“I’m moderately okay with that. I like sporadic investing better, like checks. I thought it was clearer. It was going to be useful and we saw it more concretely. […] To receive $370 a year, which you barely see spread over 12 months, is less concrete in people’s minds. I find it very electioneering to say we’re going to lower taxes – we didn’t know how much it was going to be. Unfortunately, I find it vague and selling. Perhaps not for a generation like mine, knowing very well that we are not at the peak of our career, with salaries of $50,000, even less, $46,000-48,000. People who are really going to save money, who are going to save money, have higher salaries. »

“For me, it won’t make a big difference budget-wise. I’m not saying it’s a shot in the dark, but there are other needs elsewhere. I imagine it can make a difference for people who need it most, even if for them the impact of this tax cut will be smaller. For me, that works out to $400 or $425 a year. If we spread it out by the week, I don’t see a big difference on a daily basis and on my purchasing power. »

“Intrinsically, I believe that a tax cut is going to lead to cuts. And if the government cuts in something, it’s probably in something that would benefit the population. I imagine in public services, like education, and I am directly affected by education, so that worries me more. […] It is public services that benefit most those who need them most. So that’s a little worrying. »

“I think it’s a bad idea, simply because the money is not going to the right place. I’m not an economist, but you only have to read the examples that have been given to understand that below $30,000, people will not receive anything. It gives more money to the richest in return for taxes, little or no money for those with lower incomes. It’s not efficient: right now in Quebec, we don’t need to receive a check, we need to receive better services, everywhere and at all levels. It doesn’t make me happy. It’s not something I approve of. »