Shakeyhands Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Nothing is certain that the Libs will be in favour, Iggy said it Harper's budget he has to decide what is in it. BTW, did you go to school in the US?? Why I'm asking your"favor" US spelling to my spelling "favour" British or Canadain spelling. He sure did.... even got to a ride there daily in a shorter than normal bus! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) I have seen no proof that the CPC have done the same thing. They erased the unfunded liability and sent up EI as a seperate entity from the General revenue account. How sould they possibly take an EI surplus that has already been spent? I don't think EI is a separate fund - in budget documents it still appears to be included like it always has been. But the 2008 budget does mention that the EI fund will "break even over the business cycle." This should not be a surprise to anyone who has seen EI rates drop from 2.95% (4.13% for employers) in 1996 to 1.73% (2.42% for employers) in 2008. Nor would it be a surprise to those who still remember what was included in the Liberals 2005 economic and fiscal update: The four forecasting organizations were asked to set projected employment insurance (EI) premiums equal to projected costs of the EI program on an annual basis from 2006 to 2011. This is consistent with the new EI rate-setting regime for 2006 and future years. The new regime is based on the following principles: premium rates should be set transparently; premium rates should be set based on independent expert advice; expected premium revenues should correspond to expected program costs; premium rate setting should mitigate the impact of the business cycle; and premium rates should be relatively stable over time. Edited January 12, 2009 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 In the last CPC budget it was moved to a seperate fund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 I don't think EI is a separate fund - in budget documents it still appears to be included like it always has been. After the court ruling and public outcry, the CPC have announced they would make changes to EI including creating a separate fund. The question is where is the money the CPC blew in 2006, 2007, 2008? EI revenues from those years were put into General funds and spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 I wonder how much more in deficit this government can go in one year. Yeesh. Which party did Bob Rae defect too? Its Mulroney Economics Part II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Okay, found it. As for the 2006, 2007 and 2008 surpluses - we already know that they went into general revenue. Get over it people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 In the last CPC budget it was moved to a seperate fund. Which "Last CPC budget"? Regardless, here is WHO is going to pay for the CPC taking from the fund.... Surprise, the CPC is raising the amount that people contribute to EI> Last year, the federal government is inexplicably raising the amount that many people will contribute for Employment Insurance (EI). The Stephen Harper government cannot justify raising EI limits, after having used the program as a cash cow. The Conservative government raided the EI coffers of $54 billion, which was put into general revenues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Okay, found it. As for the 2006, 2007 and 2008 surpluses - we already know that they went into general revenue. Get over it people. Never get slack on a government or it will run you over. Those moneys, which still can't fend off the fiscal deficit, need to go back into EI. I see it, raise EI payments to cover their mess up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Maxmax, I see you point about not giving any government slack - that's reasonable. As for raising premiums - there is a mechanism in place that sees the EI maximum rise (which, in turn, sees an increase in EI premiums for those people who earn the maximum or earn more than the maximum). I presume this is related to inflation (i.e. the maximum rises with inflation and EI benefits get adjusted for inflation). If this is the case then it is not very effective for various reasons that aren't really important to this discussion. As for EI - the link I provided indicates that this is now a separate fund, and, so long as the funds are kept separate any surplus would be maintained with the EI fund. I don't know what protection there is from political meddling - the CPP has been separate forever and has rules that make it difficult to screw around with (2/3 of the provinces need to agree to certain changes etc...). It is doubtful that this EI fund has the same protections so who knows what any government will do with any surplus. However, I have a hard time seeing the projections for the EI revenue/spending as being very accurate for 2009 or 2010 and with no increases in the EI rate (and only scheduled increases to the EI maximum) I think that our newly separate EI fund will be showing a deficit itself before long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 The EI fund was changed into a separate entity, that said it certainly does not mean that surpluses or shortfalls will not occur. In fact they will become a very public matter of record, far easier to locate and determine fiscal balances than they were in the first place being hidden within a far greater general revenue account. Which is why the Liberals were able to skim from it in the first place. On the other hand those funds that were in surplus went to debt retirement and that is not such a bad thing either. Unfortunately the entire matter of surplus funds needs to be legislated into some semblance of order and fiscal prudence. As much as I would love yo see tax reductions, considering debts and deficits, the best that I may be able to hope for is that taxation levels remain at current levels with all surplus revenues being put to debt repayment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 The EI fund was changed into a separate entity, that said it certainly does not mean that surpluses or shortfalls will not occur. In fact they will become a very public matter of record, far easier to locate and determine fiscal balances than they were in the first place being hidden within a far greater general revenue account. Which is why the Liberals were able to skim from it in the first place. On the other hand those funds that were in surplus went to debt retirement and that is not such a bad thing either. Unfortunately the entire matter of surplus funds needs to be legislated into some semblance of order and fiscal prudence. As much as I would love yo see tax reductions, considering debts and deficits, the best that I may be able to hope for is that taxation levels remain at current levels with all surplus revenues being put to debt repayment. 