(Rachel Aiello/CTV News)
This is so dumb.
The government needs to put it big boy pants on and start putting windfall taxes and tell people like the Westons to break up their businesses and sell them. It’s not normal to have one single family have so much power over something that’s so basic like our means to fucking feed ourselves and profit so much from it.
But weirdly, every time Singh or the NDP propose things like a windfall tax of better regulation, the comments are dominated by criticisms.
We can’t just be loud when we criticize. We need to vocally support progressive policies when they come up.
Yeah you’re right about that.
They’re gonna get right on it! Once they “fix” everything else that’s wrong, but really they’re just going to pass the blame like a bad game of hot potato.
Giving away money instead of fixing the root causes. Not a big fan of this but at least they’re not giving away money and cutting services like Dougie.
or you know…lower the prices where they should be? I am getting so sick of our country being run by six people…
But what about Galen Weston’s profit?! Won’t anyone think about the robber barons?!
It’s like you see a starving homeless person on the side of the street and you give them a relief cracker like it’s going to change their life and make it so they’re not hungry ever again.
Perfect. Another wealth transfer to the oligarchs.
I mean I’m not attacking people with lower means, but this is the stupidest plan ever. Also, as a high income earner, I love how this signifies that I’m not affected by inflation, when I certainly am. My groceries are up 10-20% too, just like everyone else’s. What is the government doing about that?
I wish they’d take these millions or billions, and set up a consumer protection bureau, instead of giving people a few hundred bucks, which isn’t going to fix the problem or really do much. If anything, it’s behavior that just leads to more inflation. the Liberals are just as bad as the conservatives, won’t go after the real problem, because it would involve attacking their bros.
My groceries are up 10-20% too, just like everyone else’s.
I wish! I’ve had to stop buying several staple foods because prices went up 35-70% in some cases.
And to add insult to injury, packages got smaller, so I’d have to buy double to feed the same number of people (and pay more per package!).
Not only do I think that grocery stores should be forced to refund “excessive profits”, but they should be heavily fined and someone up top should spend time in jail for stealing from the public.
EDIT: spelling
I am curious, what has halved in size that would require you to buy double?
I have not noticed near that extent of shrinkflation.
Half the size might be a bit of a stretch, but shrinkflation is definitely reaching bullshit territory. OP isn’t wrong on that.
I didn’t say packages were HALVED, but for me to feed the same number of people (three adults), I can’t get away with buying a single package (i.e. pasta) without everyone eating less or without being able to make leftovers for the next day. So, I’d have to buy two packages (double the price) instead of one.
This is an insane idea.
While I agree that this won’t fix the issue and that the government should look into solving the issue at its root instead of throwing money at the problem and hope it’ll go away on its own, to say that this measure that is being put in place as an emergency relief for (very) low income folks is the same as telling us, higher income earners, that we’re not affected by inflation is a false equivalence/borderline a bad faith argument.
I don’t want to assume anything about your situation, but you did qualify yourself as a high income earner and, so, keeping this in mind, I’ll use myself as an example: I’m not rich by any means, but I make a good salary. I, too, feel the effects of inflation/shrinkation on my monthly budget. But my spending power, while significantly reduced, is still much higher than the people who are being targeted by this emergency relief. To say otherwise would be hypocritical.
Having to choose a no brand name over the good stuff or realizing that I can’t justify buying meat this month is absolutely not the same thing as having to choose between eating this week or putting money on my bus card so that I can go to work/keep a roof over my head.
No one is saying that higher income folks don’t have to make sacrifices. But to imply that our needs are the same as people who are basically struggling to exist right now just seem a tad… Disingenuous. Just sayin’
Why are the payments to single people the same as the payments for married couples? Isn’t it based on how many people have to eat in the household?
They arent the same if you read the article
Only the no-children amounts differ.
For example, if you are single you could receive a maximum payment of:
- $234 if you have no children
- $387 if you have one child
- $467 if you have two children
- $548 if you have three children
- $628 if you have four children
And, if you are married or have a common-law partner, you could receive up to:
- $306 if you have no children
- $387 if you have one child
- $467 if you have two children
- $548 if you have three children
- $628 if you have four children
deleted by creator
Maybe, but I don’t think so. I think it’s being done as an adjustment to the GST rebate and that goes to only one member of the couple.
deleted by creator
I don’t have children, and my spouse only eats about 1/6 of our food (crumbs, essentially), so it makes perfect sense for the couples rebate to be only that small fraction more than a single person’s, rather than being 2x.
I agree completely! I think the system sucks, but that’s how it currently operates. And always will unless we’re going to hit the streets in mass rallies and protests.
I’m not sure, but I can think of two reasons for this:
-
Being a single parent is more expensive than being a couple. Because you can’t share costs with another person, a greater proportion of your income goes to required expenses like food, housing, and utilities.
-
Along those lines, food is cheaper per person the more people you buy for. Buying in bulk is a huge savings. This is presumably why they give you more money for the first child than for each subsequent child.
-
deleted by creator
These types of rebates are some of the least effective uses of government money.
This and tax rebates. They could have literally pumped the money into a crown corp grocery and it would have been more effective.
It’s the same thing with the stupid EV rebates. Pump that money into a subway/train system and you’ll get fewer emissions and less traffic. Maybe get VIA to finally get onto HSR.
Can someone explain to me how I, a 25 year old student living alone, making less than $30k a year, don’t qualify for this?
This is also a stupid “solution.” We can’t just keep handing out $200 everytime people bring up the impact of inflation. Stop the inflation! Companies are just increasing their profit margins while consumers get less and less.
Does your demographic vote?
I got $450 as a single 30 year old making more than that
It’s based on your 2021 income, I believe, did you file for that year? Media has also been using the term “roll out” in articles which to me implies possible delays (CRA advises you wait 10 days before following up), did you check your CRA account to see if it’s listed under your credits?
My god , if this is not populism ,I don’t know what it is. Québec government CAQ did something similar 1 month before its re-election .
I believe you are only eligible if you already receive GST quarterly.
Actually that’s not true. See https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/goods-services-tax-harmonized-sales-tax-gst-hst-credit/grocery-rebate.html
Please note it is possible you may be entitled to the Grocery Rebate, but not the July GST/HST credit or vice versa.
It’s different tax years. The amount is based on the Jan '23 GST credit you received, but whether you actually qualify is determined by your 2021 filings, so there are a few weird cases where you would get one but not the other.
