So I still haven't seen your alternative solution to all of this, unless it is the Swedish model, in which case see my comments at the end! Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.
First, I never said that you said they were "freeloaders", that is why it is in quotation marks, but it is what you implied by saying they are only spending it on games and such. That is a rather harsh over-generalization IMO. I am a retired senior. I was fortunate enough to be able to get good summer jobs to help pay for my university education. Many students do not have that opportunity today and that was before the lockdown put a kibosh on what types of summer jobs remain! I built my own business from the ground up. Neither my wife nor I have any pension, other than CPP and OAS. I was fortunate to be successful, but if my business failed no one was going to give me a bail out, the way they often do with the large multi-nationals. But I certainly do not resent money going to students to help them get through this in the short-term.
So is your solution to cut all students off? Again, it is easier to criticize than to provide solutions. Many students are in those same families you talk about that don't have any extra disposable income. How does that help them? Some students are single parents or mature students trying to improve their lot in life. They don't live or eat at home with their parents. Many of them go to school in a different city and still have rent or other obligations that didn't stop just because they closed the schools. No different than working people who still have rent or mortgage obligations, but are now laid off. Why single out young people?
We have never faced this type of emergency before. I think the powers-that-be have overall done a pretty good job, given that everyone is in uncharted territory. Even in WWII everyone was still working and businesses were mostly still operating. And to compare the tax rate to those in 1945 is completing unhelpful. What benefits are you prepared to give up to go back to those rates, so we have "more room to maneuver"? Should it be your health coverage, your government pension, public transit, any subsidies you are eligible for under EI or the emergency authorizations? Let me know. Again you seem to make the common mistake that these payments disappear into some deep, dark hole never to be seen again. That is a very simplistic economic model and bears no relationship to what actually happens. You seem to conveniently ignore that almost all of those payments go back into the economy and ultimately a good portion of it comes back into government coffers, rather than just increasing the debt.
Finally, your $28,000 number is not only misleading, but inaccurate. However, it does make for a good "sound bite". Even if it was accurate, no one is suggesting it needs to be paid off right away in a lump sum! Also, there are not just 9 million taxpayers and they do not contribute equally in any case. I have no idea where you got the 9 million figure. There are over 28 million individual tax returns filed with CRA every year. That is just the T1 individual returns. There are also T2 corporate returns and T3 trust returns. On top of that almost 35% of federal revenues come from things like GST, excise and payroll taxes. So your figure of $28,000 per taxpayer is completely overblown. In any case, an individual with $20,000 of taxable income will pay a much lower amount than someone making $200,000 per year, let alone $2,000,000 per year. If we are going to debate this let's keep it realistic and reasonable!
And the Swedish model has its own pitfalls, issues and shortcomings. It has calculated trade-offs, like any other response to the pandemic. It is just a different approach. Having spent time in Sweden, I understand why as a society it has worked fairly well for them, but I am reasonably certain it would not have worked well here, IMO. I know it has been trotted out ad nauseum by some pundits, because it seems to support their agenda. When I have explored other commentaries, it does not appear to be the panacea many have claimed, when subjected to more in-depth critical analysis and comparison.