I just don’t get this. Why do people who are reasonably well off dillydally when it comes to paying the financially disadvantaged who work for them, their due?
Imagine asking your domestic help to buy things on their way to work for your family’s needs—groceries, vegetables and the like—on a regular basis, and instead of reimbursing them fully and promptly at least at the end of the month, pay them only partially with the excuse of having no money left in your bank.
If it was a one off thing I wouldn’t be writing this, but it is not and certainly happens a lot with regularity.
I have noticed people not paying up the full amount owed to the old man who irons clothes for them. They run up a bill for a month. That’s fine if he is okay with it. But when the month is up, they pay him half of what is owed and promise to pay him the rest, the next month, and it goes on. No money, you see.
I have only this to ask such as them: What if your employer pays you only a part of what they owe you , (because obviously, no money!) would you be okay with it or will you be up in arms?
©️ Shail Mohan 2026
Shail's Nest 
I am with you all the way. No-one grumbles about the cost of things as much as a person who could buy them without noticing the change in their bank balance!
It is something I’ve seen a lot in Asia, I have to admit – even at really high levels. I have friends in the legal profession who tell me that some big business clients often take a long time to pay for work done and then usually barter to bring the price down. Often, the legal profession will accept a lower price simply to get some money into their account! In the UK, this would be unheard of. If you don’t pay what you owe you will be in serious trouble! And if you owe an individual and tried to suggest only paying some of it…good luck!