How should this cost be split?

[LtlTee]

You guys would really split it up by who gets a bedroom? If a couple doesn't have any kids its not like they are missing out on getting a room. What about if there isn't enough bedrooms and there are a few pull-out sofas? Would those people get to pay less even if they have kids?
Do you charge them more because they use more dining room chairs? I'm sorry I think that is really strange, but I see alot of you guys said that. I know when we go away (4 families) we split the cost by the adults because we don't see the point in nit-picking about how much space a family takes up, we just like the idea of being able to all stay together.

See this is kind of how I was thinking.

But if we wanted to get a 4 bedroom but had to switch to a 5 bedroomt to accommodate the kids, then I could see maybe them paying more. But we kind of pick the house and then squeeze the kids in somewhere. They don't really care and, and we really all get along and like spending time together.

No one has complained and there aren't any hard feelings (as far as I know!). I just feel bad that they pay more.

 

[LtlTee]

We dont sweat the little things like this. We just split the cost per family. Over the course of the stay, some families might contribute more than others with groceries, booze, or some other consumables. So in the end, its just about a wash for everyone.

This is how we are too. We all bring stuff, and buy stuff collectively while we are there and we all roughly spend the same, give or take. No one breaks out their receipts -- we all share, drink, eat each others' stuff. Maybe if had one couple who didnt contribute it would be different, but we all bring stuff to the party.

We've just always split it by person since that very first house because that's how the house was priced, and it just stuck. But I really think it's time to change and split it by family.

 

[tlbwriter]

You guys would really split it up by who gets a bedroom? If a couple doesn't have any kids its not like they are missing out on getting a room. What about if there isn't enough bedrooms and there are a few pull-out sofas? Would those people get to pay less even if they have kids?
Do you charge them more because they use more dining room chairs? I'm sorry I think that is really strange, but I see alot of you guys said that. I know when we go away (4 families) we split the cost by the adults because we don't see the point in nit-picking about how much space a family takes up, we just like the idea of being able to all stay together.

When we did this, we split it by the bedroom because the number of bedrooms determines the price. If we have a to get a larger, more expensive house simply because you brought your kids, why shouldn't you pay the difference? Why should we subsidize your vacation? Now, if all the kids sleep in their parents' rooms, it wouldn't affect the cost so we would split it by family. But if your kids need their own room, it's kind of cheap and petty to expect not to pay extra for that extra room.

 

[smkiya]

I'm looking at the math, and assuming the rental is $2000...

Scenario #1
Per person rate ($200)
Family 1 - $400
Family 2 - $400
Family 3 - $400
Family 4 - $800 (this doesn't really seem fair, and they may be better off getting their own place)

Scenario #2
If the family of 4 shares one room, then split the cost evenly.
$500 per family

Scenario #3
If the family of 4 uses an additional room, I think paying double is too much, but they should at least pay more than the others. Because the families would be spending somewhere between $400-$500 each anyway, just take the difference ($100), split it down the middle ($100/2 = $50) and add that on to the lowest family rate ($400 + $50 = $450). The family of 4 pays the difference. If I were the family of 4, this would seem fair to me... more so than paying double!

Family 1 - $450
Family 2 - $450
Family 3 - $450
Family 4 - $650

 

[golfgal]

I would say since the house is a flat rate that it should be split evenly but if you take turns doing meals the family with the teenagers should do more meals (if everyone does one meal they should do 2 or 3 for example). If the house was billed by the person, they should each pay by the head.

 

[DisneyMissy318]

We've done this in the past as well - in our case - the cost was split by family. We had two couples with no kids (2) - Our family of 2 adults 1 child (1) and a single Mom and her daughter (1). This was 4 family units - and the cost was divided 4 ways. We all had our own bedroom (4 total) - and the two kids had a den/playroom that had a bunkbed and foldout couch. We discussed how to pay up front and no one had issue with per family.

 

[AKbabe]

I'm with the majority. If the kids have their own room, then they should be charged as adults and it should be by person (if you were staying at a hotel and got an extra room for the kids, you would pay extra). Since the costs involved in renting a house include the costs of water, electricity, etc. then all parties are equal (all have rooms, all share amenities).

