Canada's economy

[M.Dancer]

No, you do NOT! 780 hours is 130 hours short of the 910 hour threshold -- which is the pre-qualification.

Lets assume for a second you are right and didn't simply misunderstand what was being explained to you.

So instead of working 15 hours a week for a year you are required to work........17.5 hours a week....

In other words, part timers are able to collect EI....

Thanks for playing

[msj]

Actually you can...you just can't collect while you are in school.

Works this way.

A friend worked every spring/summer at a driving range. She banked nearly every penny for school actually and got paid quite well. She alos worked part time during the school year for the university.

During the winter, the driving range closed down for good and she lost her summer job. She applied for UI (which it was back then) the day of her last class. She got some grief from the clerk but she had all her ducks in a row, knew the rules. She had not filed in the past year, her claim was less than 12 months old..etc etc.

She collected for about 3 weeks until she found another part time summer job.

She now sits on the Braidwood Taser Commision.

I agree with this.

What I disagree with is the idea that one could earn enough hours, collect EI, and go to school all at the same time (and by going to school, I mean on your own initiative and full time as to prevent you from realistically seeking employment - check out servicescanada website for particular details and exceptions).

I have bolded the relevant part of your story.

Edited August 8, 2009 by msj

[msj]

No, you do NOT! 780 hours is 130 hours short of the 910 hour threshold -- which is the pre-qualification.

The rules are rather archaic but people do get EI with less than 910 hours.

It simply depends on one's circumstance and the unemployment rate in that region (IOW, one can get EI by working as little as 420 hours).

Number of hours.

Always better to look up the rules first before applying anecdotal evidence.....

[whowhere]

I agree with this.

What I disagree with is the idea that one could earn enough hours, collect EI, and go to school all at the same time.

I have bolded the relevant part of your story.

Lot's of people over the years have collected EI while going to school yet the program still had a 50 Billion dollar surplus the conservatives stole out of it.

It's not rocket science, higher income equals higher taxes and more spending paying more sales tax. EI is good leverage to get you to higher income. If EI provides money to take training from the Colleges and Universities so be it, the money was there before the consvatives stole it.

The conservative haven't got what it takes to manage the economy with their horse and buggy mindset.

[msj]

Lot's of people over the years have collected EI while going to school yet the program still had a 50 Billion dollar surplus the conservatives stole out of it.

It's not rocket science, higher income equals higher taxes and more spending paying more sales tax. EI is good leverage to get you to higher income. If EI provides money to take training from the Colleges and Universities so be it, the money was there before the consvatives stole it.

The conservative haven't got what it takes to manage the economy with their horse and buggy mindset.

I have edited my post above to link to the particular rules.

Yes, there are exceptions.

But your "lots of people" sounds far too general (i.e. BS) as compared to how the program works with respect to full time university students which is what my post above was replying to.

[nicky10013]

I call bullshit. You did not pay thousands working part time. The nannual MAXIMUM contribution is a little over $700.00 ..which you can deduct from your taxable earnings.

I have to assume your univesity courses weren't accounting.

I did work part time through all of university; for 4 years....I said thousands which automatically turned into thousands and thousands. Even then, that wasn't the point of the post. The point was that you never get it back.

[msj]

I did work part time through all of university; for 4 years....I said thousands which automatically turned into thousands and thousands. Even then, that wasn't the point of the post. The point was that you never get it back.

You can get some of it back.

Depending on when your worked, when you go to school, how many hours you have (had) in a 52 week period etc...

Of course, I have (so far - knock on wood) paid more into car insurance, house insurance, life insurance, and disability insurance and I don't complain.

Why?

Because if I'm dumb enough to think that I would be better off to "get it back" then I would be dead or my house would be a burned out hole.

Tell you what - I won't complain about paying for 75% of your education if you stop whining about paying a few hundred bucks a year in EI while you paid little to no income taxes during that same time.

