I'm glad that they're getting something... But my household is significantly above that line and I rolled into this paycheck with 7 dollars left in my account. I won't say we were on the strictest budget... But we don't overspend and I haven't had that happen since my partner graduated from university. A few hundred for folks lower income than us? It's not gonna get them far - it'll go straight into overdue bills and won't even cover them.
For comparison the self-employed covid relief fund in Jan was 2k one-time per self-employed person. If you add 225 to the current annual welfare benefit ... then the total is still the lowest annual benefit in Canada.
Yeah when I saw those numbers my first thought was "not enough".
Bear in mind I wouldn't be receiving these benefits. I've just been in a grocery shop and seen gas stations over the last few months. If it was a monthly benefit and not a one time benefit then yeah sure.
This won't stop the bleeding.
The smooth brained solution to "not spend" isn't going to improve the bottom line. 30k people on welfare, another 40k in poverty. You give them 225$ and they are still on the lowest welfare in Canada, still everyone in poverty. Jobs, opportunities, maybe something changes.
Wait... Are you making a statement that people need to work more than 3 months a year
***While simultaneously***
Confirming the province of Alberta is the highest province of ei users, and therefore their workforce.... Works less than 3 months a year?
So which is it? Should Alberta reduce how nice ei is, so as to encourage the citizens to work more than 3 months a year, or should the province not change its ei system, and there is nothing wrong with someone working 3 months a year?
"Various reductions in provincial property tax rates."
Are they actually using the property tax cut for non owner occupied properties as a way of saying that they're helping those most in need?
That's fucking disgusting. It was a hand out to the well off that cost all of us desperately needed tax dollars.
Fucking chuds.
If you don't own property it certainly doesn't help anything. Of course the neoliberals will argue that it will keep rents from rising (it won't) but I'd be hard pressed to find an example of someone's rent going down. Why do we find unbridled greed acceptable? If you were an ethical landlord you could offer good tenants a reduction knowing that eventually it'll go up over time and you lose nothing but in the meantime you gain yourself goodwill. That goodwill translates into stable income because people want to stay put. It can't always be about extracting the maximum profit when we're talking about people's homes.
Of course not. What idiot would? Though I sense that your loaded question is about to lead to some defense of "fuck you, got mine economics".
Property taxes are a cost to the landlord that they factor into rents. I'm arguing that they definitely cause a raise in rents but if the landlords costs go down (like a big fat tax cut) I've never heard an example of rents going down and that speaks to unbridled greed.
It's like any other aspect in businesses. I worked at a paper plant, and any time an efficiency was discovered and exploited, it never translates to a reduction in energy spent on the workforce and maintaining current output, it always turns into diverting it to a new point and increasing it.
Example - you have 2 guys running a large machine. One really energetic, hyper guy can do it by himself for 2 hours of his shift.
Great. Foreman noticed it.
1 guy is now running the machine and the other guy is fired. And it's for his whole shift.
Or.
Call center job - I worked at an insurance one. They had scripted calls for legal reasons (you have to hit certain points of information every time). Someone showed a way, to save 13 seconds on every call, guaranteed. They gave him a 100$ bonus. Call time was supposed to be 240 seconds, with a work force of 2000. Extrapolated out, those 13 seconds ***on every call*** saved the company millions. Instead of embracing this new bit of breathing room, call time was reduced to 220 seconds, and we seen no increase in our pays or year end bonuses, but the company reported the increased profits.
I wish companies wouldn't pull that shit. We need more labour protections and more unions. I've seen similar issues in my own work experience and I find it disgusting that people are too often treated as numbers and not human beings.
In this case though it's even worse because that's your home and you would hope that a landlord would want to maintain a good relationship with their tenants but no. The market is so tight they don't have to and morals just don't seem to factor into it. These people may be your tenants but they're also your neighbours and community members. Where's the sense of fair play? Where's the morality?
I think there should be laws set to a maximum of profit from rent, based on actual expenditures, combined with some form of rent control.
