this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
53 points (96.5% liked)

Canada

7134 readers
474 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

(Rachel Aiello/CTV News)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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?

[–] PsychedOut@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They arent the same if you read the article

[–] Stochastic@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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
[–] heartlessevil@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why is the partnered with no children amount higher than the individual with no children amount? Both of them are just for 1 person because your partner is going to get their own refund aren't they?

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] heartlessevil@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago

Oh, I see. Either way it seems to me like it should just be # of adults times $ dollars.

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] fresh@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure, but I can think of two reasons for this:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.