EI premiums to rise by 535.00 per worker

[Topaz]

The Tories are rising the premiums on EI that would hike annual contributions to $535 and $223 more by employees and 312 by employer. By doing the increases the Feds will go from 16.2 Billion to 27.1 by 2014. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100415/national/ei_premium_hikes

[DrGreenthumb]

but they're NOT raising TAXES tho right? pfffffft

[Wilber]

but they're NOT raising TAXES tho right? pfffffft

Your chances of getting more out of CPP than you put in are very good. CPP contributions are also tax deductable like other pension contributions.

[ToadBrother]

but they're NOT raising TAXES tho right? pfffffft

You know, if I had the power, I'd do one thing and make it an offense for any politician or bureaucrat to call any fee, premium or any other charge enabled and/or required by legislation or regulation anything but a tax. I'd make the penalty something like being dropped in the middle of Greenland with nothing but but a Speedo and a match.

[Shady]

Well, you can do three things to fix it. Either cut the number of people who draw EI benefits. Cut the amount of money benfits pay out. Or borrow the money to pay for the shortfalls. Which one do you guys suggest?

[Bonam]

Well, you can do three things to fix it. Either cut the number of people who draw EI benefits. Cut the amount of money benfits pay out. Or borrow the money to pay for the shortfalls. Which one do you guys suggest?

The first two.

[charter.rights]

Well, you can do three things to fix it. Either cut the number of people who draw EI benefits. Cut the amount of money benfits pay out. Or borrow the money to pay for the shortfalls. Which one do you guys suggest?

Fire the entire Federal Civil service...savings $120 billion.

Fire the Government....priceless....

[ToadBrother]

The first two.

These will merely offload it on to the provinces. One way or the other, the taxpayer pays.

[KeyStone]

It's very odd how the Conservatives will raise things like EI premiums and payroll taxes.

These are things that could actually put a company out of business as they have to pay these regardless of the profit made.

Meanwhile, they keep dropping corporate taxes, which are only paid by corporations making a profit after all other expenses are paid. A raise in corporate taxes may provide a disincentive to investment, but it will never put a company out of business.

Despite this, the Conservative government touts their tax breaks as being business friendly, when in fact, it is merely rhetoric designed to show lower taxes, while screwing businesses through less visible taxes.

[M.Dancer]

Meanwhile, they keep dropping corporate taxes, which are only paid by corporations making a profit ...

I have to wonder why any business wouldn't incorporate...

[Shady]

It's very odd how the Conservatives will raise things like EI premiums

Conservatives don't raise EI premiums, simple math and economic reality does. Like I said, you can solve the problem 3 other ways. Cut the number of people drawing benefits. Cut the amount benefits pay out. Or borrow the money to pay for the shortfalls. It's pretty simple

EI is INSURANCE, it's not welfare.

[Bonam]

EI is INSURANCE, it's not welfare.

It's a mix of both. It transfers money from people who constantly hold a job to people who keep losing their jobs and being unemployed for various periods.

My opinion is of course that we shouldn't have EI at all. People should plan ahead and "self-insure" by saving up money while they hold a job.

[ToadBrother]

It's a mix of both. It transfers money from people who constantly hold a job to people who keep losing their jobs and being unemployed for various periods.

My opinion is of course that we shouldn't have EI at all. People should plan ahead and "self-insure" by saving up money while they hold a job.

It was a common enough opinion, until the sheer damage of such policies was demonstrated. EI isn't going away, and your Libertarianism is as dead as roadkill.

[Shady]

It's a mix of both. It transfers money from people who constantly hold a job to people who keep losing their jobs and being unemployed for various periods.

Not really. You can't keep losing your job and claim unemployment benefits. You have to work for a certain period of time, paying into the system. And the amount of money you get in benefits depends on how much you earned while employed and how much you paid in. It's not a mix of welfare. It works just as any other type of insurance works.

My opinion is of course that we shouldn't have EI at all. People should plan ahead and "self-insure" by saving up money while they hold a job.

That's a nice idea. But then people should have the option of opting out, and keeping the money that gets deducted from their paycheques every week.