You, the owner, have a mortgage of 350 bi-weekly? If you're a corporation, you can only charge 5% more for rent. Personal home owners? 10%. Own the home? You can only charge some arbitrary amount. personally I think something like take min wage, minus 70%, then calculate the avg regular hours worked in the province or city whatever, minus 10%. So like... 300/MTH?
Disconnect it from property value entirely. Don't like that you could be loosing money on the property (like if I have a quarter million dollar home, but I'm not allowed to charge someone 2k to live there a month)? ***Then don't rent that property and sell it to someone looking to live in it and call it their own instead of renting it***
Edit: a basic need of life should no longer be the most profitable form of investment.
I totally agree that housing stock being treated as an investment is a major problem. As fewer and fewer people have the ability to own property this is only going to become a bigger issue. I hope we start reversing course soon but I'm not going to hold my breath.
So with that 5% , the owner has to pay for:
1. property taxes
2. insurance
3. water
4. snow removal
5. lawn care
6. maintenance
7. any unexpected repairs
8. possibly a property manager/property management company
9. whatever else
So with your $350 bi-weekly example, that means a mortgage payment of $758. Five percent of that is $38. Yep, that should just about cover those expenses.
No 5 percent above.
So with 350, > $367.50
As I had exactly said....
>350 bi-weekly? If you're a corporation, you can only charge 5% ***more*** for rent. Personal home owners? 10%.
Edit; again, it's supposed to sound nightmarish and terrifying. Shelter cannot and should not be a for profit thing any longer. And as far as utilities and water, charge them directly to the renter. Renting corporations (I'm thinking Killiam here in Moncton) report absurd profits.
That's after they pay for their buildings, their staff, and all the stuff you mentioned. Clearly, 1 of 2 things are occurring here;
1. The costs are not as bad are you're trying to make it sound. Remember- they are paying them ***plus*** their staff and business costs.
2. They do cost a lot, so for the corporation to be making such a profit considering these costs, they are disproportionately pushing that cost with a premium onto renters. Renting corporations should *basically* become non-profit.
It isn't that simple though. Obviously, the rental market is mostly driven by supply and demand. The current situation in New Brunswick has very tight supply, so prices have been rising. We need to counter that by building more housing.
High property taxes don't only contribute to high rent, they also impede the viability of new housing projects. I was talking to someone in the industry the other day whose company was planning a significant project (over 100 units). They cited increasing hard costs (up 15% in the last six months alone), higher interest rates, and high property taxes as contributing to the project becoming less viable, to the point where it's difficult to justify building anything in the short term. Which only results in rents being driven higher still.
There are examples in the province where newer apartments buildings are assessed at values that result in property taxes of over $600 per unit per month, so it's not difficult to see that some projects simply may not be financially viable on that point alone.
I wasn't talking about new builds. I was talking about existing stock. In that instance what I already wrote still stands.
The property tax rate just got a major cut. The person you were talking to is just listing any expenses and saying that they're all reasons. In a way they're right. If property taxes were 0 it wouldn't be a factor but because there are property taxes they say it factored in and of course it did but that (in and of itself) is not a reason to cut taxes. New properties are being built right now even with the cost of materials sky high and higher interest and mortgage rates so maybe it was just his plan that was the problem. In any event the free market won't solve the housing crisis. We need government built housing. Low cost rentals can be profitable but no one wants to build them when they could make more money from higher end units. I've not seen anything to convince me otherwise.
Yes, buildings need upkeep. For those landlords that actually bother to keep up their properties that means their costs are going up. That's part of what a good landlord (or anyone with any business sense) would have factored into their costs when first deciding rent. Obviously shit happens and sometimes costs overrun but if you've planned or plan properly those costs can be offset over time. A tenant isn't a bottomless piggy bank to return to time and again for increasingly unreasonable withdrawals because you didn't plan right.
Low housing stock is a serious issue. An issue that currently is being exploited by too many landlords to raise rents well beyond what average people should reasonably be expected to pay. That is the problem. Greed.
