Jack Layton

[Melanie_]

There is no question that bad things sometimes happen to good people and any of us would want a safety net should the need arise, but the system as structured promotes abuse and a sense of entitlement. Those of us who sparsely use the system subsidize those who abuse it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So because there are people who abuse the system, we should discard it even for those who do not? It seems that you are suggesting that the majority of people who use the system are abusing it, but I don't think that is the case (I will concede that each person on this forum can probably think of at least one example of an abuser, but challenge yourself to think of examples of legitimate use. You will likely come up with them easily.) Better management may be required, but I still would rather contribute to a system that offers supports than try to fend for myself if ever I were in need.

[Renegade]

I've you've gotten the impression that I think the majority of users are abusing the system, I have misconveyed my message. I do not. I think the vast majority are honest, legimate users of the system. My point was the system as currently structured does not penalize excessive use (abuse?) and IMO unfairly allocates the costs.

I DO agree witih you that we do need such a system as a social safety net, and I for one would happily and voluntarily pay into such a system if I felt I was getting fair value.

[mirror]

EI is insurance - hopefully you need need to use it. I do agree though that the premiums should be lowered if our unemployment rate stays low.

Liberal-NDP budget amendment becomes law

The deal — Bill C-48 — calls for spending $4.6 billion over five years on affordable housing, the environment, foreign aid and education

[Canuck E Stan]

The deal — Bill C-48 — calls for spending $4.6 billion over five years on affordable housing, the environment, foreign aid and education

The real questiion is:Which five years are they talking about?

[err]

Our unemployment rate has dropped, but my contribution rate hasn't changed, has yours? I have no idea how many people are ripping off EI. How can you be ripping of the system if you follow the rules which are laid down? The rules have been tightned on EI to the point where fewer and fewer working people are eligible. IMO, EI doesnt provde fair value, and if given a choice I would withdraw from it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Renegade, it should be obvious who is ripping off EI. They've had huge surpluses every year... HUGE... and out Conservative "Liberal" prime Minister Martin has diverted those funds... As a result, he can afford to reduce corporate taxes in Canada.... Pretty neat eh... Paul Martin is the reverse Robin Hood... Taking extra money from citizens so he can give it to corporate Canada... and at the same time, making it much harder for the unfortunate to qualify for the benefits...

[cybercoma]

Our unemployment rate has dropped, but my contribution rate hasn't changed, has yours? I have no idea how many people are ripping off EI. How can you be ripping of the system if you follow the rules which are laid down? The rules have been tightned on EI to the point where fewer and fewer working people are eligible. IMO, EI doesnt provde fair value, and if given a choice I would withdraw from it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just think of how much money you'd have it you took your EI contribution and put it into your own investments and were able to draw from that should the need arise.

BRILLIANT!

[Riverwind]

Just think of how much money you'd have it you took your EI contribution and put it into  your own investments and were able to draw from that should the need arise.

I had to collect EI for a few months after 9/11. Even if I had collected full benefits for the maximum number of weeks I would have only received a fraction of what I paid into over the years (nevermind investing it). Furthermore, the system discourages you to find work by doing what ever odd jobs you can pick up because you effectively pay 100% tax since you lose benefits for every dollar you earn (assuming you are an honest person that does not wish to defraud the system).

EI is glorified welfare not an insurance program.

[cybercoma]

Just think of how much money you'd have it you took your EI contribution and put it into  your own investments and were able to draw from that should the need arise.

I had to collect EI for a few months after 9/11. Even if I had collected full benefits for the maximum number of weeks I would have only received a fraction of what I paid into over the years (nevermind investing it). Furthermore, the system discourages you to find work by doing what ever odd jobs you can pick up because you effectively pay 100% tax since you lose benefits for every dollar you earn (assuming you are an honest person that does not wish to defraud the system).

EI is glorified welfare not an insurance program.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I love is the fact that what people in my age group are paying into Canada Pension is only going to be a fraction of what we get. I feel really sorry for those younger than me who will get next to nothing.

That's for another thread though, I suppose.

[err]

Just think of how much money you'd have it you took your EI contribution and put it into  your own investments and were able to draw from that should the need arise.

BRILLIANT!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe not so brilliant...

To follow the same line of argument as you present, why don't you cancel your life insurance policy and invest that money so that you and your family can invest it and become rich. Do you not see a problem with this argument.....

Should your family need that life insurance policy (God forbid), before you accrued a substantial amount, they would be out of luck, ... (and I guess, so would you).

The publicly funded system is one where (supposedly) nobody is taking a big gamble, and everyone is protected.... whether rich or poor... With the private system you promote, you could be like the poor dead guy who left his family nothing....

[err]

I had to collect EI for a few months after 9/11. Even if I had collected full benefits for the maximum number of weeks I would have only received a fraction of what I paid into over the years (nevermind investing it). Furthermore, the system discourages you to find work by doing what ever odd jobs you can pick up because you effectively pay 100% tax since you lose benefits for every dollar you earn (assuming you are an honest person that does not wish to defraud the system).

EI is glorified welfare not an insurance program.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I must have missed something in what you said.... Was the program not there for you when you needed it ???

