splitting a house - do you split by rooms, or people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single person should obviously pay less. It's per person. Kids = person. Single person shouldn't be punished for not wanting or having kids!

It’s obviously their choice. They can choose to stay home or only vacation with other adults. It matters not to me.

Sounds like she’s be better off not vacationing with such a pompous and selfish person anyway. Why should a single person have to pay a premium to put up with your annoying kids?

But they are not paying a premium. A crappy beachfront hotel would cost even more.

Not only would they have a crappy beachfront hotel, they would be sharing the dining rooms, pool, exercise room with all the hundreds of other guests at the hotel.

I... think you think this tradeoff is favorable to singles, but it really isn't. We go on the group trips to be with people, not because it's some kind of deal. Trust me, most of us would gladly pay more for our own space, peace and quiet, more freedom to do whatever, whenever, wherever, without waiting for a bathroom that your kid splashed water all over or asking for a snack every 10 seconds, or waiting for everyone to get their sh!t together because jesus, we were supposed to leave 20 minutes ago Then a half hour ago. Now 45 minutes ago, and now our reservation is lost.

We go with the group because it's the agreeable thing to do, not because it's some kind of awesome price perk.

NP. I...think you really believe families want you on this vacation more than they actually do.

Go get your own place nearby, and meet up for a few beach outings and meals. Then they can get a break from your “superior” attitude.

PP: "We go on the group trips to be with people"
You: "I...think you really believe families want you on this vacation more than they actually do."

You sound like a super duper peach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single person should obviously pay less. It's per person. Kids = person. Single person shouldn't be punished for not wanting or having kids!

It’s obviously their choice. They can choose to stay home or only vacation with other adults. It matters not to me.

Sounds like she’s be better off not vacationing with such a pompous and selfish person anyway. Why should a single person have to pay a premium to put up with your annoying kids?

But they are not paying a premium. A crappy beachfront hotel would cost even more.

Not only would they have a crappy beachfront hotel, they would be sharing the dining rooms, pool, exercise room with all the hundreds of other guests at the hotel.

I... think you think this tradeoff is favorable to singles, but it really isn't. We go on the group trips to be with people, not because it's some kind of deal. Trust me, most of us would gladly pay more for our own space, peace and quiet, more freedom to do whatever, whenever, wherever, without waiting for a bathroom that your kid splashed water all over or asking for a snack every 10 seconds, or waiting for everyone to get their sh!t together because jesus, we were supposed to leave 20 minutes ago Then a half hour ago. Now 45 minutes ago, and now our reservation is lost.

We go with the group because it's the agreeable thing to do, not because it's some kind of awesome price perk.

NP. I...think you really believe families want you on this vacation more than they actually do.

Go get your own place nearby, and meet up for a few beach outings and meals. Then they can get a break from your “superior” attitude.

PP: "We go on the group trips to be with people"
You: "I...think you really believe families want you on this vacation more than they actually do."

You sound like a super duper peach.

And you sound like a person who loves the idea of spending time with family more than the reality of actually doing so. Your get your sh!t together attitude would be super stressful to deal with...maybe you can offer to be in charge of getting the small children out the door if you think it is so danged easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the concept that singles use less of the common areas than couples with kids? Are you in a 15 person house with one couch? I guess I’m assuming no one would unilaterally take over a common space (and that adults get seating preferences over kids for example). Otherwise a house that fits 5 sets of people should have enough space for them to comfortably exist without confining themselves to bedrooms only.