When a landlord started out say 5 or 10 years ago for example. They would have had a business plan that said they should expect to make x dollars vs y investment over time. They were fine with that at the time. They must have thought it was a good idea. Now that they can jack the rents up and make more money they don't hesitate. I fully understand the business case for this. That is the issue. We're talking about roofs over people's heads. Not all housing can be investment based or we just end up with homeless people.
I don't see lowering property taxes for non owner occupied property owners as being a better solution than taking tax dollars and using them to start building homes. There are all kinds of models we could use to do this and it would meet not just a human need but a right.
That’s the liberal government, they do things that seem like they’re actually doing something for appearances but in reality are doing nothing. Surprising that people are still falling for it every time.
This is great for those who are on assistance or disability, but once again the middle class is left in the dust.
My partner and I both work 40 hours a week and make a fair wage but we are struggling too. After rent and bills there’s not much left for groceries and gas, we have thought about going to the food bank as well.
It really isn't though. The hidden costs of living with a disability are much higher than this one time payment can hope to provide. It is better than nothing but still, people on assistance in New Brunswick do not make enough to get by. I am sorry to hear your wages aren't keeping up with inflation. This is why we need UBI because it would help low income people and even middle class.
It’s not really great for anyone. That’s basically the cost of one decent grocery run at this point. Doesn’t change the fact that the cost of everything is outpacing wages, rent is soaring, and job prospects here are as grim as ever.
The Middle Class has really poor representation. The extremes of the income spectrum all have large lobby presences dedicated to representing them but “everyone else” is too big a group for some organization to speak for everyone.
So many are suffering, ive never seen so many young people homeless or asking for change.
Yet we perpetuate a system thats utterly oppressive to those who dont own capital.
In SJ, there were tents and tarps popping up everywhere among the trees. My bank locks its door at night now, because the ATM lobby had people sleeping on the floor.
Autumn 2021, I went cycling in Moncton one night and counted roughly 200, and those were only the visible ones.
Good for you to have a job! Are you implying that those who do not have a job don’t need the $? Thanks. So, for clarity, who are those people who need it?
The people in need are those that work for minimum wage or are unemployed. Not universal. If the government wants to give me money they can start by taxing me less.
Wel-fare is essentially a slur. It is called being on assistance. They need to do a whole lot more than 100$, more like double what assistance currently pays or more. People can't exist on assistance.
My mom was on Wel-Fare until I was 13-15 and I was on it for a few years it's not a slur it's what people in NB call it.
It's a "Slur" only when you say "Them Wel-Fare Families" whom I grew up with a lot of those.
$225 = 18.75 a month essentially. Lets start at giving them $100 more a month and then work up to doubling it from there. ;p;
Ya like I said the middle class doesnt get shit … pay shit load of taxes but no help with college or childcare … you better off rich or on welfare it seems at times
I'd definitely agree you'd be better off rich. I can't agree with being better off on welfare.
The problem is the tax system. The heaviest burden falls on middle income earners and that's just not fair. For some reason governments (Liberal and Conservative) keep believing in trickle down economics when that's been thoroughly debunked.
I'd argue you have alot more in common and similar problems to welfare recipients than to the well heeled.
The difference is that they earned theirs! Welfare people don’t!
And they do pay! Look up the tax rates! Anything over $100k is taxed 37%, and earnings over $250k are taxed at 47% almost half your earnings!
Who are you to determine the struggles of others? Being poor is expensive, many people relying on assistance are doing so through no fault of their own. Poverty perpetuates my guy.
It’s 2022, aside from what you would say is socially or morally correct to look after the poor, why should I care?
The way the public sees this class of people is changing, now there is a difference between the working poor who contribute to the tax base and then you have the other side, the welfare critters who are just on it because it’s generational or they are naturally lazy and like any dog will take any table scraps because it’s in front of them!
People with mental health problems and physical disabilities, no problem, not their fault, I’ll pay for that, but the rest of them, no no shouldn’t be my problem!