[Molly]

"Number of hours of work required to qualify

Most people will need between 420 and 700 insurable hours of work in their qualifying period to qualify, depending on the unemployment rate in their region at the time of filing their claim for benefits. To find out this number...

In some instances, a minimum of 910 hours in the qualifying period may be needed to qualify. For examples :

if you are in the work force for the first time;

if you are re-entering the work force after an absence of two years.

*However, if you have received at least one week of maternity or parental benefits in the 208 weeks preceding the 52-week period prior to the qualifying period, you will require between 420 and 700 hours to qualify for regular benefits.

violations from previous EI claims may also increase the number of hours required to qualify for EI benefits.

Particular situations: Effective December 11, 2005, if you are living in one of the 23 participating economic regions, you could qualify for regular benefits with a minimum of 840 hours instead of 910 hours. To know more...

When you show that you have at least 490 hours related to employment in the labour force during the labour force attachment period you will need between 420 and 700 insurable hours to qualify for regular benefits. Otherwise, you will need a minimum of 910 hours to qualify regular benefits. See examples 1 and 2..."

From HRDC , Dancer. That's your cite. By switching over to payroll, rather than continuing to provide a service under contract, I 're-entered the workforce' after an absence of nearly 30 years, during which time I was self-employed. The self-employed are not eligible for EI on income so earned.

I daresay my circumstance is fairly typical of those who might hold a part-time job: unwilling or incapable of working full-time; having a very short or highly interrupted work history, whether interrupted by school, self-employment, child-rearing, poor health... Part-timers are the young, the old, the infirm, and folks who have very important obligations outweighing the immediate servicing of long-term careers. As such, they are the likliest, in the entire labor force, to run afoul of that 910 hour prequalifier.

While it is possible to qualify for EI as a part-time employee, it is far, far less likely that one will manage it, even while the job one has lost may have been held much longer than that of full-timers who easily qualify, be much more difficult to replace than a full-time job would be, and be every bit as important to ones solvency.

Part-time employees represent smaller numbers than full-time- fewer bodies, less money, tiny claims- but dollar for dollar, pay a great deal more for EI than do full-time workers, while recieving much less in return. Part-timers are subsidizing full-time employees. They deserve something better than your belittlement, and dismissal of the problematic nature of that situation.

...........

And thanks a whole bunch for the implications, Whowhere, but self-employment hours are not eligible for ei, and business relationships other than empoyee/employer do not automatically equate to fraud. (Does your presumption say something about your own inclinations?)

Revenue Canada and I are on good terms.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Molly

[whowhere]

I have edited my post above to link to the particular rules.

Yes, there are exceptions.

But your "lots of people" sounds far too general (i.e. BS) as compared to how the program works with respect to full time university students which is what my post above was replying to.

I know when I went to college there was a single mother who was there having her way paid for by EI. Good for her.

[whowhere]

I did work part time through all of university; for 4 years....I said thousands which automatically turned into thousands and thousands. Even then, that wasn't the point of the post. The point was that you never get it back.

Yeah sure, when I went to college all the money I paid in taxes over the summer months I got back at income tax time because my yearly income was that low. Not surprising because I was in the classroom and not working. If you are trying to pay your own way through college or university you either have to rely on student loans or work part time. You have to choose you are a student or you are working. You can't have it both ways. If you are student then I suggest you air out your brain because why should you get EI when EI is suppose to carry you to reemployment or be used to make you more employable at whatever occupation you left. Not only that, tuition and books are tax deductible, so what taxes would you pay?

I doubt you know anything about going to college or univesity and filing income tax your complaints does not match reality.

[whowhere]

And thanks a whole bunch for the implications, Whowhere, but self-employment hours are not eligible for ei, and business relationships other than empoyee/employer do not automatically equate to fraud. (Does your presumption say something about your own inclinations?)

Revenue Canada and I are on good terms.

Ignatief has to be speaking about the likes of you. Those who made no effort to pay into EI yet whine they should get it (I don't mean you but others in a similar situation). The economics we are in is kind of like having your house burn down, you didn't have insurance but now you want the insurance companies to pay.

