'It's meaningless basically': One-time grocery rebate gets underwhelming reception

[CdnFox]

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/07/04/one-time-grocery-rebate-underwhelming-reception/

So trudeau thought he could 'solve inflation' by mailing every one a cheque.  For enough money to help out a little bit for about a month, then it's gone.

Here's the REAL kick in the teeth - this will also help raise inflation. 

Every time you dump unearned dollars into the economy, it creates inflation. Which will drive food prices higher.  Which will cause interest rates to go up. Which means these same people are going to suffer even WORSE pretty soon.

This is what the left wing has chosen for our country. And the poorest will suffer the most.

[Moonbox]

So I agree that the rebate is pointless, underwhelming and not particularly helpful, but the poorest will benefit the most from this, rather than the other way around.  The inflationary effect of this will be negligible and the extra money in poor people's pockets will be noticeable (for them).  

 

 

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

So I agree that the rebate is pointless, underwhelming and not particularly helpful, but the poorest will benefit the most from this, rather than the other way around.  The inflationary effect of this will be negligible and the extra money in poor people's pockets will be noticeable (for them). 

Allright - show your "math" on that.  How will the poorest benefit substantially and why woudln't inflation go up?

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

So I agree that the rebate is pointless, underwhelming and not particularly helpful, but the poorest will benefit the most from this, rather than the other way around.  The inflationary effect of this will be negligible and the extra money in poor people's pockets will be noticeable (for them).  

 

 

Good points.  My first thought was “just lower income taxes”, but that would completely miss people who are too poor to pay taxes.  So, making sure some of the poorest Canadians receive the rebate is the way to go. 
 

However, at the same time as inflation is happening, grocery chains are making record profits.  The government has done nothing about price gouging, which also hurts the poor worse than anyone else.  Record profits should mean record tax payments…. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

So I agree that the rebate is pointless, underwhelming and not particularly helpful, but the poorest will benefit the most from this, rather than the other way around.  The inflationary effect of this will be negligible and the extra money in poor people's pockets will be noticeable (for them).  

 

 

By my calculations covers 5% of my cost, which is significant only when measured against the price increases.

 

[myata]

Remove

Edited July 6, 2023 by myata

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Allright - show your "math" on that.  How will the poorest benefit substantially and why woudln't inflation go up?

You need to show your math.  You have to show us how a poor person, whose income is disproportionately devoted to shelter and food costs, is somehow worse off by getting ~7% (or more?) of their annual grocery bill rebated.  You could argue that this is a direct pander to poor and lower-income class Canadians, and you'd be right.  You could also argue that it's an ill-conceived and expensive bandaid that kicks the can down the road without solving the problem, which is sort of a trademark of the Trudeau Brand.  It's ridiculous, however, to argue that poor folks are worse off by the handout.  

Basic economics (and simple proportionality) should point to how absurd that particular claim is.  

Edited July 6, 2023 by Moonbox

[Nefarious Banana]

Rebate paid out of working population's 'carbon taxes' . . . . ?

Justin and his band of 'yes Emperor'  mannequins know no bounds.

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

By my calculations covers 5% of my cost, which is significant only when measured against the price increases.

 

the question then becomes how much inflation does 2.5 billion dollars in unearned money created when dumped into the economy. ESPECIALLY when it's focused on high inflation prone industries like food specifically.  Inflation is kind of permanent, if the price of food remains higher or goes up as a result of this then that's going to be that way for life.

I think we're going to see some news stories about how food price inflation remains strong and people are having even more trouble affording the food they want.

[Moonbox]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

the question then becomes how much inflation does 2.5 billion dollars in unearned money created when dumped into the economy.

You wouldn't even notice.  Consider proportionality (the scale of the Canadian economy vs $2.5B).  That should clue you in.  

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

You wouldn't even notice.  Consider proportionality (the scale of the Canadian economy vs $2.5B).  That should clue you in.  

I've seen estimates as high as 2 percent increases for food prices overall and upwards of 10 percent for some specific items. And those are the lower estimates.  It could mean an extra 20 bucks a week in grocery bills for people who can't afford their groceries now.

That's very serious. And it never goes away. And you'll pay inflation on that inflation.

