E.I. to be available to self-employed Canadians

[Trimdingman]

A new bill before Parliament will allow self-employed Canadians to have the option of paying into, and accessing E.I. This is an obvious ploy by the government to appease the left who hold the majority of the seats in the House of Commons. Who do you think is going to sign up; successful businessmen or unsuccessful ones? This is obviously going to have a negative effect on the plan, which in my opinion is a boondoggle to begin with. People who are not self-employed have no choice whether they want to pay into EI. Why should the self-employed be any different? If I had a secure job, I would also like to opt out of E.I. If I have a seasonal job, of course I would sign up for it. We are going to get stuck with people who will be causing a negative cash flow to the Plan. Also, I am sure that clever business types will find all kinds of ways to work this to their advantage.

[J-150]

A new bill before Parliament will allow self-employed Canadians to have the option of paying into, and accessing E.I. This is an obvious ploy by the government to appease the left who hold the majority of the seats in the House of Commons. Who do you think is going to sign up; successful businessmen or unsuccessful ones? This is obviously going to have a negative effect on the plan, which in my opinion is a boondoggle to begin with. People who are not self-employed have no choice whether they want to pay into EI. Why should the self-employed be any different? If I had a secure job, I would also like to opt out of E.I. If I have a seasonal job, of course I would sign up for it. We are going to get stuck with people who will be causing a negative cash flow to the Plan. Also, I am sure that clever business types will find all kinds of ways to work this to their advantage.

 

 

tell you what, you can start having an opinion on "opting out" and "people draining" when you and your employer decertify the CAW from your workplace.

 

otherwise, you're a frickin' hyprocrite.

[Edstock]

A new bill before Parliament will allow self-employed Canadians to have the option of paying into, and accessing E.I. This is an obvious ploy by the government to appease the left who hold the majority of the seats in the House of Commons. Who do you think is going to sign up; successful businessmen or unsuccessful ones? This is obviously going to have a negative effect on the plan, which in my opinion is a boondoggle to begin with.

You sure are ignorant. Self-employed Canucks can already pay into E.I. So, re-defining the terms and conditions is not an obvious ploy by the government to appease the left who hold the majority of the seats in the House of Commons.

 

Who do you think is going to sign up; successful businessmen or unsuccessful ones?

Smart ones. Market conditions can change within a couple of years, and a wise person prepares for adversity. Remember, by "signing up" as you put it, these self-employed people are paying into the E.I. fund.

 

This is obviously going to have a negative effect on the plan,

To your mind-set, it's obvious; to the rest of us, not so much. Please share your insight and wisdom by giving us reasons why this should be so.

 

which in my opinion is a boondoggle to begin with.

There are something like 1,000,000 Canucks who would disagree with your opinion. Your opinion may be ignorant, it may be stupid, but it's yours, and you're entitled to it.

 

[Mark B. Morrow]

For those of us not in the Great White North, what is E.I.?

[matthewq4b]

For those of us not in the Great White North, what is E.I.?

 

Unemployment Insurance or as we call it Employment Insurance AKA E.I.

 

And the new rules state once once you opt in you have to pay premiums for a year before you can collect and are then bound to pay them for the rest of your working careerer. You do not get to opt in then opt out.

 

And the biggest change was giving Self Employed women access to the the 52 week maternity leave E.I.

 

Where as before even if a self employed women opted in to E.I she was not eligible to claim the Mat leave E.I

 

This is hardly a boondoggle and if any thing should further increase E.I revenues in the long run. There is no shortage of funds any how in the E.I coffers to begin with.

 

Matthew

[NickF1011]

52 week maternity leave?? :blink:

[matthewq4b]

52 week maternity leave?? :blink:

 

 

 

 

Like most first world nations Canada belives that the first year of a childs life is the most important in terms of parental bonding.

Birth mothers are eligiable for 15 weeks, that is the mat leave. Then there is an addtional 35 weeks parental leave for biological or adoptive parents while they are caring for a new-born or an adopted child.

One parent can take the full 35 weeks or it can be split between both. For example one parent takes 20 weeks the other takes 15 weeks. Genrally the woman takes all the 35 weeks or parental leave.

 

So it is 50 weeks not the 52 I stated in error.

 

If you adopt you only eligiable for the 35 weeks.