But, if the kids don't get a room (meaning they sleep in the same common areas everyone else has access to and no privacy like closing doors) or have to sleep in the same room as the parents, then it should be by family. Why should the kids (parents) have to pay the same as everyone else when they don't have their own room for privacy or to just hang out away from the adults? I'm assuming all of the other couples have their own bedrooms with doors that close, right?

 

[msjprincess]

This is how we are too. We all bring stuff, and buy stuff collectively while we are there and we all roughly spend the same, give or take. No one breaks out their receipts -- we all share, drink, eat each others' stuff. Maybe if had one couple who didnt contribute it would be different, but we all bring stuff to the party.

That's how we do it. It more or less evens out in the end.

 

[wvjules]

Did you have to get a bigger place by adding the kids? If so, then I would do it per person. If it was the same size place you were going to rent any way, then by family.

^^This!

 

[robinb]

The first house was per person by the owner so that's what you paid. Have subsequent houses also been priced per person by the owner or a flat daily rate?

I like the PP's idea of assessing adults at 100% and kids at 50%. So, in your case I would divide everything by 9 (8 A + 2 K) and assess the family for 3 rental units while the rest of you pay for 2 rental units.

You really want to be fair about this. I don't know how old you are or if you are planning to have kids but you may find yourself in the same situation soon enough.

 

[LtlTee]

The first house was per person by the owner so that's what you paid. Have subsequent houses also been priced per person by the owner or a flat daily rate?

I like the PP's idea of assessing adults at 100% and kids at 50%. So, in your case I would divide everything by 9 (8 A + 2 K) and assess the family for 3 rental units while the rest of you pay for 2 rental units.

You really want to be fair about this. I don't know how old you are or if you are planning to have kids but you may find yourself in the same situation soon enough.

All subsequent house have been a flat rate. Only the first house was priced on a per head cost.

I do want to be fair - these are great friends/family and we have a great time. Like I said, no one has complained -- it's just always the way we have done it and have never really thought twice about it. The reason it came up now? I was talking to someone at work about it and she thought it was unfair to price it that way. that got me to thinking...
I do have kids and they have come with us in the past, so I have been on the end of paying more than the other couples. (mine are older now and don't always come along for our long weekends.) In fact, all but one couple has kids; it just varies from year to year whether or not the kids come.

 

[Scurvy]

But, if the kids don't get a room (meaning they sleep in the same common areas everyone else has access to and no privacy like closing doors) or have to sleep in the same room as the parents, then it should be by family. Why should the kids (parents) have to pay the same as everyone else when they don't have their own room for privacy or to just hang out away from the adults? I'm assuming all of the other couples have their own bedrooms with doors that close, right?

I think that depends on the set-up of the house. We've rented beach places before where the kitchen and family room were the only common area, and not all the bedrooms had televisions or even chairs or sofas. When there was a child sleeping in the family room on the couch, no one else could be in there keeping them awake. That meant when it was the kid's bedtime everyone retreated to their own rooms and couldn't watch TV, and it wasn't really practical for all the adults to pile into one bedroom to socialize. In those cases I felt that the other people were paying for something - the common areas - that they weren't really getting the use of. It made sense in that case that the family with a child should pay more. (Though not necessarily double, since the other guests did get the use of the common areas for part of the time.) In my experiences, my family was the one with the child so I expected to pay more. Sometimes we did, other times we didn't. But I was always prepared to. It tended to work out best when we traveled with only one other couple. They took the master bedroom, we took the second bedroom and our son slept on the couch and we felt like it worked out about equal. When there was another couple, we tended to divide the costs differently either with us paying a larger percentage or paying for more of the other shared expenses.

 

[Carly_Roach]

We used to have annual beach vacations with a large number of people. The adults counted as 1.0 and each kid counted as 0.5 for the house and all the food as well. Everyone saved their receipts and we worked it out at the end of the week. Always turned out to be a very economical vacation.

I like this idea.

When we did this, we split it by the bedroom because the number of bedrooms determines the price. If we have a to get a larger, more expensive house simply because you brought your kids, why shouldn't you pay the difference? Why should we subsidize your vacation? Now, if all the kids sleep in their parents' rooms, it wouldn't affect the cost so we would split it by family. But if your kids need their own room, it's kind of cheap and petty to expect not to pay extra for that extra room.