Your statement that the system discourages you from finding work.... I can see your point in reporting minor casual income, but is there not an obvious limitation on the number of weeks you are eligible to collect... so unless you have your head stuck in the sand with respect to this deadline, I don't see how you can miss the incentive to find work...

Thirdly, your complaint that you would only have received a fraction of what you paid into it over the years.... this can be viewed many ways... but it should not be viewed as an 'investment'. Most people don't buy life insurance as an investment... It is there to help those who need it, and from the sounds of it, you are one of the fortunate who does not often need it...

[Riverwind]

Thirdly, your complaint that you would only have received a fraction of what you paid into it over the years.... this can be viewed many ways... but it should not be viewed as an 'investment'.  Most people don't buy life insurance as an investment... It is there to help those who need it, and from the sounds of it, you are one of the fortunate who does not often need it...

You have revealed a number of the facilities about the EI system. I pay for life and property insurance. If I add up the premiums I would pay over the next 30 years and compare those premiums to the maximum benefit I find that the total premiums are about 20% of the maximum benefit. In other words, if I need to make a claim on either of these policies I stand to make (or a least my heirs) substantially more (5x) than I would expect to pay in premiums. Therefore, there is no argument that I would be better off insuring myself and investing the premiums.

With EI, on the other hand, the maximum benefit is about 1/3 of the premiums I would pay over the next 30 years (note my calculations include the portion paid by the employer). As a result, I can argue that I would have been better off investing the premiums.

That said, I appreciated the money at the time, just like I would have appreciated any welfare money to tide me over till I found a new job. My point was that the EI is not an insurance program but rather a welfare program that is funded by a particularily regressive taxation model that kills jobs and discourages people from working as much as they could.

I think programs like EI are worthwhile (even if it needs a lot of reform), however, people should stop thinking that the EI surplus 'belongs' to the workers. The EI surplus belongs in general revenue like every other tax we pay.

[err]

That said, I appreciated the money at the time, just like I would have appreciated any welfare money to tide me over till I found a new job. My point was that the EI is not an insurance program but rather a welfare program that is funded by a particularily regressive taxation model that kills jobs and discourages people from working as much as they could.

I think programs like EI are worthwhile (even if it needs a lot of reform), however, people should stop thinking that the EI surplus 'belongs' to the workers. The EI surplus belongs in general revenue like every other tax we pay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm glad that the premiums I have paid over the years were able to help you when you needed it. It makes me feel good to live in a society where people help each other, (even though some do it begrudgingly). You suggest that this program kills jobs... but I would rather think of it as a program that saves lives... (not literally though)... I would think it absolutely horrible if, due to unforseen circumstances, you were temporarily unemployed, and lost your house/home... put your family on the street... lost your car, everything... because these things can certainly happen. I'm happy to be part of a system that protects my neighbours, and have comfort in the fact that they would do the same for me should I ever need it.

I disagree with you somewhat on the idea that EI premiums should go into general revenue. Then they shouldn't call them EI premiums... Similarly, the regressive "health tax" in Ontario shouldn't be used to build sewers (as it is). (Note: I am opposed to the implementation of the "health tax" as the majority of the revenues are dispropotionately taken from the poorest segment of the population.)

[Renegade]

Renegade, it should be obvious who is ripping off EI. They've had huge surpluses every year... HUGE... and out Conservative "Liberal" prime Minister Martin has diverted those funds... As a result, he can afford to reduce corporate taxes in Canada.... Pretty neat eh... Paul Martin is the reverse Robin Hood... Taking extra money from citizens so he can give it to corporate Canada... and at the same time, making it much harder for the unfortunate to qualify for the benefits...

The EI system is a rip-off to the vast majority of contributors. The only beneficiary is the government who year after year sits on a big fat EI surplus.

EI Surplus Fiasco

The notition that EI as currently structured is really insurance is somewhat laughable. Do you know any insurance company which gets to keep $7 Billion of $19 Billion it collects (1998 Numbers) and this after paying for other benefits not directly related to loss of employment income (such as training related activities maternity, parental and adoption benefits). If EI is insurance why is it that it is mandatory and there is no opting out. I'll tell you why, because, so many of us who see it as a rip-off would opt out.

How many insurance schemes would force you to pay back benefits despite having paid the premiums and legimately being qualified for the benefits, just because you are deemed to earn too much?

Line 235 - Social benefits repayment

[err]

The EI system is a rip-off to the vast majority of contributors. The only beneficiary is the government who year after year sits on a big fat EI surplus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Conservative "Liberal" government is not sitting on the surplus... they're collecting it and dispersing it in the form of tax breaks for corporate Canada...

there is a solution though:

Vote for Jack Layton and the NDP

[BHS]

I'd vote Rhino first.