 

TO qualify for either you must have worked 600 hours before applying, the same qualifications as needed for regular E.I.

 

If the woman is having complications during her pregnacy her doctor can order her off work and she can then be eligable for medical EI (up to 15 weeks) until the birth. The medical E.I weeks do not take away from Mat or the parental leave E.I.

 

Company's are required to by law give 50 weeks mat/parental leave.

Either to one parent or divided between parents how they see fit.

Most reputable companies give the man 2 weeks paid leave any how not deucted from Holidays or sick days.

So most men just take the 2 weeks paid leave and turn over the full parental leave to the mother.

The parental leave starts after the child returns home form the hospital or started within 52 weeks of the childs birth.

 

 

The U.S is the exception in regards to mat/parental leave for new mothers/parents and not the norm in first world nations. We actually pale compared to most EU nations in regards to mat/parental leave benefits ours are paid at the regular 60% of wages as is EI. And of course the amount paid is topped out at the same $447 per week.

 

A lot of EU nations pay mat leave at 90% of wages for a full 52 weeks.

Personally I feel mat/parental leave it should be pegged closer to 75% of wages and the maximum for mat/ parental leave increased as that is mostly costly time for most parents either single or a couple as most parents having a new born are from being well established unlike people with teenagers.

 

I knew the Mat/parental leave time frame would be a surprise to some americans. But the U.S has traditionally been the least socially progressive of the first world nations

 

 

Matthew

Edited November 3, 2009 by matthewq4b

[suv_guy_19]

.

Edited November 3, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[suv_guy_19]

Oh, and Trim, how iis an optional program that is being designed to self finance a bad thing?

[fordmantpw]

Like most first world nations Canada belives that the first year of a childs life is the most important in terms of parental bonding.

Birth mothers are eligiable for 15 weeks, that is the mat leave. Then there is an addtional 35 weeks parental leave for biological or adoptive parents while they are caring for a new-born or an adopted child.

One parent can take the full 35 weeks or it can be split between both. For example one parent takes 20 weeks the other takes 15 weeks. Genrally the woman takes all the 35 weeks or parental leave.

 

So it is 50 weeks not the 52 I stated in error.

 

If you adopt you only eligiable for the 35 weeks.

 

TO qualify for either you must have worked 600 hours before applying, the same qualifications as needed for regular E.I.

 

If the woman is having complications during her pregnacy her doctor can order her off work and she can then be eligable for medical EI (up to 15 weeks) until the birth. The medical E.I weeks do not take away from Mat or the parental leave E.I.

 

Company's are required to by law give 50 weeks mat/parental leave.

Either to one parent or divided between parents how they see fit.

Most reputable companies give the man 2 weeks paid leave any how not deucted from Holidays or sick days.

So most men just take the 2 weeks paid leave and turn over the full parental leave to the mother.

The parental leave starts after the child returns home form the hospital or started within 52 weeks of the childs birth.

 

 

The U.S is the exception in regards to mat/parental leave for new mothers/parents and not the norm in first world nations. We actually pale compared to most EU nations in regards to mat/parental leave benefits ours are paid at the regular 60% of wages as is EI. And of course the amount paid is topped out at the same $447 per week.

 

A lot of EU nations pay mat leave at 90% of wages for a full 52 weeks.

Personally I feel mat/parental leave it should be pegged closer to 75% of wages and the maximum for mat/ parental leave increased as that is mostly costly time for most parents either single or a couple as most parents having a new born are from being well established unlike people with teenagers.

 

I knew the Mat/parental leave time frame would be a surprise to some americans. But the U.S has traditionally been the least socially progressive of the first world nations

 

 

Matthew

 

Daaaaayyyyum! My wife would've killed for 50 weeks maternity leave! She had 12, and whatever she didn't have enough sick/vacation leave to cover, she had to take FMLA (unpaid family medical leave act). I took 3 weeks of vacation.

[suv_guy_19]

Well....on the other side of it, I do pay a $70 per month EI premium. I don't mind though because it helps many people....especially right now.

[matthewq4b]

Well....on the other side of it, I do pay a $70 per month EI premium. I don't mind though because it helps many people....especially right now.