The so called self employed knew what they were getting into. I myself looked into self employment back around 2002, Revenue Canada stipulated you had to have five different revenue streams to be deemed self employed. If not, you were an employee and your "employer" was liable to pay the applicable deductions.

Because of the Conservative Party Corruption obviously revenue Canada no longer holds people to this standard before allowing them to circumvent them from paying their proper taxes. However, HRDC website indicates if an employer does not make the proper deductions they are liable for those deductions.

Fact is Revenue Canada should be bursting at the seams with all these investigations into the tax evaders. Because Harper and mulroney are buddies, Corrupt conservative governance is their way.

The economics of Canada is revealing of this corruption

[Riverwind]

The so called self employed knew what they were getting into. I myself looked into self employment back around 2002, Revenue Canada stipulated you had to have five different revenue streams to be deemed self employed. If not, you were an employee and your "employer" was liable to pay the applicable deductions.

This is completely false. The definition of an employee relationship is quite loose and there a number of criteria which are looked at. Having different customers is simply one. Another criteria is whether you set your own hours or whether you supply your own equipment. Here are the full guidelines: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4110/rc4110-08e.pdf Edited August 8, 2009 by Riverwind

[Molly]

Implying that I have committed fraud; telling me I'm whining because I finally corrected Dancers misinformation after he's repeated umpteen times; saying that you don't mean me, just 'the likes of ' me; and then going back to the implications of fraud again, only this time, likely out of ignorance?

I'm going to try to take that with some semblance of good will, Whowhere, but I hope you realize how difficult that is becoming!

The subject at hand is not the details of my finances, or of the status of the self-employed in general. It is fairness to part-time workers.

I believe they have plenty of good reason to complain. ( 'whine', if you prefer that term.) They pay a far greater portion of their working income to EI than others do, with little realistic expectation of recieving the insurance benefits they are paying for when they need them. It's a big hole in the system as I see it- a serious unfairness.

As to the self-employed, yes, generally they know exactly what they are getting into-- and as you describe your own circumstance and investigations, I have to believe that you were looking for a way to circumvent your obligations... but that still is no good reason to assume everyone else is.

There are a great many people just beginning new enterprises, striking out on their own with half or less of the information they need, launching nickle and dime businesses as a direct result of current economic pressure. Many will screw up the paperwork- that's a given- but there is no dishonourable intent in failing to have a steep enough learning curve.

[Topaz]

The self-employed will be getting help from Harper because he said he would make changes to EI for the self-employed, and I wonder if his bros. suggested it? At least, it will help more people but beware, first timers to collecting EI, make sure you have at least 15,000 in savings cause you have to go about 6 weeks without any income.

[Riverwind]

The self-employed will be getting help from Harper because he said he would make changes to EI for the self-employed, and I wonder if his bros. suggested it? At least, it will help more people but beware, first timers to collecting EI, make sure you have at least 15,000 in savings cause you have to go about 6 weeks without any income.

Anyone with a job should make sure they have enough cash to last 6 months without any EI. The self-employed EI is a talking point. I don't think they will be able to come up with rules that will prevent fraud yet still make it worthwhile for the self employed to pay. Edited August 8, 2009 by Riverwind

[whowhere]

This is completely false. The definition of an employee relationship is quite loose and there a number of criteria which are looked at. Having different customers is simply one. Another criteria is whether you set your own hours or whether you supply your own equipment. Here are the full guidelines: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/rc4110/rc4110-08e.pdf

Maybe your shite is flying today but it wouldn't have flown in 2002 when I was looking at self employment. Revenue Canada made it clear 5 different revenue streams period. If you drew income from one place at one time you were not considered a business but an employee. Therefore you my friend are subject to a tax evasion investigation and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

You are lucky the corrupt conservatives are in power otherwise you would be getting your just deserts.