Singles use less simply because in general parents tend to let their kids take precedent in group common rooms. So eight kids will be taking up couches, TV, floor space for games and puzzles, while the singleton is in one chair trying to read a magazine. Not saying either party is in the wrong, just pointing out that the kids *will* take over and use more of the common spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Split by number of adults/don't count kids

As someone who is not single but is child-free, this never makes sense to me. Kids take up space, eat the food, use the resources - and BTW parents are always braying on about how their kids should have equal consideration when it's convenient for the parents/kids for that to be the attitude - so they do no show up for free, except for say, 2 and under. My family used to do this about food costs, spit the food evenly with adults while all the kids (18 and under) were not charged for food. The three boys age 11, 14, and 14 ate everyone out of house and home during the vacation but DH and I had to pay an equal amount to their parents for food?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the concept that singles use less of the common areas than couples with kids? Are you in a 15 person house with one couch? I guess I’m assuming no one would unilaterally take over a common space (and that adults get seating preferences over kids for example). Otherwise a house that fits 5 sets of people should have enough space for them to comfortably exist without confining themselves to bedrooms only.

Singles use less simply because in general parents tend to let their kids take precedent in group common rooms. So eight kids will be taking up couches, TV, floor space for games and puzzles, while the singleton is in one chair trying to read a magazine. Not saying either party is in the wrong, just pointing out that the kids *will* take over and use more of the common spaces.

eh, the singles aren't all such sticks in the mud. They are right in there playing air hockey and video games with the kids. They play in the pool and eat snacks in the kitchen, too.

This idea that a single person is quietly off in some far corner of the room reading a magazine while the parents in the house allow their children to take over the living space is silly.

Anyone who complains that the rest of the family isn't getting their sh!t together fast enough, is not meekly sitting off to the side while everyone else has fun.

[Anonymous]

PP from the kids/food post. The times I've asked why people think it's equitable for us to pay equally for food as someone bringing three kids (or whatever) the response has always been - I kid you not - "But if we had to pay for food for our kids too we wouldn't be able to afford to come!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Split by number of adults/don't count kids

As someone who is not single but is child-free, this never makes sense to me. Kids take up space, eat the food, use the resources - and BTW parents are always braying on about how their kids should have equal consideration when it's convenient for the parents/kids for that to be the attitude - so they do no show up for free, except for say, 2 and under. My family used to do this about food costs, spit the food evenly with adults while all the kids (18 and under) were not charged for food. The three boys age 11, 14, and 14 ate everyone out of house and home during the vacation but DH and I had to pay an equal amount to their parents for food?

Yeah, I would never expect a single person to go even steven on the groceries for a week, I don't think that your family approached that fairly at all. Obviously a family with tween/teen boys is going to consume A LOT more than a single adult would. But that doesn't mean that the singletons are completely off the hook for cooking, cleaning and contributing their proper share. They can boil spaghetti and serve up garlic bread as easily as the couples in the group can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP from the kids/food post. The times I've asked why people think it's equitable for us to pay equally for food as someone bringing three kids (or whatever) the response has always been - I kid you not - "But if we had to pay for food for our kids too we wouldn't be able to afford to come!"

Well a response like that would be ridiculous and probably the last time I vacationed with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Split by number of adults/don't count kids

As someone who is not single but is child-free, this never makes sense to me. Kids take up space, eat the food, use the resources - and BTW parents are always braying on about how their kids should have equal consideration when it's convenient for the parents/kids for that to be the attitude - so they do no show up for free, except for say, 2 and under. My family used to do this about food costs, spit the food evenly with adults while all the kids (18 and under) were not charged for food. The three boys age 11, 14, and 14 ate everyone out of house and home during the vacation but DH and I had to pay an equal amount to their parents for food?

I can see that with teenage boys. But in our case, one night a few people steamed $150 worth of shellfish and my two kids split a box of Annie’s Mac and cheese and some sliced cucumber. They should pay an equal share?

[Anonymous]

Why are we talking about splitting groceries? I thought this was about rooms in a rental house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think paying per bedroom is usually fine. My family needs two bedrooms, so we would pay more than smaller families. There are no single people in our family.

However, my BIL feels that it should also be linked to income and expects us to pay more because we have a higher income. I don't agree, but we do it anyway for the sake of keeping things happy. Last year, we paid more and then ended up covering the whole cost for my husband's little sister and her fiancé because they just never paid us back after we reminded them a few times. Its fine, we can afford it. But just paying by bedroom sounds heavenly to me.