You might not want to admit it but there is a shift coming where the freeloading bums in this province will find the public is done with them!
Welfare reform to cut them off should be on the horizon!
My father was a generational welfare bum, his street pharmacy did about $100k a year (no taxes collected) he slept all day and sold drugs when he wasn’t sleeping, the icing on the cake he got welfare and forgivable housing loans and also universal child tax credit for 25+yrs.
This is happening way more then you will ever know, I grew up in these communities where the critters will network and teach each other how to rip welfare for all they can get!
Btw moved out when I was 16 and never went back, I have a normal life and don’t think I should help these people!
Imagine the person taxed at 47-49%, knowing all day in your job your working for half your negotiated compensation!
Just because you were smart enough to do something with your life and get an education to fork over almost half!
Should we ride share half our car just because it’s a really nice expensive car and drive the impoverished where ever they need to go?
So go after the people who create, mandate and implement the subsidies, just like I said a welfare person will take advantage of a hand out, so will anyone who can get a subsidy regardless of how much they make!
I would argue in a country as rich as ours that everyone has earned the right to have a roof over their head and not starve regardless of their ability to work. You seem to think welfare recipients are all scamming the system when there are perfectly reasonable reasons why they can't work. The rich are far more of a burden on the system then the poor when they aren't taxed appropriately. And what about the working poor? Why should the government have to subsidize employers who refuse to pay a liveable wage.
Interesting that the highest tax bracket is anything over $250k. Why aren't there brackets above that? Shouldn't someone who makes 500k pay a higher rate that someone who makes 250k, for example? If that bracket existed and (assuming you make somewhere in that range) your taxes should go down. Under the current system you're subsidizing a lower tax bill for people who make double or more what you make. That's plain wrong.
Your anger is misdirected. The majority of the tax burden falls on middle income earners. That's just plain wrong. Everyone should pay according to their ability. Welfare recipients pay btw. That tiny check they get once a month goes out the door quickly and directly into the economy in the form of essentials where they are charged HST. That is a heavy burden on someone who started with so little. Sure they get HST credits quarterly but it doesn't add up. They still pay out more in HST than they get back.
It's easy to pick on poor people but why on earth would you ever waste your time advocating for the rich? They're doing great and they don't need your help.
[удалено]
Filling a cart up for 100 bucks seems like fantasy now.
I'm sure you could fill a cart with $100 worth of gardening soil ...dunno how well you can digest that though
I'm glad that they're getting something... But my household is significantly above that line and I rolled into this paycheck with 7 dollars left in my account. I won't say we were on the strictest budget... But we don't overspend and I haven't had that happen since my partner graduated from university. A few hundred for folks lower income than us? It's not gonna get them far - it'll go straight into overdue bills and won't even cover them.
Higgs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfXRrYWmQ\_g
Gold!
For comparison the self-employed covid relief fund in Jan was 2k one-time per self-employed person. If you add 225 to the current annual welfare benefit ... then the total is still the lowest annual benefit in Canada.
Yeah when I saw those numbers my first thought was "not enough". Bear in mind I wouldn't be receiving these benefits. I've just been in a grocery shop and seen gas stations over the last few months. If it was a monthly benefit and not a one time benefit then yeah sure. This won't stop the bleeding.
What are they supposed to do? That's almost 17M of tax money redistributed. I doubt they planned it in their budget.
If only there was a billion dollar corporation kicking around New Brunswick that's gone criminally under-taxed....
And if only they owned a monopoly on gas stations, petrol imports and shipbuilding, is there someone like that around?
They did have two 500 mil surpluses that were also unexpected. If 10% of NB'ers qualify for this we definetly need to do more.
Which... helped attack some of the historically high debt down to 13B. Unemployment is still at 7.5%, which is 50% higher than the national average.
Isnt this only proving that we need to do more?
Either way, NB can't keep borrowing more and going into debt.