Absolutely agree.

If it was four couples, or four singles, or four families who all had kids, then I can see splitting it up by family. But there's an unbalanced dynamic involved in your scenario: one family out of four families who happens to have kids. Singles or couples without children may take issue the fact that they may feel cheated because they haven't procreated but still have to bear the cost (for however short a period of time) for those who did.

It would be fair for those who decided to have children and who decided to bring those children along on a vacation with three childless couples to pay more for their share of the house. After all, they have more bodies taking up more room, more hot water, more dishes to wash, more toilet paper, more food, etc, etc, etc.

 

[tlbwriter]

It would be fair for those who decided to have children and who decided to bring those children along on a vacation with three childless couples to pay more for their share of the house. After all, they have more bodies taking up more room, more hot water, more dishes to wash, more toilet paper, more food, etc, etc, etc.

Personally, I don't account for the water, dishes, TP, etc. because you do not pay extra for those. With food, it's fair if the larger family contributes more. The last time we split a condo with another family, our family of 3 paid for half the groceries, and their family of 5 paid for the other half. But they bought the beer, so it all evened out! I also feel it's fair for the couple who gets the master bedroom with the king-sized bed, whirlpool tub, and great view to pay more than the couple who gets the room with the queen-sized bed and shower-only bathroom. (Can you tell I've been there and done that? )

 

[trip]

Has the family of 4 ever brought up about paying per family or per person?

 

[wvjules]

If they were NOT bringing the kids would you still get the same house?

 

[lovesmurfs]

You guys would really split it up by who gets a bedroom? If a couple doesn't have any kids its not like they are missing out on getting a room. What about if there isn't enough bedrooms and there are a few pull-out sofas? Would those people get to pay less even if they have kids?
Do you charge them more because they use more dining room chairs? I'm sorry I think that is really strange, but I see alot of you guys said that. I know when we go away (4 families) we split the cost by the adults because we don't see the point in nit-picking about how much space a family takes up, we just like the idea of being able to all stay together.

I would definitely charge by the number of bedrooms used.

If the house is 5 bedrooms and it's $1000 a week, that's $200 a bedroom. A house with 4 bedrooms would conceivably be less than the 5 bedroom house.

A family using 2 bedrooms should pay more than the families using a single bedroom, and I think that would be a fair arrangement.

 

[Bren's Mom]

I would split the cost of the home by the # of bedrooms, ask the parents in advance whether they want one BR or two.

If you get a 4BR house, and they want 1 BR, split it equally 4 ways.

If you need to move up to a 5BR, then either split it equally 5 ways and they pay 2 shares OR each family pays 1/4 of the cost of an equivalent 4BR and the parents ALSO pay the difference between the 4 and 5 BR.

But for food/supplies...I'd count the kids and divide by the total # of people. Or if they're very small, count them as .5 person.

 

[robinb]

All subsequent house have been a flat rate. Only the first house was priced on a per head cost.

I do want to be fair - these are great friends/family and we have a great time. Like I said, no one has complained -- it's just always the way we have done it and have never really thought twice about it. The reason it came up now? I was talking to someone at work about it and she thought it was unfair to price it that way. that got me to thinking...
I do have kids and they have come with us in the past, so I have been on the end of paying more than the other couples. (mine are older now and don't always come along for our long weekends.) In fact, all but one couple has kids; it just varies from year to year whether or not the kids come.

Given that this is the way that's it's worked in the past and other people (including you) have had to pay extra for the kids then I think you shouldn't rock the boat.

If I were setting something up for the very first time I would consider the 50% children's rate as a fair way of doing things suggested by johnsontrio. In fact, I'm filing that idea for future reference.

 

[mamacatnv]

My family of 4 rents a cabin with my Brother and his wife every summer. We split the cost of the cabin. I bring the groceries for breakfast and lunch plus 1/2 the dinners and the "pantry" items, they bring the groceries for the other half of dinners and snacks. We coordinate menus ahead of time and it all works out in the end.

Our cabin has 1 bedroom and then the rest of the sleeping is in the common areas. We used to alternate years of who got the bedroom, now I just give it to my Bro and SIL, it seems silly to me that they should have to share sleeping areas with my kids.