Harper Government wishes Merry Christmas to the unemployed

[punked]

You're right. It was actually cybercoma that thinks of it as a bank account. Getting money back that you paid in. My mistake.

No problem.

[cybercoma]

Don't you know that Harper personally reviews each EI claim, at his desk.

Obviously he doesn't, but it's his government's system that was giving out bonuses for cutbacks that created the incentive for EI not to allow overtime at a time of year when they always have.

This is a double-edged sword. Those who worked the overtime would have had extra money to spend at Christmas, while those who were waiting for their EI cheques would have also been able to have money to spend at Christmas. Basic economics tells you what happens when people spend. At the end of the day Harper's politics have created a system that discourages spending, which will only keep the recession dragging out longer.

[Shady]

Nope the over time cuts made by this government Shady.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ndp-blames-tory-grinch-as-ei-offices-buckle-under-overtime-cuts/article2266198/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Politics&utm_content=2266198

But those aren't cuts to EI payments. In the 90s, there were actual cuts in EI payments, and cuts in the number of weeks allowed to receive EI. Not approving overtime for government workers isn't a cut. I disagree with the premise.

[cybercoma]

But those aren't cuts to EI payments. In the 90s, there were actual cuts in EI payments, and cuts in the number of weeks allowed to receive EI. Not approving overtime for government workers isn't a cut. I disagree with the premise.

Your conclusions doesn't follow from your premises. You say cutting overtime isn't a cut to EI payments (you're right); therefore, not allowing overtime, when they always have, is not a cut.

[Rick]

Uh, Rick, could you please show proof of how Harper is personally involved in this as your title suggests. Harper had nothing to do with it, even the CBC doesn't name him. None the less, it's a lousy thing to do at Christmas especially if they've done it in years past, allocating extra workers to process the claims shouldn't be a big deal for a week or two.

Ya ya... I know you Harper worshippers only want it called the 'Harper Government' when he's unveiling more war toys or handouts to his corporate friends or kissing Jewish ass...

Try checking your own party's website to see how many times they call it that.. http://www.conservative.ca/

[sharkman]

Ya ya... I know you Harper worshippers only want it called the 'Harper Government' when he's unveiling more war toys or handouts to his corporate friends or kissing Jewish ass...

Try checking your own party's website to see how many times they call it that.. http://www.conservative.ca/

Okay, fair enough.

[eyeball]

You are paying into it because you have the risk of being unemployed and when you become unemployed you will need the money to live while you find another job. It is a risk assessment that is why you can get more out of it then you pay in and visa versa.

This isn't entirely true of seasonal work where employees for the most part go back to their jobs the following season. For them EI more resembles a guaranteed minimum income. EI also subsidizes employers who would have to spend a fortune to train a new crop of workers every year.

The main risk for seasonal industries is that some political party gets elected and their action or inaction as the case may be causes changes to the system that slow down or stop the flow of funds.

It works just like any insurance accept when the Conservatives are in charge then they try to ruin the system from the inside apparently.

Conservatives certainly bring a fair bit of disdain for the system and the expectation that a greater moral imperative will be attached to the issue of unemployed workers. It remains to be seen whether they have any opinions on the morality of whole industries that likewise benefit from EI.

[Bonam]

The most appalling part about attacking EI is that it's an insurance scheme. Employees pay into it. It's not welfare or social assistance. It's a way of putting money aside, so that if you lose your job, you'll have time and money to find another one. What a dirtbag move.

It's forced insurance, and it is a wealth transfer from those who are able to consistently hold down a job to those who don't. If it was such a good deal, the government wouldn't need to do it, and people who wanted EI could go and purchase such insurance themselves.

[cybercoma]

It's forced insurance, and it is a wealth transfer from those who are able to consistently hold down a job to those who don't. If it was such a good deal, the government wouldn't need to do it, and people who wanted EI could go and purchase such insurance themselves.

It's actually an insurance for the employer, as much as it is for the employees.

[punked]

This isn't entirely true of seasonal work where employees for the most part go back to their jobs the following season. For them EI more resembles a guaranteed minimum income. EI also subsidizes employers who would have to spend a fortune to train a new crop of workers every year.

The main risk for seasonal industries is that some political party gets elected and their action or inaction as the case may be causes changes to the system that slow down or stop the flow of funds.

That isn't true though because the more claim EI the more your minimum hours to claim EI goes up and so for those workers EI is more like a bank account. Most of them are getting what they put into it back.

[punked]

It's forced insurance, and it is a wealth transfer from those who are able to consistently hold down a job to those who don't. If it was such a good deal, the government wouldn't need to do it, and people who wanted EI could go and purchase such insurance themselves.

Car insurance is a forced insurance to, as well as Medicare which acts like an insurance plan. There are plenty of forced insurances in Canada, deal with it.

[WWWTT]

The most appalling part about attacking EI is that it's an insurance scheme. Employees pay into it. It's not welfare or social assistance. It's a way of putting money aside, so that if you lose your job, you'll have time and money to find another one. What a dirtbag move.

Absolutely right cyber!