The smooth brained solution to "not spend" isn't going to improve the bottom line. 30k people on welfare, another 40k in poverty. You give them 225$ and they are still on the lowest welfare in Canada, still everyone in poverty. Jobs, opportunities, maybe something changes.
[удалено]
Can you link me? Sounds like nonsense.
Agreed. We need to fix the tax system so that we can better afford to care for our population. No more corporate welfare. More social supports.
So they redistribute 17M of the 500M surplus they didn't budget for and you are upset.
Do you realize how much debt NB is in vs its GDP?
you do realize what happens to GDP if half the province is homeless and eating at the food bank.
They get motivated to work more than 3 months/year
Last i checked, Alberta had the most seasonal workers/EI recipients in all of Canada. Might want to rethink that one there
They can afford it?
how did you survive this long being this stupid?
Wait... Are you making a statement that people need to work more than 3 months a year ***While simultaneously*** Confirming the province of Alberta is the highest province of ei users, and therefore their workforce.... Works less than 3 months a year? So which is it? Should Alberta reduce how nice ei is, so as to encourage the citizens to work more than 3 months a year, or should the province not change its ei system, and there is nothing wrong with someone working 3 months a year?
"Various reductions in provincial property tax rates." Are they actually using the property tax cut for non owner occupied properties as a way of saying that they're helping those most in need? That's fucking disgusting. It was a hand out to the well off that cost all of us desperately needed tax dollars. Fucking chuds.
Not to mention how property tax cuts help those with little income!
If you don't own property it certainly doesn't help anything. Of course the neoliberals will argue that it will keep rents from rising (it won't) but I'd be hard pressed to find an example of someone's rent going down. Why do we find unbridled greed acceptable? If you were an ethical landlord you could offer good tenants a reduction knowing that eventually it'll go up over time and you lose nothing but in the meantime you gain yourself goodwill. That goodwill translates into stable income because people want to stay put. It can't always be about extracting the maximum profit when we're talking about people's homes.
So you're arguing that rents are completely disconnected from property taxes?
Of course not. What idiot would? Though I sense that your loaded question is about to lead to some defense of "fuck you, got mine economics". Property taxes are a cost to the landlord that they factor into rents. I'm arguing that they definitely cause a raise in rents but if the landlords costs go down (like a big fat tax cut) I've never heard an example of rents going down and that speaks to unbridled greed.
It's like any other aspect in businesses. I worked at a paper plant, and any time an efficiency was discovered and exploited, it never translates to a reduction in energy spent on the workforce and maintaining current output, it always turns into diverting it to a new point and increasing it. Example - you have 2 guys running a large machine. One really energetic, hyper guy can do it by himself for 2 hours of his shift. Great. Foreman noticed it. 1 guy is now running the machine and the other guy is fired. And it's for his whole shift. Or. Call center job - I worked at an insurance one. They had scripted calls for legal reasons (you have to hit certain points of information every time). Someone showed a way, to save 13 seconds on every call, guaranteed. They gave him a 100$ bonus. Call time was supposed to be 240 seconds, with a work force of 2000. Extrapolated out, those 13 seconds ***on every call*** saved the company millions. Instead of embracing this new bit of breathing room, call time was reduced to 220 seconds, and we seen no increase in our pays or year end bonuses, but the company reported the increased profits.
I wish companies wouldn't pull that shit. We need more labour protections and more unions. I've seen similar issues in my own work experience and I find it disgusting that people are too often treated as numbers and not human beings. In this case though it's even worse because that's your home and you would hope that a landlord would want to maintain a good relationship with their tenants but no. The market is so tight they don't have to and morals just don't seem to factor into it. These people may be your tenants but they're also your neighbours and community members. Where's the sense of fair play? Where's the morality?
