EI Reforms

[Jerry J. Fortin]

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/06/19/e...rn-leaders.html

It seems that the provincial leaders have decided to lead for a change. This will get Harper off the hook and complicate Iggie's efforts.

[Argus]

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/06/19/e...rn-leaders.html

It seems that the provincial leaders have decided to lead for a change. This will get Harper off the hook and complicate Iggie's efforts.

Maybe-maybe not. In general, provincial and territorial leaders focus on maximizing the amount of federal cash coming into their areas. The feds have an obvious interest, on the other hand, in minimizing payouts, and especially in not creating a system so easy and generous that large segments of the population decide they'd be better off on pogey than working even if full-time work is available.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Maybe-maybe not. In general, provincial and territorial leaders focus on maximizing the amount of federal cash coming into their areas. The feds have an obvious interest, on the other hand, in minimizing payouts, and especially in not creating a system so easy and generous that large segments of the population decide they'd be better off on pogey than working even if full-time work is available.

There are no details available yet as to what the plan actually contains. The point I am making is that these provincial leaders are helping Harper out right now, while at the same time trying to score points for themselves and their provinces. It is an astute move, one which is long overdue. The provinces are equal partners in confederation and it is time they started doing something with that.

[August1991]

Maybe-maybe not. In general, provincial and territorial leaders focus on maximizing the amount of federal cash coming into their areas. The feds have an obvious interest, on the other hand, in minimizing payouts, and especially in not creating a system so easy and generous that large segments of the population decide they'd be better off on pogey than working even if full-time work is available.

After his election in 1984, Mulroney tried reforms on four major issues: trade with the US, manufacturer's sales tax, unemployment insurance and the Constitution.

To his credit, Mulroney succeeded in reforming the MST and in negotiating the FTA. He came close with Meech Lake. He gave up with UIC. I don't hold much hope for Harper/Ignatieff.

----

Because of Mackenzie King, Canada's unemployment scheme is under federal jurisdiction. And like many centralizing State do-good schemes, some 70 years later, it is now a mess.

IMHO, if we are to subsidize people, I would prefer to subsidize the employed and not subsidize the unemployed. (If that seems strange or to understand my idea, imagine if employers could hire someone and pay only $5 per hour but the employee would receive $11 per hour - the difference would be paid by what we now call "Employment Insurance".)

EI reform?

If Mulroney failed, Harper will likely fail too. In the absence of any radical change to UIC/EI, I would prefer to see unemployment (EI) returned to the provinces with (if necessary) a federal funding contribution. I'm not holding my breath. UIC/EI is free money (a transfer) for some people. In some ridings, politicians are terrified of changes to UIC.

Edited June 19, 2009 by August1991

[Topaz]

I think the only reform Harper is going to do is the change for employers to collect and I'm sure his family thanks him. Now to other reforms that the Libs want, I think Harper is just stalling, leading the Libs on and nothing will get done and then its election time in November.

[Oleg Bach]

I think the only reform Harper is going to do is the change for employers to collect and I'm sure his family thanks him. Now to other reforms that the Libs want, I think Harper is just stalling, leading the Libs on and nothing will get done and then its election time in November.

Conservatives are anti-welfare> With our economic climate as it is, those in need who have paid into the UI plan - are still looked upon as wefare cases by the high archy ---even if it is your money..they don't care - to extend UI benefits or make them fair and accessable to all - is frowned upon by the rich dudes - they consider it parasitic...and bad for buisness - most of the high archy within the so-called conservative ranks are socio-economic Darwinist - they will see how low the population can go and how much suffering it can take - and those that parish - well ------------in their rich pea brains they were meant to be thinned out - survival of the fittest and all that - mean while the fitness has been stolen by those who are truely unfit to rule.

[August1991]

I think the only reform Harper is going to do is the change for employers to collect and I'm sure his family thanks him. Now to other reforms that the Libs want, I think Harper is just stalling, leading the Libs on and nothing will get done and then its election time in November.

???

Topaz, I have the impression that you view this as a family discussion/dispute. "Is he on my side or not?" Most Canadians probably vote as you do, Topaz, and so if I were a politician, I would want to give the impression that I was a family member, on your side.

But then.

As they say, the thief who steals your life savings will not be ugly, unshaven or distrustful. On the contrary, the thief will have a nice tie, a clean haircut and will say everything you want to hear.

[Oleg Bach]

Just as my son said of a cocained out musical promoter --- "He will tell you exactly what you want to hear" - then because of his addiction...will tell you a story - buy you a beer and keep the proceeds for himself - and say - you are family...and I am on your side..but he can not help but rob you.

[madmax]

not creating a system so easy and generous that large segments of the population decide they'd be better off on pogey than working even if full-time work is available.

EI is neither easy or generous... however, when I see people who have worked for decades, then there entire industry and backgrounds are eliminated, because of government created market structures. And the new line of work isn't working out, because that field has just taken a crap, and the work has dried up, and they are weeks, days or even hours short, I see no pleasure in watching them lose everything as the months pass and they are not eligible for EI because there are secure people like you with cushy soft jobs who think people want to be in this position, and would continue to be in this position if they were eligible to collect EI.

Its not surprising that people who are working are ignorant of what is happening to those not working. Some of these very people who worked through many recessions and were never the odd one caught out in a difficult time, think and felt much like you do.

It is an eye opener for many people, but it is not a fun thing to watch.

