Budget Bill passed

[Topaz]

The Tories passed the Budget Bill last night, and with comes many changes to many things and one is the EI. MP Diane Finley, will tell Canadians who have lost their jobs, what jobs and who have to take them, if they want EI. For some unemployed this could be a mess. Older workers, who don't have the education behind them, ones that have physical problems may not be able to do the job, what then. What about a job were EI is higher than the job offered, which will cause financial problem for that person. When it comes to farm labour, many farmer's won't hire locals because they know those people really don't want to do the work and ended up causing more damage than good. This has been tried in Ontario with Welfare, and the farmer's ended up firing them and brought in foreign Carribean workers. Also, the Finance Minster say he drove taxi, well, I bet it was during his college/university years, because he became a lawyer and how many of the top ministers will ever have to stand in an EI line? http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20120514/flaherty-unemployment-jobs-120514/

[Signals.Cpl]

The Tories passed the Budget Bill last night, and with comes many changes to many things and one is the EI. MP Diane Finley, will tell Canadians who have lost their jobs, what jobs and who have to take them, if they want EI. For some unemployed this could be a mess. Older workers, who don't have the education behind them, ones that have physical problems may not be able to do the job, what then. What about a job were EI is higher than the job offered, which will cause financial problem for that person. When it comes to farm labour, many farmer's won't hire locals because they know those people really don't want to do the work and ended up causing more damage than good. This has been tried in Ontario with Welfare, and the farmer's ended up firing them and brought in foreign Carribean workers. Also, the Finance Minster say he drove taxi, well, I bet it was during his college/university years, because he became a lawyer and how many of the top ministers will ever have to stand in an EI line? http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20120514/flaherty-unemployment-jobs-120514/

So your position is that if the job is not the same or better as your last job its not worth having? The social safety net is great and should be increased but it should be temporary. Having people repeatedly turn down low paying jobs because those jobs don't meet their standard is not a reason to remain in EI. Expecting that you can get a high paying job in a slow economy means you might be on EI and /or welfare for a very long time.

[Topaz]

First of all, all workers pay into EI, it's a must, not a choice. So now, we have a PM who doesn't believe in social programs, and wants to gut them. The Alliance party is out of touch with most Canadian workers. Since we don't know all the conditions as yet, we can't really debate this issue properly. One thing I do know, Canadians are getting reality check about this party and the social programs its changing that it NEVER mention in their election speeches and we all know why.

[Smallc]

First of all, all workers pay into EI, it's a must, not a choice. So now, we have a PM who doesn't believe in social programs, and wants to gut them.

No, we have a PM who believes that available jobs should be filled. That's not really too far fetched. Now, an office worker probably shouldn't go out logging....but, other than some drastic change like that, there are many things that you can do to continue to contribute.

[fellowtraveller]

First of all, all workers pay into EI, it's a must, not a choice. So now, we have a PM who doesn't believe in social programs, and wants to gut them.

1. No, all workers do not pay into EI, not even close.

2. EI is NOT a social program, it is an insurance scheme intended for temporary relief for contributors that are involuntarily unemployed.

[Moonbox]

1. No, all workers do not pay into EI, not even close.

2. EI is NOT a social program, it is an insurance scheme intended for temporary relief for contributors that are involuntarily unemployed.

Unfortunately intentions and realities seem to have turned out differently. EI for seasonal workers etc is very much indeed a social program.

[Topaz]

Which workers don't pay into EI? I've never hear do this before? I thought every worker pays INTO it but not all workers can get it if they don't have enough hours. The minister did say, people won't have to travel they will stay in their own areas and she'll probably change the part where if you had a good paying job, you won't have to take a 10.25 job. Although, what is the person going to do when the EI run out?

[Guest Peeves]

Which workers don't pay into EI? I've never hear do this before? I thought every worker pays INTO it but not all workers can get it if they don't have enough hours. The minister did say, people won't have to travel they will stay in their own areas and she'll probably change the part where if you had a good paying job, you won't have to take a 10.25 job. Although, what is the person going to do when the EI run out?

Hookers, drug dealers, Native tobacco sales, Mafiosa and under the table contractors.

Who has to pay Employment Insurance (EI) premiums?

Employers, whether incorporated or not, are responsible for deducting EI premiums from all employees, regardless of age. The employer pays a premium of 1.4 times the employee premium, unless they qualify for reduced premiums under the Premium Reduction Program.

As of January 2010, self-employed people can remit EI premiums based on their self-employment income, in order to qualify for certain benefits. See our article on EI for the self-employed.