[Riverwind]

Maybe your shite is flying today but it wouldn't have flown in 2002 when I was looking at self employment. Revenue Canada made it clear 5 different revenue streams period. If you drew income from one place at one time you were not considered a business but an employee. Therefore you my friend are subject to a tax evasion investigation and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The rules have been roughly the same for decades and I know they were the same in 2002 because I first looked into them then and confirmed my understanding with Revenue Canada and my accountant. However, revenue canada may have specific guidelines for specific job categories where abuse of the self-employeed designation is a particular concern. Even then, the requirement for 5 seperate revenue streams is overkill and I suspect you either got wrong advice or there is context that you are not providing.

[M.Dancer]

I did work part time through all of university; for 4 years....I said thousands which automatically turned into thousands and thousands. Even then, that wasn't the point of the post. The point was that you never get it back.

The base which you built you point on is false. If after 4 years of part time work, making 40K a year (part time) ...you paid $2800.....NOW GO AHEAD, tell me you made 40K part time.

[whowhere]

The rules have been roughly the same for decades and I know they were the same in 2002 because I first looked into them then and confirmed my understanding with Revenue Canada and my accountant. However, revenue canada may have specific guidelines for specific job categories where abuse of the self-employeed designation is a particular concern. Even then, the requirement for 5 seperate revenue streams is overkill and I suspect you either got wrong advice or there is context that you are not providing.

Some who pursued self-employment did so to evade taxes. I know what I read in 2002 and Revenue Canada had a criteria/standard you had to meet to be deemed self employed. Really, I think anyone who has worked in a self employed capacity should be investigated with the full resources of Revenue Canada. Not only the individuals but also those companies who they worked for to decide if these and individuals and companies should be brought up on tax evasion.

As I said you are lucky the corrupt conservatives are running the show and you people are not in the US otherwise you people would get what should be coming to you.

[Riverwind]

I know what I read in 2002 and Revenue Canada had a criteria/standard you had to meet to be deemed self employed.

Well you must have read wrong. I know what the rules are and I gave to a link to a Revenue Canada documents that back me up. I am sure any practicing accountant would support my view as well. I don't understand why you are so desperate to believe things that are not true.

[msj]

I know when I went to college there was a single mother who was there having her way paid for by EI. Good for her.

Yes, I have already posted the rules.

Your continued reliance on anecdotal evidence is most telling....

Edited August 9, 2009 by msj

[whowhere]

Well you must have read wrong. I know what the rules are and I gave to a link to a Revenue Canada documents that back me up. I am sure any practicing accountant would support my view as well. I don't understand why you are so desperate to believe things that are not true.

Actually, not only do you have to get by Revenue Canada, in Ontario if you called yourself self employed you also had to fill out a form and send it to WSIB and give a copy to your potential employer/client demonstating you are covered if anything should happen. I wonder how many self employed did this?

It's not a shock Canada and the provinces don't follow or enforce their own rules. Canada is an extremely corrupt country and lacks the integrity to maintain "good" governance practices. For these reasons the Self Employed cockroach was allowed to multiply and pollute Canada's economy. These tax evaders have cost the Canadian economy alot of lost tax dollars. Now these tax evaders are crying how they should be entitled to receive EI when they didn't do what they should have been doing and paying their proper taxes when they were suppose to.

[Riverwind]

Actually, not only do you have to get by Revenue Canada, in Ontario if you called yourself self employed you also had to fill out a form and send it to WSIB and give a copy to your potential employer/client demonstating you are covered if anything should happen. I wonder how many self employed did this?

The workers comp is a separate issue and you are correct that the self employed need to ensure they are covered. However, your claim of 5 revenue sources being required is absurd. There are many small businesses with employees that don't have 5 different revenue sources. The only way you story makes sense is if the only criteria you could meet was the revenue sources in which case you would need that many to make up for the fact that you don't supply your own equipment and/or set your own hours.

Canada is an extremely corrupt country...

