Bryan Posted July 31, 2013 Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 (edited) Maybe Winnipeg/MB has a problem? Ok, I called him. He is still laughing.He said its a problem yes, but not nearly what many make it out to be. Shills lump incorrect payments, oversights, our own mistakes (as was alluded to earlier) into the same 'fraud pot' as those who outright and knowingly rip off the system. Yup, been there done that. You're lying. If you talked to a real investigator, he told you that fraud is a very big deal, PERIOD. edit: Wait. I take that back. that was harsh. Perhaps you were talking to someone like the person this thread is all about: a self-entitled government worker who objects to actually having to do their job. Edited July 31, 2013 by Bryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted July 31, 2013 Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 (edited) Isn't there a difference of some committed EI fraud outright and some be charged with fraud because the a government changing the laws? This government has a problem with seaonal workers getting EI, and I rather they get EI, since they pay into the fund than going on welfare. The 'I' in EI stands for Insurance. Insurance is a system which covers you for unforeseen or events that you don't expect. Seasonal workers getting laid off is not unforeseen, it's guaranteed every single year. That's a total perversion of the system and completely unfair to the rest of us who pay into the system like an actual insurance system - coverage for job losses we do not plan on or expect. If you buy fire insurance for your house, you don't do so expecting or knowing your house will burn down. You do so in case your house burns down. If you bought a house and you, as well as the insurance company, both knew that it would burn down every year, no insurance company would ever cover you. Yet this is exactly what the federal government provides to seasonal workers. So EI for seasonal workers is not an insurance system, it's a welfare system. They most certainly are not paying their honest share of it when they are taking far more than they put int, and using it every single year. Nobody else gets to do that, but we all pay into it. I'm fine if politicians want to promote this system and advertise it to the taxpayers, they should just be honest about it. Call it 'free money for people who work half the year', and let the voters decide. It sure isn't insurance, by definition. Edited July 31, 2013 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted July 31, 2013 Report Share Posted July 31, 2013 The 'I' in EI stands for Insurance. Insurance is a system which covers you for unforeseen or events that you don't expect. Seasonal workers getting laid off is not unforeseen, it's guaranteed every single year. That's a total perversion of the system and completely unfair to the rest of us who pay into the system like an actual insurance system. ... I'm fine if politicians want to promote this system and advertise it to the taxpayers, they should just be honest about it. Call it 'free money for people who work half the year', and let the voters decide. It sure isn't insurance, by definition. I can get behind this. It's dishonest to keep lying to the ROC. Come out and say these industries are important and they only pay half the year so someone has to pick up the freight the rest of the time. Either way pay double for fish, or someone's taxes pay up. That way we dispense with these red herrings/scape goats when we talk about real reform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted August 1, 2013 Report Share Posted August 1, 2013 I can get behind this. It's dishonest to keep lying to the ROC. Come out and say these industries are important and they only pay half the year so someone has to pick up the freight the rest of the time. Either way pay double for fish, or someone's taxes pay up. That way we dispense with these red herrings/scape goats when we talk about real reform. Exactly. And let me suggest paying more for fish (it wouldn't be double) would be the best, fairest way to go. Fish should cost what they cost to get them to our plates, not what they cost as long as everyone else in Canada is paying a fee to make my fish cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted August 1, 2013 Report Share Posted August 1, 2013 Studies, investigations of suspected fraud , stats, all sorts of ways to garner an idea of whats out there. Why doesnt the govt put it at a Billion (insert pinky in mouth) and that would suggest even more effort should go into it. Facetious, but I think you get my point. Think of it this way, Our esteemed Mayor ( ) said he would stop the gravy train , yet he had no idea there wasnt one to stop. Same thing here. You cannot pull a figure from ones behind as a target and say 'achieve that' without knowing just how good or bad it is out there> Well, perhaps I am naive, but I would have thought that the government administrators would have based the target on past results and made them achievable. I have no trust in what politicians say (so please do not bring Ford into the discussion), but I am not (yet) so cynical about bureaucrats, should I be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted August 1, 2013 Report Share Posted August 1, 2013 but I am not (yet) so cynical about bureaucrats, should I be? Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 1, 2013 Report Share Posted August 1, 2013 Welfare fraud is rampant. Citation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 1, 2013 Report Share Posted August 1, 2013 Again, if you know anyone who actually works in those departments, you also know that your claim is ridiculous. Go talk to an actual investigator, then get back to me. If I talked to someone that shovels manure for a living they would say the world is full of crap too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 1, 2013 Report Share Posted August 1, 2013 How would we know how much fraud is going undetected? Ah yes. The paranoid Conservative invisible crime logic. The same reason they had to pass tough-on-crime laws despite having the lowest crime rates in the last generation. The invisible, unreported crime is rampant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 1, 2013 Report Share Posted August 1, 2013 Isn't there a difference of some committed EI fraud outright and some be charged with fraud because the a government changing the laws? This government has a problem with seaonal workers getting EI, and I rather they get EI, since they pay into the fund than going on welfare. Well, smarty pants, the federal government would rather they go on welfare because then it's the provinces' problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted August 1, 2013 Report Share Posted August 1, 2013 Yes, here is the data linked in the article.. In 2011-2012, the government recovered $311-million in overpayments, interest and penalties and gathered a significant amount of information about how that money was returned, the report found. identified $295-million in known overpayments in 2011-2012, with about $110-million lost to fraud An overpayment is NOT fraud. Often Severances can be tied up in court, may take years to receive. I have seen where EI sticks it to the employee who doesn't receive the Severance but still has to wait out the period which can be as high as 26 weeks. Sometimes a Partical severance is received instead of the full amount, and sometimes the full amount does arrive. EI then sends a letter and recovers the aquired severance. This is not uncommon, but its not Fraud. The $110 million in Fraud, of $16Billion, well, its $110 million and this is an accumalated amount as there is a 6 year timeline to recover the monies. Take in the penalities on top of the recoveries and its actually not all that bad. Its not great. I would say its around average to the fraud of any other industry. Perhaps someone in the insurance field would have a better handle on Fraud..... Such as happens in Vehicle and medical scams.... Fraud exists, The had been Rampant fraud in the financial sector which took down the Entire US economy since 2008. EI fraud is by nowhere near this means, let alone the fact that EI receives far more then it pays out.. its a money maker, and since 2008 its been the most used service and still is holding its own. I do know, as I have anecdotal evidence .... that I would have an entire Factory Closure and of 300 people losing their jobs, depending on their RESIDENCE, some claims would be denied and forced to appeal. This would take months to resolve and by the time the tribunal has met, ( I believe Tribunals are being eliminated) The person is 60% likely to be working thus even whats possible to recover FOR the claimant is paid back by years end as if one makes over a certain level of income the monies are to be recovered BACK to EI. Regardless it would make no sense why to employees of 25+ years of service working in the same place, one would be denied EI. But it does happen, and this started to happen more in 2009. One thing that does happen is people foolishly take a trip while on EI and don't provide that information on their report. They are often caught within a month, Fined and Denied EI . Its not worth the risk. Yes it is. You know why? Because the people I know are doing the job they were hired to do, and following the agreements they signed not to go public. It's also why those in the know really don't care if you approve of the tactics or not. They're the ones who have to deal with it on a daily basis. The official data you ask for has already been quoted in this thread, more than once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted August 1, 2013 Report Share Posted August 1, 2013 Perhaps someone in the insurance field would have a better handle on Fraud..... Such as happens in Vehicle and medical scams.... Fraud exists, The had been Rampant fraud in the financial sector which took down the Entire US economy since 2008. Fraud is a problem in the insurance field, but there is more to it than what appears. When they talk about fraud they are also lumping in the payments to re-hab houses that have gone through the roof since the new rules were put in place years ago. It takes the lawyers and re-hab houses a long time to figure it out, but when they do....boom go the payments. Couple that with an almost 1 in 4 cars passing you NOT having insurance, ergo they claim AB benefits from the insured driver who hits them and well......you get the gist of the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted August 2, 2013 Report Share Posted August 2, 2013 Ah yes. The paranoid Conservative invisible crime logic. The same reason they had to pass tough-on-crime laws despite having the lowest crime rates in the last generation. The invisible, unreported crime is rampant. The Conservative crime agenda is regressive and is one of the main reason that I don't support them. The unreported crime justification was retarded, serious crimes are reported and if anything are being reported more often now. That said, it is a valid question in the case of fraud. How much fraud are we unaware of? How many people collect and work for cash? How many people collect and have no intention of returning to work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 2, 2013 Report Share Posted August 2, 2013 An overpayment is NOT fraud. Most frauds absolutely do result in overpayments. They aren't doing it for the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted August 2, 2013 Report Share Posted August 2, 2013 The $110 million in Fraud, of $16Billion, well, its $110 million and this is an accumalated amount as there is a 6 year timeline to recover the monies. Take in the penalities on top of the recoveries and its actually not all that bad. Its not great. I would say its around average to the fraud of any other industry. Fraud exists, The had been