Non-insurable Earnings

EI premiums are not payable in some employment situations, such as when the employee controls more than 40% of the corporation's voting shares, when the employee and the employer do not have an arm's length relationship (depending on other circumstances), or some other cases. Some of the other situations where income is not subject to employment insurance:

casual employment if it is not for your usual trade or business;

when a corporation employs a person who controls more than 40% of the

employment that is an exchange of work or services;

employment in agriculture or horticulture when

bullet

the person receives no cash remuneration; or

works less than seven days with the same employer during the year (Note: If the employee works 7 days or more, the employment is insurable from the first day of work.)

employment of a person in connection with a circus, fair, parade, carnival, exposition, exhibition, or other similar activity, except for entertainers, if that person:

is not your regular employee; and

works for less than seven days in the year (Note: If the employee works 7 days or more, the employment is insurable from the first day of work.)

employment of a person in a rescue operation, as long as you do not

is not a regular employee of the government body; and

works for less than 35 hours in a calendar year (Note: If the employee works 35 hours or more, the employment is insurable from the first hour of work.)

There are some types of employment payments and other payments from which EI premiums do not have to be deducted. CRA information on what type of payments are and are not subject to CPP, EI or tax deductions:

Edited May 15, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

The Tories passed the Budget Bill last night, and with comes many changes to many things and one is the EI. MP Diane Finley, will tell Canadians who have lost their jobs, what jobs and who have to take them, if they want EI. For some unemployed this could be a mess. Older workers, who don't have the education behind them, ones that have physical problems may not be able to do the job, what then. What about a job were EI is higher than the job offered, which will cause financial problem for that person. When it comes to farm labour, many farmer's won't hire locals because they know those people really don't want to do the work and ended up causing more damage than good. This has been tried in Ontario with Welfare, and the farmer's ended up firing them and brought in foreign Carribean workers. Also, the Finance Minster say he drove taxi, well, I bet it was during his college/university years, because he became a lawyer and how many of the top ministers will ever have to stand in an EI line? http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20120514/flaherty-unemployment-jobs-120514/

Tories? You mean OUR elected government. Losers of course call them names.

[Topaz]

This last budget bill has more deeper cuts than the government lead the House to believed. The Harper's government has said information on the cut back can't be revealed for at least a year, but the unions say it can be as long as no names are printed, so Page is coming out today with the information about how deep the cuts are going. http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/101500-federal-budget-s-deep-cuts-getting-deeper

[Boges]

There's already a thread about the EI changes.

It's not an attack on people who may find themselves unemployed after years of gainful employment. The changes target repeated users who only work the minimum hours needed then take the rest of the year off collecting EI.

Are people who are irate about these changes being willfully ignorant?

[Moonbox]

Are people who are irate about these changes being willfully ignorant?

I think it's just indignation that the gravy train, which a lot of people have been willfully abusing, is being reigned in a TINY bit.

[westguy]

The Tories passed the Budget Bill last night, and with comes many changes to many things and one is the EI. MP Diane Finley, will tell Canadians who have lost their jobs, what jobs and who have to take them, if they want EI. For some unemployed this could be a mess. Older workers, who don't have the education behind them, ones that have physical problems may not be able to do the job, what then. What about a job were EI is higher than the job offered, which will cause financial problem for that person. When it comes to farm labour, many farmer's won't hire locals because they know those people really don't want to do the work and ended up causing more damage than good. This has been tried in Ontario with Welfare, and the farmer's ended up firing them and brought in foreign Carribean workers. Also, the Finance Minster say he drove taxi, well, I bet it was during his college/university years, because he became a lawyer and how many of the top ministers will ever have to stand in an EI line? http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20120514/flaherty-unemployment-jobs-120514/

the gravy train called EI has finally left the station

[jacee]

Speaking of gravy trains ... how 'bout $83b in TAXPAYER DOLLARS sitting in corpocorporate accounts and NOT creating any jobs.

But with Canada and Ontario now bestowing the lowest corporate tax rate in the G-7 group of industrialized nations, it has become clear that corporations must also start sharing the load.

Hamilton community activist and Cable 14 Opinionator Alex Johnstone recently reminded me that the arguments in favour of corporate tax breaks are based on “the whimsical hope that we’ll one day get a return on our investment with job growth. In reality Statistics Canada figures revea that since the 2008 recession businesses have invested in cash reserves in lockstep with corporate tax breaks to the tune of $83 billion.”