SO - you're making the claim it will be so small it couldn't really be noticed - with 2.5 billion in unearned dollars. Lets see how you got there.  Because the experts disagree with you but perhaps you've seen something i haven't.

If all you've got is "ummm welll it would hurt my feelings if it were higher so i'll say it isn't" then you're admitting you're talking without having a clue. And that it will increase inflation substantially

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

So I agree that the rebate is pointless, underwhelming and not particularly helpful, but the poorest will benefit the most from this, rather than the other way around.  The inflationary effect of this will be negligible and the extra money in poor people's pockets will be noticeable (for them).  

It's just more income redistribution. Something which has occupied their time since they got into government. Take from those who produce and give it to those who don't produce to make their lives better so they don't have as much incentive to improve their lives. It's welfare. 

And I feel the same about the billions fed to corporate welfare bums like the chip makers. It's taking money from successful businesses and using it to prop up others the government likes better. They're both stupid ideas.

[Moonbox]

Just now, CdnFox said:

I've seen estimates as high as 2 percent increases for food prices overall and upwards of 10 percent for some specific items. And those are the lower estimates.  It could mean an extra 20 bucks a week in grocery bills for people who can't afford their groceries now.

From who?  Where are these estimates?  Who's making them?  This was a perfect opportunity for you to support your conclusion, but you aren't, for some reason?  

The folks who are going to notice a $2.5B handout are the folks who pay most of the federal tax bill (the high earners).

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

From who?  Where are these estimates?  W

OH no you don't - you made your claims, i've asked YOU for your proof three times now - lets see your proofs first.

Unless you were just making shit up as usual.  But no - you woudln't do that.

Fact  is - i support my conclusions all the time,  i think it'll be more fun to show you're full of shit and can't support your own right now.

So here's the perfect time to show i'm wrong - lets see your proof unless it's just "well I sort of felt that way".

[Moonbox]

Just now, CdnFox said:

OH no you don't - you made your claims, i've asked YOU for your proof three times now - lets see your proofs first.

You're asking for proof affirming a negative, which is dumb.  You're making an absurd claim that is not supported by any math, economics, or anything, except for that you've "seen estimates" (which you didn't/won't share ?).

I've already hinted at my math, and if you want to go ahead and do a little Googling, compare $2.5B to the overall Canadian economy in which this money will circulate to get an idea of how inflationary this might be. 

Heck, even compare it just to the overall food consumption market in Canada, and assume that every single dollar that goes to recipients will be spent on food (which wouldn't be the case).  Even then your conclusion doesn't bear out.  

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You're asking for proof affirming a negative,

 

Yes - which is entirely possible in this case.  WE can agree that it will have SOME effect, negligable or otherwise. So for you to make the claim you must have an idea of how much of an effect it will have.  Otherwise you would simply say "i don't know". 

So - lets see your evidence unelss you were just lying about it and it really is just "your feels'.

[Moonbox]

Please refer to immediately prior post for basic math (no feels involved! ?)

My "evidence" doesn't need to go any further beyond showing you how the scale of the rebate itself vs the markets it may effect do not come anywhere close to supporting the oversized impact you're suggesting it does.  Do you need someone to run you through the math of $2.5B divided by Canada's GDP, or by the overall food/grocery markets?  

The only person doing any hand-waving and feels-based economics here is you, but please feel free to correct this with those "estimates" you were telling us about.  

Edited July 6, 2023 by Moonbox

[herbie]

Oh Jeez, complaining about the gov't returning some of the money you paid. How effing horrible of them!
Maybe they should buy aircraft carriers or cut Loblaw's taxes instead.

If you're really insulted by it, donate it to Terry Fox foundation or your local food bank.

Edited July 6, 2023 by herbie

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh Jeez, complaining about the gov't returning some of the money you paid

Last time I  checked, most Canadians are complaining about the insanely high cost of living, vs the wages they are making. One is stable. I will let you guess which one.

The fact our government decided to increase taxes on fuel, at a time where many Canadians were reporting to struggle. This creates a domino effect.

I have to charge more to offset fuel and transportation costs as a business. Meaning the thousands of businesses that rely on my services will have to do the same to their customers. 