I am like your BIL (except we are the ones with the higher income), we pay more so that we can all enjoy a nice vacation. We trade off who gets the better bedroom.

I can't imagine requiring everyone to self report their incomes in order to adjust rental rates accordingly. How would you feel if you if you found out that a family member was claiming poor mouth but was actually a tightwad stashing their cash away so that they can retire early and travel the world? How would you feel if your own job was security wasn't the best and you knew that you had a real risk of becoming unemployed in the coming months. Eff that BIL for expecting that others pay his way.

You do you, and I'll do me. I just think being generous is a good trait. I am sorry you think it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think paying per bedroom is usually fine. My family needs two bedrooms, so we would pay more than smaller families. There are no single people in our family.

However, my BIL feels that it should also be linked to income and expects us to pay more because we have a higher income. I don't agree, but we do it anyway for the sake of keeping things happy. Last year, we paid more and then ended up covering the whole cost for my husband's little sister and her fiancé because they just never paid us back after we reminded them a few times. Its fine, we can afford it. But just paying by bedroom sounds heavenly to me.

I am like your BIL (except we are the ones with the higher income), we pay more so that we can all enjoy a nice vacation. We trade off who gets the better bedroom.

I can't imagine requiring everyone to self report their incomes in order to adjust rental rates accordingly. How would you feel if you if you found out that a family member was claiming poor mouth but was actually a tightwad stashing their cash away so that they can retire early and travel the world? How would you feel if your own job was security wasn't the best and you knew that you had a real risk of becoming unemployed in the coming months. Eff that BIL for expecting that others pay his way.

You do you, and I'll do me. I just think being generous is a good trait. I am sorry you think it isn't.

There is a difference between being generous and being a sucker.

[Anonymous]

Life would just be easier of people who used more just owned up and offered to pay more without asking. If my child-free brother and SIL offered to split a place 50/50 I would instantly offer more because I’d be bringing along 2 teenage girls. However if we were with 3 similar families I would expect to split evenly regardless of who got the “nice” bedroom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think paying per bedroom is usually fine. My family needs two bedrooms, so we would pay more than smaller families. There are no single people in our family.

However, my BIL feels that it should also be linked to income and expects us to pay more because we have a higher income. I don't agree, but we do it anyway for the sake of keeping things happy. Last year, we paid more and then ended up covering the whole cost for my husband's little sister and her fiancé because they just never paid us back after we reminded them a few times. Its fine, we can afford it. But just paying by bedroom sounds heavenly to me.

I am like your BIL (except we are the ones with the higher income), we pay more so that we can all enjoy a nice vacation. We trade off who gets the better bedroom.

I can't imagine requiring everyone to self report their incomes in order to adjust rental rates accordingly. How would you feel if you if you found out that a family member was claiming poor mouth but was actually a tightwad stashing their cash away so that they can retire early and travel the world? How would you feel if your own job was security wasn't the best and you knew that you had a real risk of becoming unemployed in the coming months. Eff that BIL for expecting that others pay his way.

You do you, and I'll do me. I just think being generous is a good trait. I am sorry you think it isn't.

If you are offering to pay extra that is one thing and it is generous of you to do so. But if you have relatives *expecting* you to pay more I think that is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Life would just be easier of people who used more just owned up and offered to pay more without asking. If my child-free brother and SIL offered to split a place 50/50 I would instantly offer more because I’d be bringing along 2 teenage girls. However if we were with 3 similar families I would expect to split evenly regardless of who got the “nice” bedroom

But if you were in a two bedroom house, sharing a bedroom with your two teenage girls, would you expect to pay 2/3 of the house while you brother and SIL pay 1/3? More might be the right answer, but how much more is where it gets tricky. Would you geel the same way if your kids were 1 and 3?