. I said no, that was right - my meal and one other. She said, “Ohhh… I think she thought you were splitting it”. I laughed and said, “No, we said we’d treat you and Dad. I didn’t say I’d pay for three meals!”

I don’t really know why my sister couldn’t just have messaged me instead of talking to our mother about it, but that’s not really the issue. Surely she and BIL don’t expect me to pay half the bill? By treating our parents, I meant exactly that - not that I’d pay for them both while my sister just paid for her own family (which is what this amounts to). There are three of them and one of me. If I pay half the bill, sister and BIL have only covered themselves and their child - there’s no “treating” anyone at all.

AIBU for thinking £70 was my share and paying just that?

I think sometimes "smug marrieds" (as Bridget Jones would say) forget there are two of them. "Split the bill" between one single person and one couple means 33/66% split but a lot of couples act like it's 50/50 because they see themselves as one person. They're wrong.

I can’t believe you’re getting such a hard time on here OP.

You agreed to treat your parents which, to me, means they don’t pay for their meals so you split the £70 between you and your sis.

Why are so many people on here unable to comprehend that and think it’s acceptable for you to pay over the odds? 🙄

This is a thread where I initially agreed with the OP. Though I still agree with the OP's reasoning, I'm seeing an unpleasant side to the OP as the thread has progressed

I can now see why her sister discussed the issue with her mum, rather than mention it to the OP. That did seem rather odd in the original post. Based on the OP's most recent posts, I would not be surprised if the OP's behaviour was a regular topic of conversation between her mum and sister.

No you’re using logic when your logic is faulty. I’m just pointing that out. I think you’re just still arguing because you painted yourself into a corner and don’t like being wrong so you change the facts (that the OP ever agreed to split the billl which she didn’t) to suit your narrative.

Sister one: I as thinking of spending £35 on Mum and Dad's anniversary
Sister two: Me too
Sister one: When we go for their celebration meal shall we use the money to pay for their share?
Sister two: No. You can pay for both their shares and I will keep my £35

I don't understand why you are getting such a hard time @KnickerlessFatWoman.

Your argument makes perfect sense to me and I would feel the same in your shoes.

From my understanding you never said, "Let's split the bill" but actually suggested both you and your sister treat your parents. If it's £35 per head then you pay for one parent each plus your own meal. If either of you choose to bring along anyone else - say if you had brought a plus one - then that's down to the accompanying person.

I think you need to speak to your sister and remind her of the conversation asap which should hopefully put this to bed.

I think the point is that you dad normally past for the whole bill, yes?

So by relieving him of thet duty, it sounded like you were going to pay the whole bill between you and your sister.

I can see how that translated at 50/50.

But you see I think your logic is faulty!

@2026letsgo I see your point but I think the difference is her dad has chosen to pay for everyone.

OP didn't

But a lot of these misunderstandings arise when there is lack of communication which is a partial part of the issue here I guess

All of this applies to the sister in at least equal measure.

She has then behaved in a much more mean way by moaning to the birthday girl, probably making her feel guilty and upset. That was very selfish of the sister.

I think there’s a lot of truth in that! I think they think that they have to support a child which makes them think things are more expensive forgetting that a lot of things like accommodation, utilities, holidays etc are cheaper PP for those with two incomes sharing one space (and I say that as a person who has been in a couple for many years but also remember being single).

What a load of sanctimonious clap-trap! Why on earth would OP need to subsidise not only her sister but her sister's husband? It's her sister who is complaining that she had to pay for her own family's meals plus one of her parent's meals. OP paid for her own meal plus one of her parent's meals. How on earth is that mean?

OP is a one-income household. Her sister is a two-incomes household. Surely OP's sister should have got a 'nice warm fuzzy feeling' for paying for her own family's meals and treating one of her parents.

I know you do. That’s what’s worrying.

Yes, sister , BiL and nephew are a 3 person 'unit' compared to OP who is a one person 'unit'.

So yes it IS going to cost them more to eat out than OP.

It still doesn't mean that OP should subsidise them!

Also, sister and BiL have 2 salaries and OP has only one.

So you could argue that THEY should subsidise HER.

Or do what lots of people do - pay the cost of their own bill.
(Plus, in this case, one parent's meal - as was agreed).

And btw, if i was in a supermarket with a 3 person family buying shared groceries, I would be splitting that bill 25:75, NOT 50:50.
Because that's fair.

Ok you have bored me into submission. You are right and you always were. I am wrong and my logic has been faulty and I can only apologise. Please forgive me.

Yes of course it is. But for some reason posters don’t think that’s logical 😳

To me it is really clear, you are treating your parents and splitting THEIR SHARE. So paying for your own, plus half of theirs. Otherwise your sister isn't actually contributing at all towards to cost of your parents being there too. If your parents weren't in attendance, you wouldn't pay for 2 out of 4 people when three are her nuclear family.

Woodfiresareamazing2

I just meant split without context means half, hence the supermarket bill scenario!!

I think the gift is the whole family celebrating together. That’s why the dad normally pays for everyone and not just for his wife, Ops mum, whose birthday it is.

If you are also treating your dad (it’s not his birthday) I think it’s acknowledging that £210 is the family gift. Hence why some are saying £105 is fair despite the inequality in actual meals.

I understand you, OP. The split was like this: you covered your Mum plus you (£70), while your sister covered your dad and herself (£70). A 50:50 split.

That leaves BIL and child's bills. If you split the whole bill in half, you'd end up paying for either BIL or child's meal. It's is odd that they'd expect you to do that.

In the supermarket example.

usually my parents pay for Xmas.
If my sister and I decided to take on the Xmas big shop cost ourselves we’d assume a 50/50 split.
even if she has 2 kids and I have none and our aunt also comes. The dog also eats sone leftovers.

splitting 50/50 makes sense. We are removing that cost from our parents and treating them.

I see where op us coming from. Splitting bill 50 50 means sis has basically only paid for her partner and child, with OP then treating both her parents.

Its rude of sis to assume 50 50 split when 2 extra people - should have been 70 30 split or something. In hindsight probably good to agree in advance. I agree saying 'treat parents' means essentially split the parents meals, not the bill. If numbers were more even then even split would be ok, but they werent...

It depends I suppose. Maybe the sister couldn’t afford a meal out for four people, so the treat to the parents was them coming out and being there and paying half of the total bill, as the OP’s suggestion would mean they couldn’t afford to be there at all - and my mum and dad would definitely prefer we’re all there and would pay for that benefit (as OP’s parents usually do).

If sister can easily afford their immediate family’s meals out then OP’s answer is the fairest, but I can see a situation where sister’s position is also fairest when there is regard to relative incomes (in my family, I’d be expecting to subsidise my sister as I earn 7x what she does, and I’d be totally okay with that as the alternative would be her not being there).

God, you sound awful.

Stingy and mean to your own family (when you’ve already clarified the sum of money in question is ‘neither here nor there’ to you) to the point of leaving a bad taste over something that was supposed to be a nice treat to your generous parents. The way you speak about your sister and her family has a ring of bitterness to it also, as does the fact you felt the need to post the scenario on here when you’re supposedly so unbothered by it and convinced you’re in the right.

And your replies on here - the ones MN hasn’t had to remove - are not painting you in a great light.

What a twatty post, Judgey McJudge Face.