[Oleg Bach]

With the huge change and move towards socialism in America - our conservatives look at generous UI as one more slide down that slippery slope towards a fully socialist nation - what happens in America will happen here - you can not stop it..,may as well cough up the cash - they will get it eventually anyway.

[August1991]

It is an eye opener for many people, but it is not a fun thing to watch.

Madmax, I have seen this too.

EI/UIC needs reform but I don't know how to do this.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Madmax, I have seen this too.

EI/UIC needs reform but I don't know how to do this.

Convert the national program into a personal savings account, matched by employers with tax deductions for both. Invest it and allow for its use during periods of unemployment. It becomes a pension plan upon retirement. How much money would citizens save over this.....billions and billions of dollars.

[Bonam]

Except that stupid people wouldn't save, and as always the responsible ones would have to pay for their folly, one way or another. That is the nature of socialism.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Except that stupid people wouldn't save, and as always the responsible ones would have to pay for their folly, one way or another. That is the nature of socialism.

Let me rephrase; keep EI as a withholding tax, but with personal accounts. Business can continue to deduct from paychecks, the money can be placed into the same account system used by CPP, but the government would no longer pay out of the public purse.

[Bonam]

And what happens when the people that only work a few months a year and sit on EI the rest of the time run their accounts down to 0? Well, they'd get welfare of course, and the money to pay for the bigger welfare roll would come from the same taxpayers that pay EI now. The only way to modify the system is to reject the ideas of socialism, otherwise it's just the same thing under a different label.

[Argus]

If you offer people money for nothing than a certain percentage of people will gladly take it. So the answer is not to offer money for nothing. There are always jobs that need doing. The government should keep a list of such jobs, and if you want money, then you do one. I don't care if it's delivering magazines, cutting weeds, shoveling snow, parking cars, washing windows, or changing tires. Don't know how to do anything useful? We'll have someone teach you something simple, and you can do that. Don't like it? Tough. Get a job. Don't do the work assigned? No money for you. Go on welfare.

It sucks that those people mean we have to make what should be a simple funds dispersal task much more complicated for the honest ones, but there's no other way around it.

And for those who think this would be a lot more complicated and therefore costly a system to operate than simply handing out cheques? You're right. But it will save money in the long run because there'll be a lot fewer people to give cheques to.

[Argus]

months pass and they are not eligible for EI because there are secure people like you with cushy soft jobs who think people want to be in this position, and would continue to be in this position if they were eligible to collect EI.

There ARE people who want to be in that position. You know them. I know them. Everyone knows people like that, people who find it far easier to work just enough to collect pogey, or go on welfare, and maybe do a few odd jobs - or illegal jobs - on the side to supplement that money. My cousin was such a person. He quit a decent job because he wanted to party and play in his band. He went on pogey, and was quite content for a couple of years anyway, to party and enjoy himself. A crummy apartment with his buds was more than sufficient to his needs, and having to scrape for money was a lot better than working some nine-to-five job which didn't allow him to go out partying every night.

And yes, I have a cushy, comfortable job, but I didn't always. I've taken whatever came my way to make ends meet, including such comfortable jobs as night cleaner and security guard. Somehow never found it necessary to go on welfare or pogey.

[Bonam]

If you offer people money for nothing than a certain percentage of people will gladly take it. So the answer is not to offer money for nothing. There are always jobs that need doing. The government should keep a list of such jobs, and if you want money, then you do one. I don't care if it's delivering magazines, cutting weeds, shoveling snow, parking cars, washing windows, or changing tires. Don't know how to do anything useful? We'll have someone teach you something simple, and you can do that. Don't like it? Tough. Get a job. Don't do the work assigned? No money for you. Go on welfare.

I disagree with this sentiment. That's just asking for even more government intrusion into our lives. Where is the state going to find these cars that need washing and these weeds that need cutting? Perhaps they will hire more bureaucrats to go survey every driveway and every lawn so they can find these odd jobs, and then mandate that you, the taxpayer, pay for your car to be washed and your lawn to be mowed by some lazy bum, who will do more damage to it than good. And if you try to object you'll be vilified, for your thoughtless discrimination against the poor.

So, thanks, but no thanks. If someone loses a job, they can go and try to find one the same way they did the first time. In your own words:

I've taken whatever came my way to make ends meet, including such comfortable jobs as night cleaner and security guard. Somehow never found it necessary to go on welfare or pogey.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

EI needs reforms, but the question is how far will the political leaders go in such reform. All I have heard so far is they want to hand out even more money.

[ba1614]

EI needs reforms, but the question is how far will the political leaders go in such reform. All I have heard so far is they want to hand out even more money.

I too agree that EI needs an overhauling, but like you, Jerry, what I have heard doesn't sound like a very good "overhaul".

I sure don't envy those involved because it will be a very difficult task to come up with a real solution. The political grandstanding we have seen won't help though, it will require a truly bi-partisan effort to accomplish it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The working group is already divided along ideological lines. Both sides will be required to compromise and somehow I just don't see it happening. Strangely there was no promise of any public reporting during the process to keep the public aware of efforts being made. As I have said before I think the only solution they will work is a pure and simple funding change, one in which the government is removed from the formula. Its time to start doing something different, because the old ways just don't function in a manner that serves the best interests of the public. I say that the "fund" needs a "funding formula change" of the highest order. I don't really think they will go this way, but I think it is the right way to go.