The last year alone, I have had to increase my rates over 15%, trying to avoid passing costs over to my consumers, to no avail.

Trickle that from top down, and you see why so many people can barely afford to put food on the table, let alone travel to pick it up.

This has nothing to do with helping those in need. One only needs to look at the sharp increase in homelessness, none of which are being helped by this rebate (many of which are on the streets due to the policies that afforded this government the ability to pay this to you), reaching crisis form for many cities.

Many are seeing it for what it is.

Virtue signaling, so Trudeau can proudly state he has Canadians backs. Sure, about 11 million of them. Many of which will still be struggling next month, and for the remainder of the year due to the high cost of living that still remains unchanged.

What about the remainder of the population that has their backs pushed forwards, forcing them to bend over?

[herbie]

Yes those are the ones complaining loudest about giving money to the people.
We're coping so F.U. Jack.

Let's all adopt that honourable American attitude.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

It's just more income redistribution. Something which has occupied their time since they got into government. Take from those who produce and give it to those who don't produce to make their lives better so they don't have as much incentive to improve their lives. It's welfare. 

And I feel the same about the billions fed to corporate welfare bums like the chip makers. It's taking money from successful businesses and using it to prop up others the government likes better. They're both stupid ideas.

I'm trying to imagine how you'll feel when automation and AI make and do everything.

I wonder how AI and the robots will feel about it? 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Yes those are the ones complaining loudest about giving money to the people.

Create dependent constituents. 

We just have different mentalities. 

I would rather teach someone to fish or provide them with opportunity. Lower their cost of living via initiatives.

You feel just giving away fish is a tangible solution.

On paper, you're right. Kindness.

Reality, is those fish cost money.

You create a dependency, which then becomes a profuse level of entitlement.

There is no end game to this.

You're that parent with a 56 year old kid, still in their basement and playing video games, because you feel its your duty to feed them.

When you die, your kid is f***ed, because you didn't provide them with the tools to fend for themselves.

[herbie]

Yes we do have basic differences. My measure is how much a gov't delivers for what you pay for it. Refunds and rebates are part of that. Without the naivete of thoughts like they should do less and that your taxes will go down if they do.

But I totally recognize your point of who gets missed. I'm a senior, so why the hell am I paying for prescription meds? Cuz my income from two years ago when the wife was alive and working a union job makes me ineligible. So in the meantime as I no longer have her benefits, I gotta pay $80 a month to a private insurer and last year's meds didn't even pass their deductible. Tempted to smash out a tooth with a hammer just to get my money's worth.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, herbie said:

Refunds and rebates are part of that.

I would prefer a government that put forwards initiatives that provided people with a break, considering the high inflationary costs that its population is facing.

Horrible timing to add a tax to fuel, when high shipping rates were affecting everything from the fruits and vegetables that you ordered, to the medicine you may require, and you guessed it--the lumber and items they built homes with, sending price points nearly out of our stratosphere. The fact that this government doesn't understand this, with a leader who studied in economics, is mind boggling.

Them rushing to send financial aid packages for a problem they exasperated, is like a thief breaking into your house  robbing you and shooting you in the leg, then coming by weeks later with a cake, and an apology letter as the gun went off by accident, and that you should have dinner together. Shocked at your disappointment with the cake, and unable to wrap their heads around the thousands they stole  and trauma they caused, not being worth the insult of a measly 15$ cake.

I have neighbors who were well off renting the house next to mine, being forced to go back to living with their parents and start from scratch. 

I have seen quite a few people sell. This was due to desperation, and being forced to down size.

I know someone who bought a house for just under 400k many years ago. His detached house now is worth almost a million. No acreage. Just a backyard and front lawn.

Sounds amazing, until his reality hits. For him to sell, would mean for him and his wife and 6 kids to move in an apartment, because they can't afford a million dollar house, which is near the average price point of homes in his area.

He is able bodied, has a 6 figure salary. You have royally f***ed up as a government, when you have many in your middle class struggling.

A strong middle class is the pulse of your country. 

Its not the 1% that are your biggest consumers.

[ExFlyer]

As meaningful as the gas tax rebate or the climate change rebate.