Not helpful

[yaki]

I really sympathise. Sadly a big proportion of the population live in poverty. Politicians of all shades bigged up a flexible ,low wage workforce in early 2000s.
Then price rises and fuel especially has doubled. Then food still increasing month by month . Wages have stagnated. I don't know who is getting the wage rises reported in the press by government. People doing my old job today are getting what I was paid 15 years ago. And freezing tax thresholds is a sneaky way to take more from most hard up.
Now council tax is a tax , taken from already taxed income. Even people on tax credits or unemployed have to pay at least some of this ,
I don't think it's helpful to day " you should ....' ' have you tried .....' I'm sure you and your husband are desperate to bring in more money. Bur after decades of political parties and civil servant not joining up the dots ,the odds are stacked against you.

I don't think tax payers should subsidise businesses who won't or can't pay a proper living wage . One that means an average person with an average home can afford all we cobsider normal including a weeks hokiday at tbecsea sidexand a car. If they can't do do I don't think they have a viable business . I am a business owner.

PS I'm sure you can save a few quid on mobile phone try giff gaff or lebarra pay ad you go monthly . Contracts are bottomless pits and TV contracts

Huh?

Something all a bit GCSE debating team here

No they don’t live in poverty - successive governments have consistently topped up people’s incomes via tax credits etc and now they are as well off as high earning non claimants

That's what OP says: tax payers shouldn't have to subsidise businesses who won't or can't pay a proper living wage.

I agree in principle, but it's more complex because there are not enough jobs and there never will be. We have to move towards some form of subsidised income for the majority, paid for by the wealthy minority who can rake in profits without employing human labour.

Other, more inventive solutions will be needed as well. But starting from where we are, this is why low wages get topped up by the taxpayer.

I don't think tax payers should subsidise businesses who won't or can't pay a proper living wage . One that means an average person with an average home can afford all we consider normal including a weeks holiday at the seaside and a car.

Which ultimately creates a conundrum of what “a proper living wage” should be and can feasibly be. In London, for example, a single person would have to earn somewhere in the region of at least £45,000 to afford the sort of lifestyle you’re proposing as ideal. People often think about big corporates and their shareholders needing to accept an impact on their wealth, but not every business is a big corporate with shareholders. Can every local independent grocer, cafe, nursery, florist etc afford to pay all their staff £45,000 without having to massively increase their prices, thus impacting consumers across the board, or having to shut up shop? Could you afford to run your business if all your suppliers passed on their increased staffing costs to you in the form of higher prices for their services and goods?