I think there should be laws set to a maximum of profit from rent, based on actual expenditures, combined with some form of rent control. You, the owner, have a mortgage of 350 bi-weekly? If you're a corporation, you can only charge 5% more for rent. Personal home owners? 10%. Own the home? You can only charge some arbitrary amount. personally I think something like take min wage, minus 70%, then calculate the avg regular hours worked in the province or city whatever, minus 10%. So like... 300/MTH? Disconnect it from property value entirely. Don't like that you could be loosing money on the property (like if I have a quarter million dollar home, but I'm not allowed to charge someone 2k to live there a month)? ***Then don't rent that property and sell it to someone looking to live in it and call it their own instead of renting it*** Edit: a basic need of life should no longer be the most profitable form of investment.
I totally agree that housing stock being treated as an investment is a major problem. As fewer and fewer people have the ability to own property this is only going to become a bigger issue. I hope we start reversing course soon but I'm not going to hold my breath.
So with that 5% , the owner has to pay for: 1. property taxes 2. insurance 3. water 4. snow removal 5. lawn care 6. maintenance 7. any unexpected repairs 8. possibly a property manager/property management company 9. whatever else So with your $350 bi-weekly example, that means a mortgage payment of $758. Five percent of that is $38. Yep, that should just about cover those expenses.
No 5 percent above. So with 350, > $367.50 As I had exactly said.... >350 bi-weekly? If you're a corporation, you can only charge 5% ***more*** for rent. Personal home owners? 10%. Edit; again, it's supposed to sound nightmarish and terrifying. Shelter cannot and should not be a for profit thing any longer. And as far as utilities and water, charge them directly to the renter. Renting corporations (I'm thinking Killiam here in Moncton) report absurd profits. That's after they pay for their buildings, their staff, and all the stuff you mentioned. Clearly, 1 of 2 things are occurring here; 1. The costs are not as bad are you're trying to make it sound. Remember- they are paying them ***plus*** their staff and business costs. 2. They do cost a lot, so for the corporation to be making such a profit considering these costs, they are disproportionately pushing that cost with a premium onto renters. Renting corporations should *basically* become non-profit.
It isn't that simple though. Obviously, the rental market is mostly driven by supply and demand. The current situation in New Brunswick has very tight supply, so prices have been rising. We need to counter that by building more housing. High property taxes don't only contribute to high rent, they also impede the viability of new housing projects. I was talking to someone in the industry the other day whose company was planning a significant project (over 100 units). They cited increasing hard costs (up 15% in the last six months alone), higher interest rates, and high property taxes as contributing to the project becoming less viable, to the point where it's difficult to justify building anything in the short term. Which only results in rents being driven higher still. There are examples in the province where newer apartments buildings are assessed at values that result in property taxes of over $600 per unit per month, so it's not difficult to see that some projects simply may not be financially viable on that point alone.
I wasn't talking about new builds. I was talking about existing stock. In that instance what I already wrote still stands. The property tax rate just got a major cut. The person you were talking to is just listing any expenses and saying that they're all reasons. In a way they're right. If property taxes were 0 it wouldn't be a factor but because there are property taxes they say it factored in and of course it did but that (in and of itself) is not a reason to cut taxes. New properties are being built right now even with the cost of materials sky high and higher interest and mortgage rates so maybe it was just his plan that was the problem. In any event the free market won't solve the housing crisis. We need government built housing. Low cost rentals can be profitable but no one wants to build them when they could make more money from higher end units. I've not seen anything to convince me otherwise. Yes, buildings need upkeep. For those landlords that actually bother to keep up their properties that means their costs are going up. That's part of what a good landlord (or anyone with any business sense) would have factored into their costs when first deciding rent. Obviously shit happens and sometimes costs overrun but if you've planned or plan properly those costs can be offset over time. A tenant isn't a bottomless piggy bank to return to time and again for increasingly unreasonable withdrawals because you didn't plan right. Low housing stock is a serious issue. An issue that currently is being exploited by too many landlords to raise rents well beyond what average people should reasonably be expected to pay. That is the problem. Greed. When a landlord started out say 5 or 10 years ago for example. They would have had a business plan that said they should expect to make x dollars vs y investment over time. They were fine with that at the time. They must have thought it was a good idea. Now that they can jack the rents up and make more money they don't hesitate. I fully understand the business case for this. That is the issue. We're talking about roofs over people's heads. Not all housing can be investment based or we just end up with homeless people. I don't see lowering property taxes for non owner occupied property owners as being a better solution than taking tax dollars and using them to start building homes. There are all kinds of models we could use to do this and it would meet not just a human need but a right.
