Liberals 48B EI Scam

[rbacon]

The average taxpayer in Canada now pays more in taxes than they do for food, shelter, clothing and transportation. But the Liberals just keep up the theft and the gouging.----Sat, December 10, 2005

Never-ending EI scam

By TOM BRODBECK

The federal government has quietly increased its massive employment insurance surplus again this year, according to Auditor General Sheila Fraser.

Ottawa continues to over-charge workers and employers for EI premiums, something they've been doing every year for the past decade.

This year, the surplus has grown by another $2 billion -- despite Liberal government promises they were going to stop overcharging us -- according to the auditor general's November report.

"The accumulated surplus in the account increased by an additional $2 billion in 2004-05 to reach $48 billion by the end of March 2005," the report says.

Ottawa has been charging us billions more per year than they're paying out in EI benefits, providing them with a tidy profit to spend on whatever hare-brained, flavour-of-the-month boondoggle they dream up.

They keep track of the accumulated surpluses for accounting purposes. But the money's not sitting in an account somewhere. It's spent.

They use it to help pay for the PM's new jets, the gun registry and the sponsorship program, among other important expenditures.

And they have no plans to pay the money back.

The surplus keeps growing, and they just keep gouging us.

[August1991]

No link, violation of copyright, and you just keep creating more threads without any follow-up discussion.

I'm reporting this poster.

[rbacon]

Are you an immigrant from the failed 50Plus forums, that is the childish way they carried on until the forums were shut down. The author of the piece is in the first lines. Grow up. Or was it just the fact that the Liberals have been stealing taxdollars again and they have been caught at their usual act lately, hand in the till.

[justcrowing]

No link, violation of copyright, and you just keep creating more threads without any follow-up discussion.

I'm reporting this poster.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Winnipegsun.com - http://winsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Bro...10/1346463.html

If I can find it - I see no problem and so should you. Also, I read their copywrite, there is no breach and permission is granted for personal use and that fits the forums here.

Before screaming foul, you might do the research.

[justcrowing]

Are you an immigrant from the failed 50Plus forums, that is the childish way they carried on until the forums were shut down. The author of the piece is in the first lines. Grow up. Or was it just the fact that the Liberals have been stealing taxdollars again and they have been caught at their usual act lately, hand in the till.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think what it is that the Liberals were in their glory until the scandals broke out and now there is egg on their faces. They want it hushed up and not discussed but that is not going to happen. I could never support a corrupt party including leader who avoids paying Canadian taxes on CSL.

[Riverwind]

If I can find it - I see no problem  and so should you.  Also, I read their copywrite, there is no breach and permission is granted for personal use and that fits the forums here.

Copyright fair use does not include replicating large portions of a work on another publically available website. If you read their agreement you will see:

Notwithstanding the above, visitors may download or copy, one-time only, the content and other downloadable items displayed on the service for personal, non-commercial, use only, provided that visitors maintain all copyright and other notices contained in such content.

Download or copy implies it is stored on your personal machine and not replicated on a website.

Furthermore, there is no reference to copyright notices as required by the copyright owner. That is why you should always provide a link to the orginal artical.

[justcrowing]

No wonder the Liberals have so much money to throw around to get elected - more theft. Seems like there is no end to it.

Unions want Ottawa to return pension funds

Last Updated Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:00:03 EST

CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...us20051115.html

The public-service unions say the money was, in effect, stolen in 1999 when

the government helped itself to surpluses in RCMP, military and civil

service funds. More than $30 billion was transferred to general revenue.

The government takes the view that no one was hurt because it stands ready

to pay the agreed pensions regardless of whether there is a surplus.

One of the plaintiffs is the Professional Institute of the Public Service,

whose president, Michele Demers, says the government slashed jobs, put a

freeze on wages and increased pension premiums in the 1990s. She says

pension money was never supposed to be used to help the government out of a

financial jam.

[Riverwind]

The government takes the view that no one was hurt because it stands ready to pay the agreed pensions regardless of whether there is a surplus.

This is an issue of union arrogance that occurs in the private sector as well. The problems stems from that fact that the employer is legally obligated to make up any short fall in the pensions and, therefore, the employer is legally entitled to any surplus. This is completely fair under the rules as they exist now no matter how much the unions want to whine.

If the unions what the right to keep surpluses in pensions then they should accept the responsiblity for any short falls. It incredibly self serving to expect all of the benefits with none of the responsibility and all tax payers should support the Liberals in this case.

[justcrowing]

The government takes the view that no one was hurt because it stands ready to pay the agreed pensions regardless of whether there is a surplus.

