Group gift giving question

[Sharnita]

Hopefully I can clearly state all of the important info that might affect what is appropriate. If it seems like I am giving extraneous info it is just because I am trying to avoid one of those posts where OP comes back and states new and important details later.

Sibling 1 called me several weeks ago and asked if I wanted to go in on a Christmas gift for my parents with Sib 1 and Spouse, Sib 2 and Spouse, Sib 3 and fiance. I asked what gift Sib 1 had in mind and was pleased to hear the planned gift was concert tickets to a concert the folks would really enjoy. It was a great gift and one I couldn't swing on my own so I agreed. Sib 1 told me how much it would cost. I could afford the cost and gave Sib 1 the money without much thought. On Christmas morning, my Sib's spouse handed  my parents the envelope with the tickets, saying, "This is from all of us." My parents were very pleased.

I started to ponder the fact that I had paid1/4 of the cost but there had been 7 people signing the card and wondered if I should pay 1/4 the cost or 1/7 of the cost. I can't decide what is rigth and it doesn't particularly bother me right now but as the only single I'm thinking I better develope a policy right now. (Please don't advise simply avoiding group gifts - sometimes they are the only option for giving the folks what they will truly enjoy.)

This info might or might not be important.

All parties involved are adults. All work at least part time. Sib 3 and fiance are working part time and going to school but live at home so expenses are limited. Sib 1 and spouse have a couple of kids - both of them work. Sibs and spouses and SOs each get their own gifts from my parents and from me on holidays and birthdays.

So how does the cost get divided up when there are three couples and one single and the gift is "From all of us"?

[fklwmn]

This is a toughie. It seems to me yours should be smaller than 1/4, but I'm not sure it should be 1/7, you know? I wouldn't think the ILs and IL2B should be responsible for an exactly equal share as the actual KIDS are, but if they are putting thier names on it, they should be responsible for SOME share, and that doesn't just mean splitting your Sibling's 1/4 share. But I don't have a good concrete answer for you. I think maybe you should discuss this with your sibs and see what everyone thinks is fair?

[Lisbeth]

This is one of my pet peeves as a single person.  Couples are two people, not one, and I think one person should not be required to pay the equivalent of two people.  They usually don't have the equivalent in assets or income as two people.  (When they do, it could be fair to expect them to pay a larger share than one person, but it doesn't sound like this is the case with you.)

If this gift was "from all of you" including the spouses, then I think it is fair to require that you pay your share for one person and that the couples pay their shares for two people each.

[Verruca]

Huh, I'd never thought of this before. 

I think that somewhere in my brain, spouse/parent/child/sibling are relationships of equivalent closeness.  In-laws are not as close.  Let me emphasize that I don't have a reasoning for this and I know that circumstances and people and relationships vary - this is just what's going on in my head and I don't have a good explanation for it.

So, all other things (like income) being equal, I would not expect an in-law of the gift recipient to contribute as much as a parent/child/sibling/spouse - but I'm honestly not sure what's right here.  All of the gifts that my husband and I have given were given as a couple, and I don't think I ever thought that, since there are two of us, we should spend twice as much as what my single brother spends.

Next time, you could try asking for clarification casually - "Is this from just the kids, or is it kids and spouses?"  That would give you an opening to talk about what the split should be cost-wise, and it might be enough of a hint to get your sibs to realize that it would be fair for you to pay a little less than the couples.

I don't bother myself, though - I just decide what we're going to spend on a gift for someone.  If our "share" is more than our budget, I either offer what we can afford or don't participate at all; if it's less than the budget, we'll participate and maybe purchase an additional present to make up the difference.

[freakyfemme]

Well......everyone contributed, so I think everyone should get to sign the card.  Maybe not everyone contributed equally, but gifts are supposed to be given out of good will, so that's really not conducive to the whole "Well, I contributed 1/4 of the cost, but you only gave 1/7, so you shouldn't get to sign."  There's really no way around this, except to ensure front that contributions toward the gift will be on a per-person basis, as opposed to per couple.  If they suggest per-couple, then you could *gently* suggest that per-person would be fairer, but if you bring it up twice, then that can be perceived as nagging, ungenerous, etc.  I know it's not fair......I'm single too, and sometimes it means paying more than your share towards a gift, or being excluded from "couples-only" gatherings, or inviting a female friend to do something, only to have her insist on bringing her SO, thereby making *you* feel like the third wheel......I actually had a friend call me "selfish" and end the friendship because I hadn't seen her in over a year, and I wanted to spend some time with just her without her fiance. 

