I don't understand the point of what you just said. The original question related only to,
"We would have had to go dutch."
(We're not going, but if we had gone, we would have had to go dutch.)
The "dutch" doesn't matter. It could have been "by train" or "not singly but one by one". The crux is, he, she, it, we, they, me-and-the-parson, whatever, "would have had to go".
Scott Woods liked the sound of it, so lets give my correspondent a gold star for the day and let it go. I'll tell him we like it; we just don't know what it is.
May we go back to the original question? Perhaps the following reply would take us on a different tack.
"That's O.K. We would have had to go 'dutch' anyway."
What's the verb tense in the reply?
The time reference is present: "That's OK; we would have had to go Dutch anyway."
I am impressed that the conventions of regular orthography do not seem to be being adhered to in the quote. Here again being literal is dangerous. Maybe we could all adopt the conventions of e. e. cummings and buck regular orthography at the risk of not being understood. An added risk is that we are in the act of changing the conventions of language -- going along with the drift of the younger generations, who must have things simple. Maybe what we say is somehow more important for English teachers than how we say it, or in this case how we write it. The "OK" is an acronym that does not need periods: "oll
korrect." The adverb "dutch" does not need quote marks. In this expression it may perhaps be better understood if kept in the form of the proper adjective from which it derives.