In the high-stakes game of social finance, there is perhaps no more contentious issue than the splitting of a restaurant bill. The City of London, with its obsession for precision, recoils at the crude mechanism of dividing by the number of diners. Yet this practice persists, a stubborn inefficiency in the market of social obligations.
British etiquette expert William Hanson has now waded into the fray, advising that it is perfectly acceptable to say no to the equal split. This is not merely a matter of manners; it is a matter of fiscal morality. The flat tax on consumption, dressed up as social convenience, represents a misallocation of resources.
It penalises the abstemious and rewards the gluttonous. In my 20 years observing the markets, I have seen less distortion from government subsidies. The solution is simple: itemisation.
Request your own bill. This may involve a small transaction cost in terms of social friction, but over the long run it ensures a more efficient outcome. The market, after all, abhors a subsidy.
So next time a friend suggests splitting equally, channel your inner finance editor. Politely decline. Itemise.
Let each man pay for his own bottle of Burgundy.