But then, there are also a lot of perks that come with being single.  For example, you don't have to worry about buying Christmas gifts for your SO (or, by extension, his family), you don't have to obsess about finding the perfect Valentine's gift for him either, and also, you get to celebrate Single Pride Day, on February 15th....like All Saints Day is to Halloween.  I love Single Pride Day.  Instead of Valentines, I make Single Pride Day cards with stars on them for all my single friends, and they think it's the coolest thing ever.  Oh, and don't forget about half-price chocolate left over from Valentine's Day.  Also, if you're feeling gross and don't want to wear make-up for a day (or, conversely, if you feel like dressing nice for no apparent reason), you don't have to justify it to anyone but yourself.  Oh, and you don't have to feign interest in the Super Bowl, or the interminably long hockey playoffs either (I think they're actually longer than the regular season).  Sure, I could have a boyfriend if I wanted one, it's not as if guys haven't expressed interest (one in particular has been "expressing interest" since first year), but I don't want one, and I might feel differently ONCE in a while, for about five minutes, and then I just crank up some Ani DiFranco, eat some chocolate, and remind myself how good I have it. 

But anyway, I'm getting way off track.....as for the gift, technically, your siblings *invited* you to participate in going in on it for your parents, and technically, it's not quite etiquettely correct to try to change the terms of an invitation....since you're close, you can bring up the equality issue once, but if they don't go for it, then the only thing you can really do is either go along with it anyway, or beg off if you really can't afford it.   

[bopper]

As this is a gift to your parents, I think splitting it 4 ways is the way to go.
Like others said, you are closers to your parents than the in-laws.

Now, if this were a situation where you were all going out to eat or sharing a condo or something, the couples are getting twice as much value so they might pay more. But not in this case.

[itiswhatitisn't]

In this case I see it as the four sibs splitting the cost of the gift.  So 1/4 was correct.  But if you were out to dinner I'd go with 1/7.

Our last dinner outing had two couples and two singles and one of the singles tried to split the bill four ways.  I thanked him for wanting to pay for part of my meal, but informed him that he owed 1/6 of the bill while DH and I owed 1/3.  He laughed and thanked me. 

[Adah]

This seems nitpicky to me. If it's a gift from the four siblings to their parents, it should be split four ways, regardless of who is married.

[Sharnita]

I think it was complicated by the fact that they aer equally close as far as receiving gifts - In-law 1 received the same "value" of gifts from my parents as I did. It is kinda a crass consideration but might it indicate what their part in contributing to gifts should be. I wasn't terribly bothered but if I am still the only single ten years from now it might rankle. Right now it is more philosophical

Is the gift still considered "just from the 4 siblings" if all spouses SOs sign it.? Converesely, if my parents gave my brother a Christmas gift should that be aoutomatically considered SIL's gift too or might she reasonably expect a gift for herslf?

[ShadesOfGrey]

Well I think it should be one check per household. so if someone is married or living together, usually thier money is pooled into one bank account anyway. . Just becuase 2 people live in a house doesn't mean they have more money than a singleton. Even if they are both employed, alot of money might go to a second car payment, daycare, school tuition.  ect.  It's often a myth that a couple has double the income of a singleton.
without picking deeply and personal into someone's finances, ona superficial level I think it's safe and fair to ask each houshoold to write a check for equal amounts.

I agree with this - married couples are a social unit and usually have a gift giving budget together (just like a single person has his or hers.  A person's financial standing shouldnt be a factor in how much they contribute, unless everyone agrees to it).  Plus, the parent give gifts as a couple, not as individuals.  So in this case I think it should have been split four ways.  If the amount is out of anyone's budget, then that person or couple has the obligation to tell the others that it is out of his/her/their budget, but can contribute X amount.  If the others want to split the difference, that's cool and if not, that couple/person can get his/her/their own gift.  Of course, this depends on the family dynamics. 

As for dinner - I agree it should be split per person...