Rampant fraud in the financial sector which took down the Entire US economy since 2008. There is one critical difference that gets ignored every time this is brought: I don't have a choice whether to be part of that system, I am part of it. I do have a choice to leave a insurer in the private sector if I'm not happy with their rates of fraud. You other point - very little if any fraud was committed in the 2008 meltdown. It happened because the system was set up with perverse incentives and resulted in completely legal, completely foolish behavior. Not only legal, but actively encouraged by explicit government policies that guaranteed loans no matter how problematic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 2, 2015 Report Share Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) Having an predetermined number of denials does suggest that the particulars of the claims are irrelevant. Only the numbers matter. Quotas by definition mean that individuals' claims are irrelevant in the process. So answer the question I posed. Would you leave your car or home insurance provider if you knew that they had a predetermined number of claims they were going to deny every month? QUOTAS for denying EI claims ... that's how Harper got his budget surplus ...Use Of EI Funds By Tories To Help Balance Budget Draws Criticism ... eked out a very small surplus of $1.4 billion. To get there despite a $6 billion decline in revenues due to falling oil prices, the government had to take $2 billion out of its $3 billion contingency fund and dip into the countrys EI fund. "This government is raiding the EI fund to pay for its other priorities, even though less than 40 per cent of unemployed Canadians qualify for EI, The government has no access to CPP funds. They should not have access to EI funds either! Denying 60% of applicants EI, to spend their EI contributions for personal political gain via "balancing the budget" is outrageous. Harper's entire 'surplus' (and more) consists of workers' EI contributions that were denied to unemployed Canadians. Families in need, children go hungry so Harper can impress his 'base' at election time. And yes, Paul Martin and the Liberals did the same thing years back, and it was despicable then too. . Edited May 2, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 And yes, Paul Martin and the Liberals did the same thing years back, and it was despicable then too. . No - it wasn't the same thing - not at all. Over $50 Billion re-directed to help Martin/Chretien attain their "historic surplus". $50 Billion! Now that's despicable. Now - if it's verifiable - we're talking about a pittance - $1.4 billion - and accompanying legislation to make EI a self-sustaining fund, legally separate from general revenues. Why should people keep comparing Conservatives to the past deeds of Liberals? Because it takes a long time for a leopard to change it's spots and until the party gains a new soul, we should expect more of their shenanigans as they repeatedly try to take the fast path to power - this time with their Rock Star Idol instead of the hard-working, intelligent, man of substance, Marc Garneau. Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/government-broke-law-on-ei-financing-in-3-years-top-court-1.750084 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 No one need refer to the past to find shenanigans. Not at all. How about Harper professing not to be raising taxes whilst sneaking around with such things as new taxes on payrolls, credit unions, and of all things parking fees at hospitals, tricycles and wigs for cancer patients, just to name a few. Add to that the slowest growth rate since RB Bennett, millions on self serving BS adds during hockey games, and adding close to 200 billion to the national debt. Getting pretty close to despicable IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 No one need refer to the past to find shenanigans. Not at all. How about Harper ......... Yawn....sorry On Guard - this thread is all about the use of EI funds..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Yawn....sorry On Guard - this thread is all about the use of EI funds..... Which is what I referred to as payroll taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Which is what I referred to as payroll taxes. Sometimes you need to spell it out exactly for certain members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 No - it wasn't the same thing - not at all. Over $50 Billion re-directed to help Martin/Chretien attain their "historic surplus". $50 Billion! Now that's despicable. Now - if it's verifiable - we're talking about a pittance - $1.4 billion - and accompanying legislation to make EI a self-sustaining fund, legally separate from general revenues. Why should people keep comparing Conservatives to the past deeds of Liberals? Because it takes a long time for a leopard to change it's spots and until the party gains a new soul, we should expect more of their shenanigans as they repeatedly try to take the fast path to power - this time with their Rock Star Idol instead of the hard-working, intelligent, man of substance, Marc Garneau. Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/government-broke-law-on-ei-financing-in-3-years-top-court-1.750084 Since you claim it's a difference in degree and not kind, then I take it you're appalled with the Harper government too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Since you claim it's a difference in degree and not kind, then I take it you're appalled with the Harper government too? Not appalled - $50 billion Liberals - yes!. $1.4 billion - if it's true - disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Not appalled - $50 billion Liberals - yes!. $1.4 billion - if it's true - disappointed. It's $2b I believe, only $1.4 used for the surplus. Those are worker and employer contributions ... for EI ... not for Harper's election campaign surplus. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.