So there are alternatives to across-the- board funding cuts —if the government has the courage and vision to make it happen.

http://www.thespec.com/iphone/opinion/article/652949--austerity-shouldn-t-crush-the-poor

[dre]

So your position is that if the job is not the same or better as your last job its not worth having? The social safety net is great and should be increased but it should be temporary. Having people repeatedly turn down low paying jobs because those jobs don't meet their standard is not a reason to remain in EI. Expecting that you can get a high paying job in a slow economy means you might be on EI and /or welfare for a very long time.

Well EI benefits only last a certain ammount of time... so the most you can wait for a good job is a year.

If you are going to be kicked off of EI because a job at Macdonalds comes up then just shut EI down completely because its utterly worthless. I wouldnt pay a fuckin dime for that kind of "insurance".

A private insurance company could not even charge 20 dollars per month for such insurance in the marketplace.

Utterly... F**king... WOrthless.

[westguy]

First of all, all workers pay into EI, it's a must, not a choice. So now, we have a PM who doesn't believe in social programs, and wants to gut them. The Alliance party is out of touch with most Canadian workers. Since we don't know all the conditions as yet, we can't really debate this issue properly. One thing I do know, Canadians are getting reality check about this party and the social programs its changing that it NEVER mention in their election speeches and we all know why.

false- we have a prime minister that doesn't like people who CAN work coasting on the coattails of the taxpayers

[punked]

Well EI benefits only last a certain ammount of time... so the most you can wait for a good job is a year.

If you are going to be kicked off of EI because a job at Macdonalds comes up then just shut EI down completely because its utterly worthless. I wouldnt pay a fuckin dime for that kind of "insurance".

A private insurance company could not even charge 20 dollars per month for such insurance in the marketplace.

Utterly... F**king... WOrthless.

What this is about is cutting as many Transfers from one part of the country to the next. Kurgman has a whole article how these types of Transfers are good economics that stop the drag on countries, Federations, and Unions Economy. How this very type of transfer (although he talks about SS) has stopped Florida from becoming Spain. It is good economics which must be why Conservatives hate it. They wont stop until we are in a depression.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/florida-versus-spain/

[punked]

false- we have a prime minister that doesn't like people who CAN work coasting on the coattails of the taxpayers

Have fun when these people are no longer fishing and contributing to the Economy because if they dare fish they will lose the Welfare Conservatives are going to be forcing them onto.

[eyeball]

Have fun when these people are no longer fishing and contributing to the Economy because if they dare fish they will lose the Welfare Conservatives are going to be forcing them onto.

You know what's really sad, fishermen could be contributing to the economy by performing the stewardship work our fisheries depend on during the off season. If Ottawa would only dare to let fishing communities manage their own affairs and economic fate this is what would happen, in my region at least. As it is they barely dare to even let us fish anymore.

Edited June 2, 2012 by eyeball

[Argus]

First of all, all workers pay into EI, it's a must, not a choice. So now, we have a PM who doesn't believe in social programs, and wants to gut them.

He's hardly 'gutted' EI. All they've done is tinkered a little, and it will only affect people in areas where there actually are alternate jobs for them. The various efforts of the Liberals, and before them the PCs to reform EI were far more 'radical' than what the Conservatives just did.

[Argus]

Unfortunately intentions and realities seem to have turned out differently. EI for seasonal workers etc is very much indeed a social program.

It's an absurd system which ignores the fact that some seasonal workers, tradesmen, for example, are paid very high salaries specifically because the jobs are considered seasonal.

[CPCFTW]

Well EI benefits only last a certain ammount of time... so the most you can wait for a good job is a year.

If you are going to be kicked off of EI because a job at Macdonalds comes up then just shut EI down completely because its utterly worthless. I wouldnt pay a fuckin dime for that kind of "insurance".

A private insurance company could not even charge 20 dollars per month for such insurance in the marketplace.

Utterly... F**king... WOrthless.

A private insurance company would never insure seasonal workers for being unemployed.

In group insurance schemes for private workers, you will typically be given a choice for which benefits you want to be insured for. The current model is akin to forcing everyone to buy the most expensive insurance plans so that a few people can get free braces, laser eye surgery, botox, and boob jobs.

If everyone is going to be compelled to pay for the most expensive insurance plan, then it is reasonable for the government to attempt to contain costs.

If seasonal workers had to insure themselves the calculation for their premiums would be quite simple. It would amount to about 1/3rd of their paycheque. The rest of EI contributors are subsidizing their rates to the far lower levels that they actually pay.