1) It has never been that difficult to separate out the EI surplus. Look at any fiscal table and you can see the EI premium revenue and the EI spending. Subtract the two and get the surplus. 2) The EI rate has come down by 41% since 1996. Do you really think they are going to reduce it much going forward? Canada lost, what?, 34,000 jobs in December - do you really think the fund has room to cut EI rates further if they intend to balance it over a "business cycle." This recession should be a good test of the new separate fund. Or are they going to reduce rates during a recession and raise them during a boom (i.e. counter-cyclical policy)? If so, do you really expect any politicians to be smart enough to do that? And, even if they are smart enough, will the legislation be flexible enough to withstand any unintended consequences while keeping the politicians at bay so they don't direct the funds to general revenue in the future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 1) It has never been that difficult to separate out the EI surplus. Look at any fiscal table and you can see the EI premium revenue and the EI spending. Subtract the two and get the surplus. That requires a little effort, most Canadians would not bother to do it. Further this it goes toward a transparency that all citizens desire from their government. 2) The EI rate has come down by 41% since 1996. Do you really think they are going to reduce it much going forward? This government, no. Yet a government with a little foresight could be so inclined. Canada lost, what?, 34,000 jobs in December - do you really think the fund has room to cut EI rates further if they intend to balance it over a "business cycle." This recession should be a good test of the new separate fund. Or are they going to reduce rates during a recession and raise them during a boom (i.e. counter-cyclical policy)? If so, do you really expect any politicians to be smart enough to do that? Yes I do expect them to be that smart. Is that not what they say they are? And, even if they are smart enough, will the legislation be flexible enough to withstand any unintended consequences while keeping the politicians at bay so they don't direct the funds to general revenue in the future? That would to the intended direction to work in. Something to hold them to account for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 EI had either 45 Bil or 54 Bil and the Tories used what 30-35 bil. towards the debt and only 2 BIL went into the EI fund so what happen with the other billions? I think Afg. and the war are eating up our surpluses. Canada just gave 50 Mil to help fix a dam south of Kandahar. Gee I wonder how long will it take for someone to blow it up? Not a smart move on Tories part, should wait until the war is over. Does the gov`t write it off as a charity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 1) It has never been that difficult to separate out the EI surplus. Look at any fiscal table and you can see the EI premium revenue and the EI spending. Subtract the two and get the surplus.That is utter nonsense.EI payments are in effect a payroll tax. That's how employees view these deductions. The fiction of an employment insurance scheme is just that - a fiction. Rather than pretend some reality, we should look at what reality is. ---- msj, you mistakenly approach government accounting as if it were private accounting. Government is different. John Maynard Keynes understood that. You apparently don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 That is utter nonsense.EI payments are in effect a payroll tax. That's how employees view these deductions. The fiction of an employment insurance scheme is just that - a fiction. Rather than pretend some reality, we should look at what reality is. ---- msj, you mistakenly approach government accounting as if it were private accounting. Government is different. John Maynard Keynes understood that. You apparently don't. How is it "utter nonsense?" Are you saying that we can't measure what the government takes in in EI premiums and what it pays out in EI benefits each year? Granted, the math gets fuzzy (I don't know how the government accounts for EI benefits clawed back on one's income tax return - does that go into general revenue, or does it go contra EI costs or is it added back to EI premium revenue? - I don't know nor do I really care to look up such details). So, yes, it is measurable and the assumption has been where the premiums have exceeded the costs in any given period that the excess goes into general revenue as a "surplus" from the EI fund. I have not stated anywhere that I thought the EI fund is an actual bona fide insurance scheme with proper actuarial and full accrual accounting. That is the direction that the fund appears to be going to some extent (but will never truly get there for many reasons). I suggest that you stop making up false premises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prussell94 Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 hggggggggggggggggggggggggggggxdjk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Which party did Bob Rae defect too?Its Mulroney Economics Part II. I guess Bob Rae didn't have the PCs to go to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 It took the Libs ten years to pay off 40 Billion and the Tories are saying they can pay off the 60-65 Billion in FIVE??? I wonder if they are holding the 3 Ontario 6/49 tickets ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 I guess Bob Rae didn't have the PCs to go to. Send him over to the CPC right now, he'd be a perfect fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 It took the Libs ten years to pay off 40 Billion and the Tories are saying they can pay off the 60-65 Billion in FIVE??? I wonder if they are holding the 3 Ontario 6/49 tickets ??? They paid of 30 bill in 3 years....so I think they can, and they did it without raiding EI surpluses, like the 54 Billion that went missing between 1996 and 2006 while the liberals held office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 They paid of 30 bill in 3 years The $64Billion dollar deficit makes me sick to my stomach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Just to feel better http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/conserv...icit/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Just to feel betterhttp://www.ipetitions.com/petition/conserv...icit/index.html Thank you for posting this, I have added my name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 The $64Billion dollar deficit makes me sick to my stomach. I think you mean $85 billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Thank you for posting this, I have added my name. And you're now joining another conservative movement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.