[Wilber]

My opinion is of course that we shouldn't have EI at all. People should plan ahead and "self-insure" by saving up money while they hold a job.

If it wasn't for the EI surplus that the feds have a habit of creaming off, they might go for that. One more thing they could download onto the provinces who would have to write the welfare cheques.

[Topaz]

Well, you can do three things to fix it. Either cut the number of people who draw EI benefits. Cut the amount of money benfits pay out. Or borrow the money to pay for the shortfalls. Which one do you guys suggest?

I think since governments are using this money for others things in the past, I think it should be voluntary if you pay into EI. Why should people pay into something that today, they can't collect because of lack of hours? There too many part time jobs and they don't allow a person to collect EI.

[August1991]

This thread title (and discussion) are misleading if not simply wrong. From the link in the OP:

The parliamentary budget office estimates that EI premiums paid by workers and employers will need to rise by the maximum allowable limit of 15 cents per $100 of insurable earnings to return the fund to near balance in five years.

The Conservatives are not raising EI premiums. The Parliamentary budget office estimates that EI premiums some time in the future will have to rise.

There's a big difference between these two statements.

----

IMV, payroll taxes such as CPP/RRQ/EI contributions/taxes (provinces have other payroll deductionss) are terrible. They are a regressive tax that only working people pay. It is as if we designed a tax specifically for the working poor.

Take EI contributions for example. Only employed people pay this tax. It rises with income to $43,000 where the tax equals about $1700 and then becomes a head tax. Whether you earn $50,000 or $500,000, you only pay $1700. (I am combining the employer/employee contributions because in fact the incidence falls on the employee.)

The federal Liberals had the audicity to increase CPP/RRQ contributions and they garnered support for being fair and just because they supported pensions.

No government helps low income workers by taxing them. Governments should make it easy to hire workers at low salaries. No one at minimum wage should have any payroll taxes or contributions taken from their pay slip at all.

Edited April 17, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

IMV, payroll taxes such as CPP/RRQ/EI contributions/taxes (provinces have other payroll deductionss) are terrible. They are a regressive tax that only working people pay.

Well that would be because (when the money is used as intended) they only benefit the workers who pay into them.

[August1991]

Well that would be because (when the money is used as intended) they only benefit the workers who pay into them.

And with that devastating argument, you have largely destroyed, smallc, the logic of the modern welfare State.

We are not born equally and as a minimum, most of us feel that offering a general education to all is probably a good idea. This general education is funded by all - since anyone of us could, at birth, been born to incompetent parents.

[msj]

This thread title (and discussion) are misleading if not simply wrong. From the link in the OP:

The Conservatives are not raising EI premiums. The Parliamentary budget office estimates that EI premiums some time in the future will have to rise.

There's a big difference between these two statements.

Yes, the difference is that the PBO is looking at reality while the CPC are burying their heads in the sand and doing nothing which only exacerbates the deficit.

Either raise the premiums, cut the benefits, create jobs through tax incentives or infrastructure spending or by some reasonable combination of all of these.

But no, with a minority government we get nothing.

IMV, payroll taxes such as CPP/RRQ/EI contributions/taxes (provinces have other payroll deductionss) are terrible. They are a regressive tax that only working people pay. It is as if we designed a tax specifically for the working poor.

I'm shocked!, shocked!, that people are expected to help pay for their own benefits. Or potential benefits.

No, I demand that we raise taxes on all of those "rich" people (whoever they may be).

Take EI contributions for example. Only employed people pay this tax. It rises with income to $43,000 where the tax equals about $1700 and then becomes a head tax. Whether you earn $50,000 or $500,000, you only pay $1700. (I am combining the employer/employee contributions because in fact the incidence falls on the employee.)

When I pay my employees it is based on market rates. Just like when I pay corporate income taxes it is due to my revenue being based on market rates while paying my staff based on market rates.

There is no way I can charge whatever I want to my clients and there is no way I can pay my staff as little as I want.

There is no way anyone can simply make a claim like you have above (in bold). There is no way to prove the claim one way or the other and, therefore, such claims are stupid to begin with.

