No. I've already written that obviously the amount of children of each individual can't determine what a living wage is supposed to be, but then you still twist this to be a question of subsidy to the business in bad faith?
Why can’t you have a conversation in good faith?
It sounds like in Scandinavia you don’t worry about corporate welfare. That’s news to me, but good to know.
Not really, but what's the purpose of this particular reply other than to try to wind me up?
> What is a "living salary"?
> If I'm a single mom with 3 kids, is the "living salary" the same as a single 20 year old who lives at home?
Your diversion with focusing on a new totally unfruitful topic is not my problem.
That’s a yes/no question. Not sure why you’re struggling to answer it.
I think cloudfifty already answered the question in good faith. And honestly; this question comes over as a bit trolly.
But hey, I'll bite!
> The mother will also receive a monthly allowance for each child. She will also likely be eligible to rent support. So children is a special case, but a living wage doesn't involve that.
In this case, rent support would come from the state and if the mother in question is also working, you could classify this as additional support. So, if the mother is working, she should get a salary high enough to not warrant this kind of support. (Given that rent is usually highly dependent on the location of the property, not having such a support could further push gentrification and require longer commute for the mother in question. In this case we also need to make sure that the day care for the kids doesn't suffer in quality if the mother in question has to move to a less desirable living location.)
In general, we should not do corporate welfare. In particular there might be cases where we need to support people, even if they are working.