 

 

Ya it is minimal amount and it is deducted prior to income tax calculation. There is a maximum that can be deducted for EI, for 2009 it is $731.19 that maximum is reached at 46,300 a year. The contribution rate is 1.73% of your pay.

 

I reached maximum way eariler in the year, the over payment is credited back to or against my income tax.

 

So Our EI program costs us 1.73% of our pay to a maximum of $731.19 for 2009.

Not a costly Employment Insurance program if you ask me.

 

 

E.I currently has a multiple billion dollar surplus even in these economic times.

 

 

Matthew

[Trimdingman]

Oh, and Trim, how iis an optional program that is being designed to self finance a bad thing?

 

 

How is it going to self-finance if each person gets to choose whether he wants it or not? Only people who are going to profit from it are going to take it. What if they did the same thing for the rest of us. Only the people who are laid off enough to collect more than they pay in would sign up.

 

For auto workers, EI is not needed. Over a long period, we draw as much as we put in. We could just let the company and union handle it using the funds that would otherwise go to the government. It would eliminate all of the beaurocratic waste that eats up the lions' share of the money.

 

For seasonal workers, EI is merely subsidizing the employers, as the workers can work for a lower hourly rate if they have to put less away for the off season.

 

For people living from paycheck to paycheck, it is no good because of the waiting period. They have to get another job right away.

 

For people with savings, it is not needed, because they would be banking more if they weren't paying premiums, plus they would get the amount that their employer contributes.

 

The EI program is a drain on the economy, so it causes more unemployment. That is the same as any government program. It creates the problem that it purports to solve.

[Trimdingman]

Ya it is minimal amount and it is deducted prior to income tax calculation. There is a maximum that can be deducted for EI, for 2009 it is $731.19 that maximum is reached at 46,300 a year. The contribution rate is 1.73% of your pay.

 

I reached maximum way eariler in the year, the over payment is credited back to or against my income tax.

 

So Our EI program costs us 1.73% of our pay to a maximum of $731.19 for 2009.

Not a costly Employment Insurance program if you ask me.

 

 

E.I currently has a multiple billion dollar surplus even in these economic times.

 

 

Matthew

 

 

The amount that you pay is matched by your employer, so you are actually paying double what you think. Think about the cost of the army of beaurocrats who manage this program. There are offices all over. There are people who investigate to make sure that claimants are legit. Why not just allow people to set up tax free accounts on their own for tough times. That way we wouldn't have most of the money paid out to administer the program. The government would never go for that because this gives them one more means to control the people. I do my claim by telephone. I am threatened with jail time if I press the wrong key. All I want is some of what I paid in. Why is that a crime?

[matthewq4b]

The amount that you pay is matched by your employer, so you are actually paying double what you think. Think about the cost of the army of beaurocrats who manage this program. There are offices all over. There are people who investigate to make sure that claimants are legit. Why not just allow people to set up tax free accounts on their own for tough times. That way we wouldn't have most of the money paid out to administer the program. The government would never go for that because this gives them one more means to control the people. I do my claim by telephone. I am threatened with jail time if I press the wrong key. All I want is some of what I paid in. Why is that a crime?

 

 

I'm not paying the Employer is. Total cost per year for any one making over 46.3K $1426.38.

 

Go try to find a private plan that will give you the same coverage for the same dollars. Guess what you can not.

 

And this is not a sink hole for tax payers dollars as it is not a red operating program and shows and has surpluses.

 

As for setting up tax free accounts you know very well that 80 to 90% of the people out there would not do so.

And if you do the math at the current rate of pay for a max claimant is 11,622 dollars in other words 8 years worth of EI premiums at the Current rate of course the current rate max collectible rate was not 1426.38 in years past so the years needed now, is equal to the previous 9.5 years worth of payments.

 

And you are not threated with jail you are threatened with fines and possibly jail time for KNOWINGLY defrauding the system. Big difference from making a mistake and knowingly committing fraud.

 

You are the biggest hypocrite on this board you complain about government control with programs and say they should do or that then are the first person to say I use if it will advantage me. You complain about people abusing the government programs then complain when you are held to the same standard that helps prevents abuse.

 

Trim you have no concept of society or what it means to be part of one.

You are exactly what is wrong with the world and why we have the programs that we do cause the only person you care about is yourself and how much you can profit regardless of the consequences to anyone else.