The federal Liberals had the audicity to increase CPP/RRQ contributions and they garnered support for being fair and just because they supported pensions.

No government helps low income workers by taxing them. Governments should make it easy to hire workers at low salaries. No one at minimum wage should have any payroll taxes or contributions taken from their pay slip at all.

One would have to look at the entire tax situation of a "poor" person to truly gauge how horrible it is to be "poor" in Canada.

You conveniently overlook the increases to child tax benefits, universal child care benefit, increases to the tax brackets, increases to the personal basic tax credit, introduction of the child amount tax credit, increases to the GST/HST tax credit, the introduction of the Working income tax benefit etc... which have seen the "poor" pay less in income tax now than they have since at least the 1990's and likely since the '80's.

No, seriously, people like you have no stinking clue because you have no idea what "rich" people pay and no idea what "poor" people pay or get back in transfers.

Absolutely. No. Clue.

But, I suppose the "poor" shouldn't pay any taxes at all but should still get a CPP pension and full EI benefits if they get laid off....

Boy, hope I can define what "poor" means so that I can fit in this category and make all those "rich fat cats" pay for my entitlements.

As for the increase to CPP: the reason the CPC hasn't moved to reduce premiums and overhaul the system is because it largely works.

When you have guys like me (accountants, lawyers, doctors, dentists) who could easily circumvent the system (i.e. legally not pay into CPP by taking non-CPP income like dividends or rent rather than wages, or implementing a bona fide profit sharing plan [not CPP assessable]) but choose to pay into it because we see the CPP as a very conservative part of our retirement plan, then I think that people who would likely fit into your definition of "poor" are going to be well served by this forced savings.

IOW, these people are likely only going to have a pension at all because they were forced to pay into it at all.

And, given that we have progressive taxes (44%+ income tax rates in BC, for example) that help pay for government services used by all, I really don't worry too much about the little bit of CPP/EI/GST/Income Tax that a "poor" person pays.

If they don't want to pay tax then go on welfare.

If they don't want to be "poor" then work harder and/or smarter to be "rich" enough to pay tax at 44% marginal tax rates.

[msj]

And with that devastating argument, you have largely destroyed, smallc, the logic of the modern welfare State.

We are not born equally and as a minimum, most of us feel that offering a general education to all is probably a good idea. This general education is funded by all - since anyone of us could, at birth, been born to incompetent parents.

Then, surly, the state should step in, raise the top marginal tax rate to 50%, lower the top tax bracket down to $60,000, and implement a program to equalize competency in parenthood across Canada.

You don't know the "logic" of the modern welfare state, August.

Here's a hint: it involves the use of regressive and progressive taxation and has a large dose of free enterprise.

Some call this compromise, others call it a sell out (of communism or capitalism) but most of us call it pragmatism.

Edited April 17, 2010 by msj

[sharkman]

I'm surprised that those critical of the Tories have such a short memory on this issue. There was up to a 57 billion surplus in the EI fund that the Tories decided to funnel off instead of saving for a rainy day and now that it's raining, they need to increase the rates. Dumb move.

[Topaz]

I was listening to a debate on Fox news, and they were saying that people in the US who make under 250,000.00 don`t pay tax by the time they have their deductions. One said, it isn`t right that the riches taxpayers should have to carry the load. The US is one of the countries of the world who have the most millionaires and billionaires! If I had that problem, I wouldn`t complain but help out the people who needed help.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Topaz

[Bonam]

I was listening to a debate on Fox news, and they were saying that people in the US who make under 250,000.00 don`t pay tax by the time they have their deductions.

That's nonsense.

[DrGreenthumb]

It was a common enough opinion, until the sheer damage of such policies was demonstrated. EI isn't going away, and your Libertarianism is as dead as roadkill.

Libertarianism is NOT dead, it has just evolved. Today we are concentrating on achieving our personal freedoms, We have plenty of money and are more concerned with our civil Liberties than our financial ones. MOst of us aren't too concerned with the whiny bitch rich and their "problems" with contributing back to the society that allowed them to become rich. MOst Libertarians are NDP members now, we are still waiting for Max Bernier to join up.

Edited April 18, 2010 by DrGreenthumb