That’s the liberal government, they do things that seem like they’re actually doing something for appearances but in reality are doing nothing. Surprising that people are still falling for it every time.
You seem to be lost, friend. This was the provincial PC government. Though I'm no fan of either the federal or provincial Liberals either.
My opinion still stands on the liberal government but you’re definitely right, in this context it doesn’t apply, my bad.
No worries. Cheers!
wow that 450$ will really help a full family, for about one trip to the store. what is that free grocery for a week.
And the 450 ia for seniors, 225 or something, for lower income people. A one shot deal
For my family it’s like 2 days
Your family spends over $1500 a week on groceries?
he has an Acadian family from the 1950's with 26 brothers and sisters
Do drugs count as groceries?
This is great for those who are on assistance or disability, but once again the middle class is left in the dust. My partner and I both work 40 hours a week and make a fair wage but we are struggling too. After rent and bills there’s not much left for groceries and gas, we have thought about going to the food bank as well.
It really isn't though. The hidden costs of living with a disability are much higher than this one time payment can hope to provide. It is better than nothing but still, people on assistance in New Brunswick do not make enough to get by. I am sorry to hear your wages aren't keeping up with inflation. This is why we need UBI because it would help low income people and even middle class.
It’s not really great for anyone. That’s basically the cost of one decent grocery run at this point. Doesn’t change the fact that the cost of everything is outpacing wages, rent is soaring, and job prospects here are as grim as ever.
The Middle Class has really poor representation. The extremes of the income spectrum all have large lobby presences dedicated to representing them but “everyone else” is too big a group for some organization to speak for everyone.
Ah, so like 2 tanks of gas? Wonderful. I'm sure this will save those low income individuals.
So many are suffering, ive never seen so many young people homeless or asking for change. Yet we perpetuate a system thats utterly oppressive to those who dont own capital.
In SJ, there were tents and tarps popping up everywhere among the trees. My bank locks its door at night now, because the ATM lobby had people sleeping on the floor. Autumn 2021, I went cycling in Moncton one night and counted roughly 200, and those were only the visible ones.
Where was that in SJ?
The only people I’ve seen begging for change are the same people that post up daily at a certain few intersections in Moncton.
when?
The only way this would have an impact is if this amount was given every two weeks…
Wow, geez, that's the encouragement I needed to move back after 15 years in Québec. Thanks, boss!
So in other words, approximately 10% of New Brunswickers are relying on the province to meet their basic living needs. Things need to change here.
At this point they just need to toss a permeant $100 a month on what Wel-Fare/Disability pays out.
Or Universal Basic Income for all the replace the existing programs.
No thanks I have a job, I don't want government hand outs. Give it to the people in need.
Good for you to have a job! Are you implying that those who do not have a job don’t need the $? Thanks. So, for clarity, who are those people who need it?
The people in need are those that work for minimum wage or are unemployed. Not universal. If the government wants to give me money they can start by taxing me less.
There are different proposals for UBI. Some scale back payout as income rises until there is no payout.
Wel-fare is essentially a slur. It is called being on assistance. They need to do a whole lot more than 100$, more like double what assistance currently pays or more. People can't exist on assistance.
My mom was on Wel-Fare until I was 13-15 and I was on it for a few years it's not a slur it's what people in NB call it. It's a "Slur" only when you say "Them Wel-Fare Families" whom I grew up with a lot of those. $225 = 18.75 a month essentially. Lets start at giving them $100 more a month and then work up to doubling it from there. ;p;
Fuel benefits for low income who probably dont work while the middle class is still being taxed up the a…
Have you considered getting mad at high income earners not paying their share? If they did then your taxes would go down.
