this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
95 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

217 readers
8 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


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 and 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Evkob@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It would have been so much simpler and cheaper to just make CERB apply universally instead of still chasing after people who "cheated" the rules three years after the fact.

I know a lot of people who thought they were eligible and learned come tax season that they weren't. The communications surrounding CERB were messy and unclear, with eligibility criteria seemingly changing daily.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The criteria was clearly defined on the website at the time. I remember looking it up, and I didn't qualify, so I didn't apply.

How did people apply without seeing the criteria written out on the page they were applying on? I guess some people were thinking "free money!" and didn't bother to read the page.

The goal was to make sure people got the money they needed and they didn't have the resources to look over the applications closely. Justin Trudeau clearly said something to the effect of "Yes it's possible to get the CERB if you don't actually qualify, but don't that."

It was very clear to me at the time that a) I didn't qualify b) I could apply anyway and get the money even though I didn't qualify c) They would be checking later and I'd have to pay it back if I didn't qualify

I think people got thinking about part b) and didn't understand part c) would happen someday.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I applied for EI as I qualified for that, they gave me CERB instead.

[–] DoomsdaySprocket@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did they end up clawing it back?

I was confused that I got a CERB clawback warning, and had it clawed back, but then I realized that I applied for sickness EI for something unrelated during covid. It isn’t worth it for me to try and track it back, especially when blinking the wrong direction is liable to get me locked out of my Service Canada account for some reason.

I just can’t even get angry about the ineptitude anymore, or even disappointed. Disappointment implies that I expected better, which throughout my apprenticeship of dealing with them I learned never to do.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

They are saying they over paid me $1000 and are trying to be scary in attempting to retrieve it. Just making it difficult for them, as it wasn't my fuck up.

[–] Evkob@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most people lack basic research skills in the best of times, and the start of the COVID pandemic was not the best of times. A lot of people were in situations where receiving CERB would have made sense, as in they definitely needed it, yet they were not technically eligible. I can't really blame someone who's stressed out, socially isolated, and out of a job seeing a program to help people through the pandemic and automatically applying, thinking "This must apply to me!"

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

I think people that were working for the CRA probably should've known they weren't eligible. They had a job at the time. And part of that job was to know about this kind of thing. Either they've been fired for trying to rip off the government or they were fired for being incompetent at their jobs. Either way, it's correct they were fired.

For others that made a mistake, they gotta pay the money back. So in the end they got a loan from the government. I don't that as a bad thing either.

[–] Grimpen@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I remember helping people look up the rules. JT was very clear, as was everyone else involved in the program. The point was helping people who needed it now^1. There was no verification at the time. They would go through and identify those who didn't qualify later, when the emergency had passed.

I have little sympathy for people who were fully employed at the time, applied, and then play dumb. Sure, if you were on some modified work schedule or work sharing thing... it was a weird time. People could have been confused. It was always 100% clear from the start that it was meant from those who were being furloughed, laid off, put on unpaid leave, etc.


^1 Well not now now, but then now.

[–] jadero@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

I have no idea what it said on the website because, at the time, I had no internet at home, the library was closed and there are no public access points anywhere around. So I did what I always do, make application over the phone. That was a disaster zone of incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and occasionally incoherent instructions and alternate phone numbers.

Based on the fact that nobody has come chasing me for money, I'm guessing that I must have legitimately qualified.

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One of the biggest problems with CERB was that you didn't have to apply for it specifically.

I happened to be out of work for a short time and applied for regular EI. They automatically gave me CERB then fucked me over with a surprise $2k bill a year later.

I just finished paying that off 2 months ago.

[–] DoomsdaySprocket@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Same for me, I think I had a short sickness EI claim automatically converted them clawed back, but because of the time gap involved I just couldn’t figure it out until now and figured that some money must have got dropped in my account without me noticing.

[–] Macaw@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, give CERB to millions of people who don't need it. Brilliant idea. That program was rolled out as fast as humanly possible and people expect perfection....

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

What are your arguments against doing so?

[–] PortableHotpocket@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The cost would have been a lot higher. Either you have to reduce the dollar value for each recipient to keep the total amount the same, or, more likely, keep the dollar value the same for each recipient, "create" more money overall, and spike inflation significantly worse than it already has been.

You can't just put so much money into circulation like that at once. The amount we already put in for covid relief is a big contributor to the inflation we have seen over the past few years. It devalues savings like mad, hurting tons of middle and retirement age people who have to live off of those savings for the rest of their lives.

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

For anyone curious, 6.5m out of the 38m total population claimed it. So it would cost close to 6x as much if given to everyone (if even children included).

I support the concept of basic income in general, but this was a different situation specific to COVID job loss.

I know a lot of people who thought they were eligible and learned come tax season that they weren't.

Happened to my brother who had his hours slashed to almost nothing. He applied and received the money, but was then told even though his pay was reduced significantly he still made too much to qualify (over $1,000 per month). I don't believe the per month limit was in place when he originally applied.

[–] rms1990@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yep. I owe alot back but I ain't paying a dime based on miscommunication. I can't even afford to pay it back as I live paycheque to paycheque working two jobs supporting a family.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They will garnish your wages and you'll have to pay it back plus interest.

Just how she goes.

[–] rms1990@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

I'd suggest cutting a deal with them. You should be able to set up a payment plan and it'll probably less cost overall than if they have to resort to garnishing your wages. They can be reasonable if you talk to them, but they're significantly less reasonable if they have to come after you.

But it's up to you.

load more comments (1 replies)