WWWTT

[Topaz]

Uh, Rick, could you please show proof of how Harper is personally involved in this as your title suggests. Harper had nothing to do with it, even the CBC doesn't name him. None the less, it's a lousy thing to do at Christmas especially if they've done it in years past, allocating extra workers to process the claims shouldn't be a big deal for a week or two.

Sharkman, you are wrong, Harper has everything to do with it. First, he spent the surplus, the 13 BILLION, on what? Then they went on a spending spree and still is today. So now they tell Canadians our household debt is too much, cut back. Well, Harper's household debt to the country is way over and he keeps blaming it in the "global economy", nice out. So now, the feds HAVE to cut from 5-10% in every department and now when Canadians are being thrown out of their jobs and need help, where's the government? Sorry, we can't hire more help because of the debt we grew. So once again Canadians are the one not getting the service that they should be getting. Anyone who has lost their jobs and can't get help to get their EI, that government NEEDS to go. It's Christmans time and while Finley and Harperr are enjoying their Xmas, Canadians won't have the money to buy their kids presents and probably end up at the Food Bank again waiting for the government cheque!

[Bryan]

The most appalling part about attacking EI is that it's an insurance scheme. Employees pay into it. It's not welfare or social assistance. It's a way of putting money aside, so that if you lose your job, you'll have time and money to find another one. What a dirtbag move.

Except, people who work seasonal jobs on a year in/year out basis (like PEI fishermen) are abusing the system. For them it's not insurance IN CASE they lose their jobs, it's their expected source of income every G-D winter. They KNOW the job ends at a certain time, they have the whole year, EVERY year to plan for it, and they refuse, expecting to have the government bail them out. And they have the gall to complain that their claim is not being fast-tracked? That is some nerve.

[cybercoma]

Except, people who work seasonal jobs on a year in/year out basis (like PEI fishermen) are abusing the system. For them it's not insurance IN CASE they lose their jobs, it's their expected source of income every G-D winter. They KNOW the job ends at a certain time, they have the whole year, EVERY year to plan for it, and they refuse, expecting to have the government bail them out. And they have the gall to complain that their claim is not being fast-tracked? That is some nerve.

How are they abusing the system? They fill out their application just like anyone else. If you don't think they should get it, then your problem is with the system, not with the fishers.

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but they actually have to pay it back, depending on how much they make on the following year's catch.

[Bryan]

How are they abusing the system?

By knowing before the season even starts that they will be out of work, and deciding not to plan ahead.

[eyeball]

By knowing before the season even starts that they will be out of work, and deciding not to plan ahead.

Do you realize just how much of the Canadian economy is seasonal, and quite literally so in nature?

The whole country goes into each and every year knowing this, year after year after year. Do you see an eventual end to that in sight?

[Bryan]

Do you realize just how much of the Canadian economy is seasonal, and quite literally so in nature?

The whole country goes into each and every year knowing this, year after year after year. Do you see an eventual end to that in sight?

Not everyone waits for the government to save them. My son is a seasonal worker. His "main" job is landscaping and lawncare/property maintenance. That ends one first snowfall. In the winter, instead of expecting the government to give him a handout, he gets a different temporary/seasonal job.

Our social safety net is for people who end up in dire situations through no fault of their own. People who suck the government teat ON PURPOSE are committing fraud in my book.

[eyeball]

Our social safety net is for people who end up in dire situations through no fault of their own. People who suck the government teat ON PURPOSE are committing fraud in my book.

What about whole industries that are sucking on the same teat for the same reason?

This is not just a social safety net, it's an economic safety net that's in place on purpose. It seems the only reason for making unemployment a dire situation is a moral one.

Edited December 24, 2011 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

Not everyone waits for the government to save them. My son is a seasonal worker. His "main" job is landscaping and lawncare/property maintenance. That ends one first snowfall. In the winter, instead of expecting the government to give him a handout, he gets a different temporary/seasonal job.

Our social safety net is for people who end up in dire situations through no fault of their own. People who suck the government teat ON PURPOSE are committing fraud in my book.

When the major industry in Newfoundland and PEI shuts down for the season there is not another seasonal job in the winter for all of those fishers to go. Like I said, they pay back their EI depending on how much they earn in the following season. Moreover, EI is not the "government's teat." It's an insurance scheme, rather than a government payout. Remember when people were bitching that under the Liberals there was more money in the account than being paid out?

[monty16]

Will Canadians sit around being content to see Harper bring our country to ruins for as long as Americans sat on their hands and watched Bush2 bring down their country? Probably, and add to that the dictatorial measures being slipped in by Harper to prevent the voters from bringing him down.

The rabid right won't rest until they have destroyed every social program that is good and they have 99% of the people in desperation to survive.

[Bryan]

Like I said, they pay back their EI depending on how much they earn in the following season.

They pay it all back, pay their taxes and their regular E.I contributions, and still make enough to live on? You sure about that? Because that raises a completely different question.

Will Canadians sit around being content to see Harper bring our country to ruins

Ruins? He's fixing the damage that the idiot Liberals inflicted for decades!