 

Yes I pay in to EI and have done so for over 20 years with out making a claim and most of that was done as a contract worker who was NOT required to pay in to it. Do I bitch about it absolutely not as just like insurance it is there when you need it. And I know it is best for the nation my province my city my neighbors and my friends who may happen to get laid off.

 

Do not like it then stand up on you own 2 feet and quit relying on someone else to PROVIDE YOU with a living and employment and earn your own damn way in this world. Then you can opt out and set up a tax free account for just that purpose.

 

These programs are for people who either through circumstance lack of ambition or just plain luck are not able to be self reliant.

There is nothing stopping you for putting yourself in the position where you would not ever have to rely on these programs.

And since you obviously seem to know everything the question has to be asked why have you not done so already ?

 

Why is that Trim? Since you seem to know it all why are you not self reliant why do you have to rely on other people for employment and to carry you on EI ?

 

Since I took the VPO position with in the company this past summer with who I'm a primary shareholder of (so much for retirement lol ) I'm off to the UAE In about 2 hours for some face to face meetings with ADNOC. So it will be a week or so before I get back to this.

 

 

Matthew

Edited November 4, 2009 by matthewq4b

[Edstock]

It would eliminate all of the beaurocratic waste that eats up the lions' share of the money.

You sure are stupid and ignorant. The E.I. fund is in the black. In case you don't understand what that means, the fund has way more money than what is being paid out.

 

Now if there were "beaurocratic (sic) waste that eats up the lions' share of the money" then there wouldn't be this surplus, and the fund would be in the RED. CAPICE?

 

The EI program is a drain on the economy, so it causes more unemployment.

That's what you say. You seem to say a lot of stupid things; this is one more.

 

That is the same as any government program. It creates the problem that it purports to solve.

This is another stupid statement, bereft of any merit whatsoever. You really are ignorant.

 

Thanks for playing

[Mark B. Morrow]

You sure are stupid and ignorant. The E.I. fund is in the black. In case you don't understand what that means, the fund has way more money than what is being paid out.

 

Now if there were "beaurocratic (sic) waste that eats up the lions' share of the money" then there wouldn't be this surplus, and the fund would be in the RED. CAPICE?

 

 

That's what you say. You seem to say a lot of stupid things; this is one more.

 

 

This is another stupid statement, bereft of any merit whatsoever. You really are ignorant.

 

Thanks for playing

 

That's what you say. You seem to say a lot of stupid things; this is one more. Go Edstock!

Edited November 4, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow

[Trimdingman]

You sure are stupid and ignorant. The E.I. fund is in the black. In case you don't understand what that means, the fund has way more money than what is being paid out.

 

Now if there were "beaurocratic (sic) waste that eats up the lions' share of the money" then there wouldn't be this surplus, and the fund would be in the RED. CAPICE?

 

 

That's what you say. You seem to say a lot of stupid things; this is one more.

 

 

This is another stupid statement, bereft of any merit whatsoever. You really are ignorant.

 

Thanks for playing

 

 

The fund has no money in it, just on paper. The government has the "surplus". You think that because you are paying more in than the government is paying out it is a good thing? It is just another tax. There is no way that EI is helping the economy; just the opposite. I am not an evil, uncaring person, just one that is doing the math. EI does not solve chronic unemployment because you have to be employed to get it, and it runs out after a period of time, and for most people, it is not enough to live on. The amount of energy that goes into this program, considering the inefficiency, is far more than any benefit to the economy. To me, it smacks of Big Brother, also. There are ways to set up savings plans that would allow you to keep your dignity and freedom. I hate it when the government gets too involved in my life. If we had less government, we would be more prosperous, and would need government less and less. That is government's fundamental fear. That is why they want to keep us in comparative poverty. If you feed wild animals, you are really not doing them any favors. You are forcing them to be dependent on you. That is the same as the government is doing to us.

[Edstock]

The fund has no money in it, just on paper.

You are unbelievably purblind.

 

There is no way that EI is helping the economy; just the opposite.

That's your opinion. With no facts, it's just a brain-fart.

 

I am not an evil, uncaring person, just one that is doing the math.

So far, your math reminds me of Joan Rivers' comment about her ex: "couldn't count to twenty-one if he'd just stepped out of the shower"

 

EI does not solve chronic unemployment because you have to be employed to get it, and it runs out after a period of time, and for most people, it is not enough to live on.