[Canuck E Stan]

How many of you know that the CAW auto workers get EI along with company supplimentary $$ to allow them to take home 90% of their take home pay when they get laid off? And if they are off sick for one week when working they can claim this as a week of waiting period toward EI? I believe this is a benefit that only the auto workers can claim and no other worker can. EI is a godsend to the auto workers, many of which enjoy the time off and rather be on EI/supplimentary benefits.And why not,staying home for 90% of your take home pay for two weeks or two months? Who else can claim EI while collecting supplimentary unemployment benefits $$ from their employer? Different rules for different fools. And we have to keep paying.EI needs to be revised to work for the UNEMPLOYED.

[mirror]

All this complaining about our federal government. And who has been in power all this time. Of course it those good old right wing corporate parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. I'm going to give the New Democrats my vote this time, as they certainly can't do any worse, and they may do a lot better.

[Renegade]

The Conservative "Liberal" government is not sitting on the surplus... they're collecting it and dispersing it in the form of tax breaks for corporate Canada...

Can you prove any traceability of EI funds to corporate Canada? I doubt it because the EI surplus goes into general revenues. That statement is about as valid as me claiming that the EI surplus is dispensed to the poorer provinces to pay for equalization.

[cybercoma]

All this complaining about our federal government. And who has been in power  all this time. Of course it those good old right wing corporate parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. I'm going to give the New Democrats my vote this time, as they certainly can't do any worse, and they may do a lot better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose if you want a more centralized government, higher taxes and believe in the principles of socialism then why not....

[err]

I suppose if you want a more centralized government, higher taxes and believe in the principles of socialism then why not....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd like to see a government that puts the PEOPLE of Canada first. The two conservative parties, the "Liberals", and the Conservative/Reform/Alliance have different ideas... I say PEOPLE FIRST... Vote NDP.

[Riverwind]

I'd like to see a government that puts the PEOPLE of Canada first.  The two conservative parties, the "Liberals", and the Conservative/Reform/Alliance have different ideas...  I say PEOPLE FIRST... Vote NDP.

The NDP does not put people first - it puts unions and assorted other special interest groups first. The NDP policies hurt the vast majority of Canadians becasue they see enterpreneurs and business as inherently evil and want to discourage businesses from creating jobs in Canada.

If you look at Europe you will see the most stagnent economies are those with left leaning gov'ts.

[err]

The NDP does not put people first - it puts unions and assorted other special interest groups first. The NDP policies hurt the vast majority of Canadians becasue they see enterpreneurs and business as inherently evil and want to discourage businesses from creating jobs in Canada.

If you look at Europe you will see the most stagnent economies are those with left leaning gov'ts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, it's amazing that you can pretend that you don't understand that unions represent workers... (yep, the people that work in factories, etc...)... The NDP also puts other special interest groups (like the poor, the citizens of Canada, etc..) before corporate interests. And that's how it should be. Government should represent its citizen's first.

It's hard to comprehend your ridiculous claims that the NDP see enterpreneurs and business as inherently evil.... Did you come up with that all by yourself???

The right-wing parties, and people with ridiculous redneck opinions would have the public believe that the NDP could not run a government, because they are ignorant of the conservative ways.... Big money wants supports this, because they don't want the country's wealth distributed more evenly....

But when you think of it.... the NDP (then CCF) got us health care, unemployment insurance, and old age pensions... The right wing parties fought these "commie" ideas as being "anti-business"... Aren't you glad that not all Canadians are rednecks, so the left-wing parties get enough seats to have a chance to implement (or force a minority government) to implement these types of policies.

And, your claims about Europe... how about naming a country... (You can look up Europe on Google).

[Riverwind]

Wow, it's amazing that you can pretend that you don't understand that unions represent workers... (yep, the people that work in factories, etc...)...

Unions represent workers - that is a laugh. They are mostly run by left wing ideologues will happily screw their members over some principle. The Health Care Union in BC is good example. The BC Liberal government would have rather negotiated wage cuts that would have kept workers in the union but at a more reasonable cost. However, instead of reading the writing on the wall, the union refused to discuss wage cuts and forced the gov't to resort to outsourcing as a way to get around the union. The members who ended up getting laid off and re-hired at much lower wages ended beingthe losers.

And, your claims about Europe... how about naming a country...

Spain, France, Germany and Britian until Thatcher fixed the place.

[Sir Chauncy]

All this complaining about our federal government. And who has been in power all this time. Of course it those good old right wing corporate parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. I'm going to give the New Democrats my vote this time, as they certainly can't do any worse, and they may do a lot better.

_______________________

Exactly.

With Liberals we get more corporate tax cuts.

With Conservatives we will end up being essentially a part of America.

NDP has never seen those seats of power yet and they sure couldnt do worse.

We all know they would do good in their first term to prove they can.

Owl

[Melanie_]

How many of you know that the CAW auto workers get  EI along with company supplimentary $$ to allow them to take home 90% of their take home pay when they get laid off?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You asked who else claims supplementary benefits while collecting EI. Many companies, both private and public, top up maternity benefits, which are also funded through EI at 55% of salary. Some do it as a bonus after the mat leave ends, some do it as an ongoing benefit throughout. Its seen as an incentive for mothers to return to their jobs after their mat leave expires. I received just such a bonus 16 years ago, working for a University. My point is that CAW is not alone in offering top ups.

<edited to 16 years from 12; they just blur together after a while...>