Edited December 24, 2011 by Bryan

[Rick]

Will Canadians sit around being content to see Harper bring our country to ruins for as long as Americans sat on their hands and watched Bush2 bring down their country? Probably, and add to that the dictatorial measures being slipped in by Harper to prevent the voters from bringing him down.

The rabid right won't rest until they have destroyed every social program that is good and they have 99% of the people in desperation to survive.

Terrorists would be a more appropriate term to describe the rabid right wing...

[cybercoma]

They pay it all back, pay their taxes and their regular E.I contributions, and still make enough to live on? You sure about that? Because that raises a completely different question.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that depending on how much they make, they could have to pay it all back and yes that includes paying their taxes and EI contributions. Since they're self-employed (employee fisheres cannot collect the fishers' benefits, they must apply for regular benefits), their EI contributions are double what someone working for an employer would pay. A self-employed person, if they are going to collect EI, needs to pay both the employee and employer portions of the contribution. As far as repayment, Service Canada website says, "When you file your income tax return, you may be required to repay some or all of the EI benefits you received. This will depend on your net income and whether you were paid EI regular or fishing benefits during the tax year."

This is the repayment scheme:

If your 2012 net income from all sources exceeds $57,375 you will be required to repay 30% of the lesser of:

•your net income in excess of $57,375; or

•the total regular benefits, including regular fishing benefits, paid in the taxation year.

You do not have to repay your EI benefits if:

•your 2012 net income is less than $57,375; or

•you received less than 1 week of regular or fishing benefits in the preceding 10 taxation years

Special benefits (maternity, sick leave, compassionate care, etc.) do not have to be repaid.

So, I was wrong, they don't pay back the entire benefit, but up to 30% of it has to be paid back and only if they make more than $57,375 on their income taxes.

However, it's important to note that the amount of benefit wholly depends on their earnings. Here are the examples from EI's website.

Example 1

In 2010, John earned $9,865 from self-employment in fishing during his qualifying period of 31 weeks. The unemployment rate in his area is 11.5%, which means the divisor is 16. Dividing his fishing earnings of $9,865 by 16 gives him weekly insurable earnings of $616.56. This amount is lower than the maximum weekly amount, which was $831 in 2010. His benefit rate is therefore $617.00 x 55% = $339.

Example 2

In 2010, John earned $9,865 from self-employment in fishing during his qualifying period of 31 weeks. The unemployment rate in his area is 11.5%, which means the divisor is 16. Dividing his fishing earnings of $9,865 by 16 gives him weekly insurable earnings of $616.56.

However, within the last 26 weeks (which occurred in the 31-week qualifying period), John also worked in another job during which he earned $10,000 in 15 weeks. Because these earnings are not from self-employment in fishing, they are called regular earnings. The unemployment rate in his area is 11.5%, which means the divisor is 16. Dividing his regular earnings of $10,000 by 16 gives him weekly insurable earnings of $625.00. We use the divisor of 16 for the regular earnings because it is greater than 15, which is the number of regular weeks of insurable earnings in the last 26 weeks.

We calculate John's total weekly insurable earnings as follows:

Fishing weekly earnings: $616.56

Regular weekly earnings: $625.00

Total weekly earnings: $1,241.56

When the regular earnings are added to the fishing earnings, the total is greater than the maximum weekly amount of $831 per week. Since John's insurable earnings cannot exceed the maximum weekly amount, we use that amount to calculate his benefit rate. John's benefit rate is therefore $831 x 55% = $457.

They may only receive a maximum of 26 weeks of benefits.

Another stipulation is that they lose their EI benefits if they find fulltime work during the benefit period, regardless of how much they make. Part-time earnings are deducted from the EI benefits.

Here's the earnings deduction scheme according to Service Canada.

Normally,

you can earn up to $50 per week or 25% of your weekly benefit, whichever is higher

. Any money earned above that amount will be deducted dollar for dollar from your benefits.

However, effective December 7, 2008, until August 4, 2012, a pilot project is in place to encourage workers to accept all available work while on a claim. During this pilot project,

you can earn $75 per week or 40% of your weekly benefit rate, whichever is higher

.

Another stipulation to the earnings is that you typically cannot leave the country while you're collecting benefits. No vacations to Barbados. The compare their records with the Canada Border Service and if you leave the country, they will require you to repay the amount of benefits your received during your time away.

Also, these are the responsibilities, according to Service Canada, of someone collecting fishing benefits:

◦being ready, willing, and capable of working at all times;

◦actively looking for work and keeping a detailed written record of your efforts;

◦reporting all periods when you are not available for work, unless your lack of availability is related to fishing activity (for example, you are working on repairs to fishing gear);

◦providing all required information and documents;

◦keeping appointments with your Service Canada Centre;

◦notifying us of any separation from employment and the reasons for that separation;

◦accurately reporting all earnings before deductions from employment, in the week(s) in which they were earned, as well as any other money you may have received;

◦reporting any absence from your area of residence and/or any absence from Canada; and

◦reporting any hours you spend attending or taking a training program or course.

You can find all of this info and more here: http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/fishing.shtml

edit: fixed coding error

Edited December 24, 2011 by cybercoma