This is an issue of union arrogance that occurs in the private sector as well. The problems stems from that fact that the employer is legally obligated to make up any short fall in the pensions and, therefore, the employer is legally entitled to any surplus. This is completely fair under the rules as they exist now no matter how much the unions want to whine.

If the unions what the right to keep surpluses in pensions then they should accept the responsiblity for any short falls. It incredibly self serving to expect all of the benefits with none of the responsibility and all tax payers should support the Liberals in this case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It has absolutely nothing to do with union arrogance but governments who take employee pension funds and throw them into the general fund. The employees pay the bulk into the fund and not government so they are not entitled to any surplus - it belongs to the employees. If there is a shortfall you can be sure government will find a way not to pay or reduce the benefits and Liberals being in power will do just that.

[Riverwind]

It has absolutely nothing to do with union arrogance but governments who take employee pension funds and throw them into the general fund

The gov't is legally responsible for a short fall therefore the gov't is entitled to any surplus. I would love to see the system changed where the employees would be responsible for any short fall - in which case the gov't should return the surplus funds. Until that happens forget about the money - it belongs to the taxpayers - not the union.

[August1991]

If the unions what the right to keep surpluses in pensions then they should accept the responsiblity for any short falls. It incredibly self serving to expect all of the benefits with none of the responsibility and all tax payers should support the Liberals in this case.

I agree.

As to the EI surplus, what is forgotten is that this is a strange form of income tax. EI premiums only apply to earned income up to a maximum. Self-employed people don't pay this tax and it doesn't apply to investment income.

EI is an unfair and bad payroll tax. Its existence is proof that there is nothing sensible about our tax system. OTOH, Mulroney tried to reform UIC and all he got for his efforts was grief.

[Riverwind]

EI is an unfair and bad payroll tax.  Its existence is proof that there is nothing sensible about our tax system.  OTOH, Mulroney tried to reform UIC and all he got for his efforts was grief.

EI is equalization through the backdoor - money is collected from provinces with higher income and employment opportunities and is paid out provinces with fewer job opportunities.

[justcrowing]

It has absolutely nothing to do with union arrogance but governments who take employee pension funds and throw them into the general fund

The gov't is legally responsible for a short fall therefore the gov't is entitled to any surplus. I would love to see the system changed where the employees would be responsible for any short fall - in which case the gov't should return the surplus funds. Until that happens forget about the money - it belongs to the taxpayers - not the union.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The money does not belong to the union but the employees. The union only acts on behalf of the employees. How do you figure when a civil servant puts their own money out of his/her paycheque into his retirement fund, that it belongs to the taxpayer?

[Riverwind]

The money does not belong to the union but the employees.  The union only acts on behalf of the employees.  How do you figure when a civil servant puts their own  money out of his/her  paycheque into his retirement fund, that it belongs to the taxpayer?

For starters the employee only contributes part of of the money that goes into the fund - the government contributes the rest. I believe 50-50 is the standard split but I heard that PSAC has a really rich pension scheme where the gov't actually contributes more than 50%.

However, the employees lose their ownership of the money because they signed a deal that requires the taxpayer to pay for any short fall. I don't understand why you have diffilculty with concept. I would love to have an RRSP plan where I make my contributions and if the investments don't work out then I don't need to worry because the bank will cover my loses. The real world does not work that way - the employees had to give something up to get the gov't to cover the losses and what they gave up was ownership of the money in the fund. The only thing they are entitled to are the benefits promised - not the capital in the fund.

[justcrowing]

The money does not belong to the union but the employees.  The union only acts on behalf of the employees.  How do you figure when a civil servant puts their own  money out of his/her  paycheque into his retirement fund, that it belongs to the taxpayer?

For starters the employee only contributes part of of the money that goes into the fund - the government contributes the rest. I believe 50-50 is the standard split but I heard that PSAC has a really rich pension scheme where the gov't actually contributes more than 50%.

However, the employees lose their ownership of the money because they signed a deal that requires the taxpayer to pay for any short fall. I don't understand why you have diffilculty with concept. I would love to have an RRSP plan where I make my contributions and if the investments don't work out then I don't need to worry because the bank will cover my loses. The real world does not work that way - the employees had to give something up to get the gov't to cover the losses and what they gave up was ownership of the money in the fund. The only thing they are entitled to are the benefits promised - not the capital in the fund.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

* It is not more than 50-50 and employees do not have a rich scheme nor do the retirees only the MPs and PM. Employees actually pay more to have their pensions indexed to the rate of inflation to which government adds zip.

Next there would be no shortfall if the government did not spend the interest earned - they not only grab their contribution but also that of the employee. I have spoken to several civil servants and they have not signed anything with the government as per your statement.