Honestly what kind of nonsense is this. Insuring againt something that there is a 100% probability of happening.. And paying 2500/yr at most for several times more in benefits. What a joke.

Edit: Maximum EI deduction is actually around $800, not $2500. I was thinking of CPP.

"Wahhhh I can't pay $800 for thousands in cash each year!! What an utterly worthless insurance!!"

Edited June 2, 2012 by CPCFTW

[punked]

A private insurance company would never insure seasonal workers for being unemployed.

In group insurance schemes for private workers, you will typically be given a choice for which benefits you want to be insured for. The current model is akin to forcing everyone to buy the most expensive insurance plans so that a few people can get free braces, laser eye surgery, botox, and boob jobs.

If everyone is going to be compelled to pay for the most expensive insurance plan, then it is reasonable for the government to attempt to contain costs.

If seasonal workers had to insure themselves the calculation for their premiums would be quite simple. It would amount to about 1/3rd of their paycheque. The rest of EI contributors are subsidizing their rates to the far lower levels that they actually pay.

Honestly what kind of nonsense is this. Insuring againt something that there is a 100% probability of happening.. And paying 2500/yr at most for several times more in benefits. What a joke.

That is all well and good but this isn't private insurance it is public insurance. Which means when they implement these measures I fully expect them to cut my premium when they turn a profit. That isn't what the Conservative will do though what they are going to do is roll this into the general revenue to pay for corporate tax cuts. That motivates the Conservatives to kick more and more workers off EI to use it as a Shadow tax which is wrong.

If I believed for a second the Conservatives were using this EI reform to actually reform EI for the public I would support it. What they are actually doing is kicking workers who pay into EI off of EI to transfer the EI revenue to balance their books. That isn't how public "insurance" should work that is just another tax we have to pay to shift the tax burden off of some and onto the workers of this country.

[CPCFTW]

That is all well and good but this isn't private insurance it is public insurance. Which means when they implement these measures I fully expect them to cut my premium when they turn a profit. That isn't what the Conservative will do though what they are going to do is roll this into the general revenue to pay for corporate tax cuts. That motivates the Conservatives to kick more and more workers off EI to use it as a Shadow tax which is wrong.

If I believed for a second the Conservatives were using this EI reform to actually reform EI for the public I would support it. What they are actually doing is kicking workers who pay into EI off of EI to transfer the EI revenue to balance their books. That isn't how public "insurance" should work that is just another tax we have to pay to shift the tax burden off of some and onto the workers of this country.

Who cares what you think the Conservatives will do with it? We have frequent elections and if the conservatives roll EI profits into general revenues (which they won't), it will be an obvious election issue which another party can use to gain power.

Reducing EI premiums is also sort of a corporate tax cut. I personally believe that the conservatives are doing this to stimulate job creation by reducing our tax on employment (ei premiums). It doesn't really make sense to roll the EI savings into general revenue to pay for corporate tax cuts, when just reducing ei premiums would also be a corporate tax cut, and would stimulate job creation more than general corporate tax cuts, and would not be a future hot button election issue. But I guess if you think of the CPC as the boogeyman who wants to destroy Canada then it might make sense.

Edited June 2, 2012 by CPCFTW

[punked]

Who cares what you think the Conservatives will do with it? We have frequent elections and if the conservatives roll EI profits into general revenues (which they won't), it will be an obvious election issue which another party can use to gain power.

Reducing EI premiums is also sort of a corporate tax cut. I personally believe that the conservatives are doing this to stimulate job creation by reducing our tax on employment (ei premiums). It doesn't really make sense to roll the EI savings into general revenue to pay for corporate tax cuts, when just reducing ei premiums would also be a corporate tax cut, and would stimulate job creation more than general corporate tax cuts, and would not be a future hot button election issue. But I guess if you think of the CPC as the boogeyman who wants to destroy Canada then it might make sense.

They have already rolled EI surpluses into the general revenues in 2010 they moved 57 BILLION of EI Surplus into the general revenues creating the underfunded EI program problem they are fixing right now. They just increased EI premiums this year. Do you get tired of the double speak? Claiming the Conservatives wont do things they are doing right now makes you look misinformed. They are using EI as a pay roll tax so then they can claim "we never raised taxes we cut them" but basically they are making up their gap they created with the corporate tax cuts and HST cut by raising EI premiums by making EI a pay roll tax. Wake the f up.

It isn't what I think. It is the actions of the Conservatives which speak loader then your words. They have already done it. You are just to uninformed to care just "as long as those damn fishermen get their come uppins" right?

Edited June 2, 2012 by punked