You don't have a clue what corruption is. I suggest you spend some time in Russia or China and they come back and tell us how "corrupt" Canada is.

Now these tax evaders are crying how they should be entitled to receive EI when they didn't do what they should have been doing and paying their proper taxes when they were suppose to.

I don't know why you think the self employed are demanding to receive EI. I certainly won't be paying into the program nor would any other self employed person I know. You also forget that without "self-employed" people there would be no businesses that hired employees. Entepreneurs are essential to the economy. Edited August 9, 2009 by Riverwind

[msj]

Actually, not only do you have to get by Revenue Canada, in Ontario if you called yourself self employed you also had to fill out a form and send it to WSIB and give a copy to your potential employer/client demonstating you are covered if anything should happen. I wonder how many self employed did this?

It's not a shock Canada and the provinces don't follow or enforce their own rules. Canada is an extremely corrupt country and lacks the integrity to maintain "good" governance practices. For these reasons the Self Employed cockroach was allowed to multiply and pollute Canada's economy. These tax evaders have cost the Canadian economy alot of lost tax dollars. Now these tax evaders are crying how they should be entitled to receive EI when they didn't do what they should have been doing and paying their proper taxes when they were suppose to.

These people aren't tax evaders.

They pay income tax just like anyone else.

They pay CPP two times - once as the "employee" and once as the "employer."

They don't pay into EI but they also don't get to rely upon it either.

As long as a person meets the rules of being a contractor rather than an employee (look it up on CRA's website or go back to page 3 and read the link in Riverwind's post #37) then they are good to go.

As Riverwind states above in post #45: "any practicing accountant would support my view as well."

Well, I'm a practicing accountant and I fully support his view.

But then, I have always supported views when they are supported with evidence over anecdotal BS, any day.

[whowhere]

There are many small businesses with employees that don't have 5 different revenue sources. The only way you story makes sense is if the only criteria you could meet was the revenue sources in which case you would need that many to make up for the fact that you don't supply your own equipment and/or set your own hours.

Really, this is a story of corrupt conservative governance. I challenge anyway to provide the documention that was on Revenue Canada's website between 2001 - 2003 with regards to self employment. Not shocking the criteria for self employment has become lax. It also sounds like you are mixing self employment with being a business which is another dynamic all together.

The logic for self employment was there was not enough work for a company to have someone doing that work full time so a self employed person came in and did that work part of the time and the rest of the 40 hours worked at getting more work or worked elsewhere. Self employed don't have employees and they are usually operating under their name.

Some popular self employment ventures is snow removal and lawn cutting. However, you are competing with established businesses. Your advantage in self employment is getting the job done at lower cost.

Sorry buddy if you spend 40 hours a week at one company you are an employee of that company and that company is liable for EI payments and WSIB contributions on the money paid.

What is revealing here is Revenue Canada should be running full steam in Auditing the payroll books of companies and following the money to see which companies are evading taxes.

You don't have a clue what corruption is. I suggest you spend some time in Russia or China and they come back and tell us how "corrupt" Canada is.

You do not get to compare Canada to Russia or China. If you want to compare Canada, the United States, Britiain, France, Australia, and New Zealand. Doing that would show how corrupt canada is.

I don't know why you think the self employed are demanding to receive EI.

Oh yeah? Than what's Ignatief's EI reform all about?

I certainly won't be paying into the program nor would any other self employed person I know. You also forget that without "self-employed" people there would be no businesses that hired employees. Entepreneurs are essential to the economy.

Once again you are confusing self employment with being a business. If you are a business, particularly in ontario, you have to register as a business and you will be assigned your WSIB#. You will have to get a GST number for revenues greater than $30000 and you will have to be sure the municipalities don't have rules for what you are doing. So buddy it's easy to tell whether you a business or self employed. Legitimate business contributes to the country in registring and remitting the cost of doing business whereas the self employed typically work out of their house and use their own phone. They are not Entreprenuers but going after the scraps established businesses can't be bothered with or your client is to cheap to pay for.