[Lisbeth]

Well I think it should be one check per household. so if someone is married or living together, usually thier money is pooled into one bank account anyway. . Just becuase 2 people live in a house doesn't mean they have more money than a singleton. Even if they are both employed, alot of money might go to a second car payment, daycare, school tuition.  ect.  It's often a myth that a couple has double the income of a singleton.
without picking deeply and personal into someone's finances, ona superficial level I think it's safe and fair to ask each houshoold to write a check for equal amounts.

I agree with this - married couples are a social unit and usually have a gift giving budget together (just like a single person has his or hers.  A person's financial standing shouldnt be a factor in how much they contribute, unless everyone agrees to it).  Plus, the parent give gifts as a couple, not as individuals.  So in this case I think it should have been split four ways.  If the amount is out of anyone's budget, then that person or couple has the obligation to tell the others that it is out of his/her/their budget, but can contribute X amount.  If the others want to split the difference, that's cool and if not, that couple/person can get his/her/their own gift.  Of course, this depends on the family dynamics. 

As for dinner - I agree it should be split per person...

Sorry, but you're saying I have to come up with the same amount of money that my brother and SIL do, just because they're married and a "social unit", get to spend exactly the same amount on a gift for our parents, when between them they make half again as much money than I do, and I have to have their permission to spend less than half?  That doesn't fly.

This is something that has to be worked out between the parties that are going in on the gift without bringing up the "social unit" argument.  Who can afford to pay how much is an important part of the negotiations, because lots of times singles can't afford to contribute as much as couples can-they often don't make as much money or have the assets that couples do.  This is certainly the case with me and both my brothers, both of whom are married.  And I definitely am not going to ask their "permission" to limit my contributions to my budget.

[Sharnita]

The dinner thing makes me chuckle because for holiday dinner I contributed something, engaged sib contributed something, married sibs contributed nothing. (My parents did not insist on hosting, in fact Mom mentioned to one of the in-laws that if they eventually chose to stay home with the kids over the holidays and celebrate there we would understand. In law indicated that was not an option because making their own Christmas dinner did not appeal to them  .

[ShadesOfGrey]

Sorry, but you're saying I have to come up with the same amount of money that my brother and SIL do, just because they're married and a "social unit", get to spend exactly the same amount on a gift for our parents, when between them they make half again as much money than I do, and I have to have their permission to spend less than half?  That doesn't fly.

This is something that has to be worked out between the parties that are going in on the gift without bringing up the "social unit" argument.  Who can afford to pay how much is an important part of the negotiations.

KeenReader, can you clarify your point? I am not sure I understand what you are saying fully.

[Lisbeth]

I'm saying that it should not be automatically assumed that a group of people need to divide equally the cost when some are married and some are not.  Everyone's situation needs to be taken into account.

To use the OP's example, she is single and her three siblings are married.  The other siblings want to split the cost four ways, but make the present from seven people (including the spouses).  Supposing the OP couldn't afford to split the cost this way, or even just didn't want to because she is single and thus would be paying as much as two people with two incomes even though she is only one person with one income?  If we assume that a married couple should automatically pay the same amount as one person because they are a "social unit," that's really unfair to the singles who have to pay that amount, especially when a "social unit" of two people make much more money and have much more assets than a "social unit" of one person.  I've been in this situation with my brothers and SILs, where I was expected to pay as much as one couple put together, even though they make a lot more money than I do.

Married couples are still two human beings, not one.  There are times and situations where I think the "social unit" concept either doesn't work, and situations where the single person has to pay a significantly higher portion of his or her income or assets because s/he is single than the couple does, if it's the same amount, is one of them.

[NOVA Lady]

This reminds me of the hotel sharing discussion we had a while back (1 single person and 1 couple sharing a room- is it fair to split 2 ways or 3 ways). And I really think the most fair thing to do is to give the couples the larger portion.

While this is a bit awkward to say about a gift.... the gift is being "used" by 7 people so why is it only being paid for 4 ways? It makes logical sense to me that the couples would pay more then the single person, because they are 2 and she is just 1.

Same for the hotel room. Its split 3 ways because why should the couple get such a "deal" and the single person be stuck with a higher cost per person?

I am part of a couple and when we go out to dinner with friends and its time to split the bill the couples count as 2 not 1. Otherwise we'd pay way less then we'd owe.