Surely you cannot expect the company to be adversely affected by the size/circumstances of an employees family and the size of the tax credits they receive? A job is worth an amount of money e.g. living wage as a minimum you surely don't expect a firm to pay a single person the living wage and a family man twice that amount for the same job?

The amount of corporation tax the company pays would be reduced through lower profits.

Should the employer also have to pay the employers NI on this additional figure too?

No, I expect employers to pay a wage that doesn't require any taxpayer-funded subsidy. Just remember, an employer who hands over a wage packet that is based on NMW is in reality saying: "I'd love to pay you less but the law won't allow me"

Similarly, I expect landlords to charge rents that don't require the taxpayer to subsidise them too

Are you saying the NMW isn't high enough to prevent taxpayer-funded subsidy?

Isn't it more going to be down to the hours worked.

It is possible for a person or family to qualify for working tax credits where one of them is in full time employment on NMW, if they have qualifying children then they'll definitely qualify - you need to put the numbers through the online calculator though as there is a minefield of "what if's".

They're a business. What do people expect?

Lovely bit of reporting here:



That may be true, but suggesting that Next has a local labour pool of more than 200,000 is a touch disingenuous. I doubt that the unemployed in villages like Langthwaite, N Yorks are going to be tempted by an 80 mile commute each way.

I understand where you are coming from but one person's need for a taxpayers subsidy is different from another's. How can an employer realistically budget on this basis - all that will happen is those who cost the government the most will just never get offered jobs.

On the rent same thing - no landlord is going to rent to DSS at a discount - they will simply not be able to find anywhere to live - sadly.

Or we could reintroduce rent controls, they seem to work perfectly well in Germany and other European countries.

Instead various governments allowed landlords (private and social) to charge pretty much what they liked, hoping that "the market" would naturally re-adjust. That re-adjustment was never going to happen all the time the taxpayer was funding the difference. The previous Labour government made a start with reducing the subsidies paid to private landlords but only when a tenant moved into a new property. This government went further by including social and council tenants and applying the rule to all existing tenants.

If you look at what's currently happening with the New Era Estate in Hoxton, you'll see that nothing has changed. The estate was recently bought by Westbrook Partners, a private equity company whose shareholders include US and Canadian pension funds. Tory MP Richard Benyon's company Benyon Estates finally bowed to public pressure and pulled out of the Westbrook scheme. They (Westbrook) have now given tenants notice that their rents will TRIPLE. Few if any can afford this rise and will be forced not only to leave the estate but some will have to leave London altogether. Those that find alternative housing will probably be paying more than they were at New Era and the difference will be picked up by the UK taxpayer. That, in any so-called civilised society cannot be considered right.

NEXT have a culture of high staff turnover and don't give a monkeys about it. A family member worked for them for a short while and whenever it's mentioned to anyone in retail you just get "ooh I've heard they're bad".

Not to mention the bullying, but that's getting into murky water when I've got one of RLfans less cryptic handles.

Some very valid points - the difference between the UK and other EU countries is land mass and population increases I suppose. We have a huge shortage of housing so the market simply reflects supply and demand. We don't have a culture where the older relations move in with the younger ones as say Italy that frees up property. It cannot be correct for a landlord to take all the risk in purchasing the property to then to be forcibly prevented from receiving the market rate for the property? If you artificially corrupt the market then you will undoubtedly disturb the property sector and we all know what happens when that occurs.