[Riverwind]

Next there would be no shortfall if the government did not spend the interest earned - they not only grab their contribution but also that of the employee.  I have spoken to several civil servants and they have not signed anything with the government as per your statement.

That is the standard deal for all defined benefit pension schemes - in the private sector as well as public. The contributors do not own the capital - the have a right to the 'benefit' (that is why it is called a defined benefit plan). If they wanted to own the capital then they should have joined a defined contribution plan - in which case there would be no question about who owned the money.

The civil servants are asking for something that they have no moral or legal right to. I hope the court throws this case out quickly.

[justcrowing]

Next there would be no shortfall if the government did not spend the interest earned - they not only grab their contribution but also that of the employee.  I have spoken to several civil servants and they have not signed anything with the government as per your statement.

That is the standard deal for all defined benefit pension schemes - in the private sector as well as public. The contributors do not own the capital - the have a right to the 'benefit' (that is why it is called a defined benefit plan). If they wanted to own the capital then they should have joined a defined contribution plan - in which case there would be no question about who owned the money.

The civil servants are asking for something that they have no moral or legal right to. I hope the court throws this case out quickly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope the civil servants win their case & they do have a legal & moral right to their money.

[August1991]

I hope the civil servants win their case & they do have a legal & moral right to their money. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No they don't. I agree with Sparhawk.

When civil servants are hired, they sign an employment contract with a benefits package including explicit details about their pension payments, and their pension contributions. These payments have a precise calculation.

To change these calculations now would be contrary to the contract the civil servants signed.

If you buy a government bond, would you accept or expect a change in terms during the life of the bond?

The fact that there is more or less money in the pension fund is irrelevant. As Sparhawk pointed out, civil servants did not assume any risk with their defined benefit pension. It is not a defined contribution plan.

----

The sad thing in this case is that the litigation even exists.

The civil servants are asking for something that they have no moral or legal right to. I hope the court throws this case out quickly.

I fear you may be wrong. From the CBC web site above:

Lawyers in the case are representing 300,000 employees. The unions expect it to be a long battle.

I am inclined to think that rich countries can become poor very easily if governments get involved in these kinds of legal treasure hunts. Pay equity is a similar game. When people smell money, there is always a lawyer nearby who will encourage them. When the money is in the government coffers, then the ability to say no is very difficult. Spending other people's money is too easy.

[Guest eureka]

It must be late. I agree with August.

[cybercoma]

It must be late. I agree with August.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It must be so damn cold that it's snowing in hell because even I agree with YOU.

[Greg]

Are you an immigrant from the failed 50Plus forums, that is the childish way they carried on until the forums were shut down. The author of the piece is in the first lines. Grow up. Or was it just the fact that the Liberals have been stealing taxdollars again and they have been caught at their usual act lately, hand in the till.

Just so everyone is clear, the above posting contravened the rules and guidelines of this forum. The rules are quite clear,

When posting copyrighted material, please use the quote (

&

) feature to highlight the important parts of the article and provide a throughout summary for others. You must also provide sufficient credit to the author and a link to the original article in your post. If the article cannot be found online, then at the end of the post provide an appropriate cite using any of the available citing formats, MLA, APA, etc.

[scribblet]

The money does not belong to the union but the employees.  The union only acts on behalf of the employees.  How do you figure when a civil servant puts their own  money out of his/her  paycheque into his retirement fund, that it belongs to the taxpayer?

For starters the employee only contributes part of of the money that goes into the fund - the government contributes the rest. I believe 50-50 is the standard split but I heard that PSAC has a really rich pension scheme where the gov't actually contributes more than 50%.

However, the employees lose their ownership of the money because they signed a deal that requires the taxpayer to pay for any short fall. I don't understand why you have diffilculty with concept. I would love to have an RRSP plan where I make my contributions and if the investments don't work out then I don't need to worry because the bank will cover my loses. The real world does not work that way - the employees had to give something up to get the gov't to cover the losses and what they gave up was ownership of the money in the fund. The only thing they are entitled to are the benefits promised - not the capital in the fund.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't agree that employees lose ownerhip of the money...the surplus belongs to the pension plan and most certainly should not be siphoned off into liberal coffers. If there is that much of a surplus, then premiums should be reduced (which would result in a reduction of the employer matching premiums) and current retirees should be given a pension increase. (or some benefit, not all should go to the active employees)

Having said that, distribution of the pension surplus was wrong, as some pension funds which had to comply with gov't rules and distribute their surplus are now looking at possible shortfalls because of the market etc.