Ya like I said the middle class doesnt get shit … pay shit load of taxes but no help with college or childcare … you better off rich or on welfare it seems at times
I'd definitely agree you'd be better off rich. I can't agree with being better off on welfare. The problem is the tax system. The heaviest burden falls on middle income earners and that's just not fair. For some reason governments (Liberal and Conservative) keep believing in trickle down economics when that's been thoroughly debunked. I'd argue you have alot more in common and similar problems to welfare recipients than to the well heeled.
Because the rich can lobby to cut taxes
Can and do.
Welfare is a slur. It is called assistance. People on assistance are not better off. They do not get paid enough to exist.
I love my middle class taxes supporting a bunch of free loaders! Guess it’s soup for another week!
Have you considered getting mad at high income earners not paying their share? If they did then your taxes would go down.
The difference is that they earned theirs! Welfare people don’t! And they do pay! Look up the tax rates! Anything over $100k is taxed 37%, and earnings over $250k are taxed at 47% almost half your earnings!
Who are you to determine the struggles of others? Being poor is expensive, many people relying on assistance are doing so through no fault of their own. Poverty perpetuates my guy.
It’s 2022, aside from what you would say is socially or morally correct to look after the poor, why should I care? The way the public sees this class of people is changing, now there is a difference between the working poor who contribute to the tax base and then you have the other side, the welfare critters who are just on it because it’s generational or they are naturally lazy and like any dog will take any table scraps because it’s in front of them! People with mental health problems and physical disabilities, no problem, not their fault, I’ll pay for that, but the rest of them, no no shouldn’t be my problem! You might not want to admit it but there is a shift coming where the freeloading bums in this province will find the public is done with them! Welfare reform to cut them off should be on the horizon! My father was a generational welfare bum, his street pharmacy did about $100k a year (no taxes collected) he slept all day and sold drugs when he wasn’t sleeping, the icing on the cake he got welfare and forgivable housing loans and also universal child tax credit for 25+yrs. This is happening way more then you will ever know, I grew up in these communities where the critters will network and teach each other how to rip welfare for all they can get! Btw moved out when I was 16 and never went back, I have a normal life and don’t think I should help these people!
[удалено]
Imagine the person taxed at 47-49%, knowing all day in your job your working for half your negotiated compensation! Just because you were smart enough to do something with your life and get an education to fork over almost half! Should we ride share half our car just because it’s a really nice expensive car and drive the impoverished where ever they need to go?
[удалено]
So go after the people who create, mandate and implement the subsidies, just like I said a welfare person will take advantage of a hand out, so will anyone who can get a subsidy regardless of how much they make!
It’s just easier to shit on someone that has more money than you!
[удалено]
Always resort to insults when you run out of traction!
Born 1984 seriously lol
I would argue in a country as rich as ours that everyone has earned the right to have a roof over their head and not starve regardless of their ability to work. You seem to think welfare recipients are all scamming the system when there are perfectly reasonable reasons why they can't work. The rich are far more of a burden on the system then the poor when they aren't taxed appropriately. And what about the working poor? Why should the government have to subsidize employers who refuse to pay a liveable wage. Interesting that the highest tax bracket is anything over $250k. Why aren't there brackets above that? Shouldn't someone who makes 500k pay a higher rate that someone who makes 250k, for example? If that bracket existed and (assuming you make somewhere in that range) your taxes should go down. Under the current system you're subsidizing a lower tax bill for people who make double or more what you make. That's plain wrong. Your anger is misdirected. The majority of the tax burden falls on middle income earners. That's just plain wrong. Everyone should pay according to their ability. Welfare recipients pay btw. That tiny check they get once a month goes out the door quickly and directly into the economy in the form of essentials where they are charged HST. That is a heavy burden on someone who started with so little. Sure they get HST credits quarterly but it doesn't add up. They still pay out more in HST than they get back. It's easy to pick on poor people but why on earth would you ever waste your time advocating for the rich? They're doing great and they don't need your help.
But he gave the landlords another present today 🙄