EI was never designed to deal with "chronic" unemployment. But that doesn't mean it is not an effective program. So, your point is? You do have a point?

 

The amount of energy that goes into this program, considering the inefficiency, is far more than any benefit to the economy.

Please specify how much and what kind of "energy" goes into the EI program. I thought it was pay-check deductions. Let's consider its "inefficiency" — but we can't, because there are no facts to support your claim. Alas, another brain-fart.

 

To me, it smacks of Big Brother, also.

You should read the book, sometime.

 

There are ways to set up savings plans that would allow you to keep your dignity and freedom.

So, set one up and give us a break — shut up.

 

I hate it when the government gets too involved in my life. If we had less government, we would be more prosperous, and would need government less and less.

You have repeated this simple-minded statement many, many, many times. Oliver Wendell Holmes would disagree, saying, "I like paying taxes. With them, I buy civilization". Considering your track record for perspicacity, Ollie probably knew something you don't. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in your world.

[Trimdingman]

How old are you? I feel like I am arguing with a kid.

 

Make a case for big government and give me an example of how well it is working out. Maybe you believe that things are just peachy in Cuba and North Korea. Mao had to kill off a big chunk of the population to make the system "work"; work for him and his cronies, that is. E.I. is just another tool of Big Government to control those pesky "masses".

[Edstock]

How old are you? I feel like I am arguing with a kid.

LOL — you seem to have a comprehension problem, so anything's possible on your end.

 

Make a case for big government and give me an example of how well it is working out.

This is typical of your mind-set. I have never advocated "big" government per se. I do advocate a government big enough to meet the needs of its citizens. That's what Ollie was referring to, by the way. You may not be able to discern the difference, alas.

 

E.I. is just another tool of Big Government to control those pesky "masses".

Please supply details on how E.I. is "another tool of Big Government to control those pesky "masses". Otherwise, all we have here is yet another brain-fart.

[J-150]

I would like to see EI overhauled. Raise the annual cap beyond 40-something.Charge it on every penny you make.

 

Then allow claimants to claim to 55% of ALL of their earnings, not the ceiling they have on it now.

 

Then it would be more usable to more people.

[Trimdingman]

I would like to see EI overhauled. Raise the annual cap beyond 40-something.Charge it on every penny you make.

 

Then allow claimants to claim to 55% of ALL of their earnings, not the ceiling they have on it now.

 

Then it would be more usable to more people.

 

Money that you pay into EI is not taxed. Your income over 40 thousand is taxed to the max. They are still getting their money. The payouts are minimized and the profits to the government are maximized. That is how the system works. EI is all about the government using you. Think of the government as the Mafia. EI is one of their protection rackets.

[Trimdingman]

LOL — you seem to have a comprehension problem, so anything's possible on your end.

 

 

This is typical of your mind-set. I have never advocated "big" government per se. I do advocate a government big enough to meet the needs of its citizens. That's what Ollie was referring to, by the way. You may not be able to discern the difference, alas.

 

 

Please supply details on how E.I. is "another tool of Big Government to control those pesky "masses". Otherwise, all we have here is yet another brain-fart.

 

 

EI keeps many people dependent on the government, just like you may keep the little birdies in your back yard over the winter with your bird feeder. It causes them to lose their natural abilities of survival. People got by just fine before the government stuck its nose in. The unemployment rate was lower. If you are on EI. you give up much of your dignity and freedom as you crawl and dance for the government to get your own money. It would be better if you were forced to plan your own affairs instead of being herded like cows and patronized by some useless beaurocrat at an EI office living off your pay deductions. I HATE THE GOVERNMENT. I am still allowed to say that, but I don't know for how much longer, the way we are going.

[J-150]

Money that you pay into EI is not taxed. Your income over 40 thousand is taxed to the max. They are still getting their money. The payouts are minimized and the profits to the government are maximized. That is how the system works. EI is all about the government using you. Think of the government as the Mafia. EI is one of their protection rackets.

 

 

Trim,

 

there is a cap of $40something in annual earnings in which you have EI withdrawn.

 

There is in turn a cap of 55% (or 60% or whatever the hell it is) based on that annual number.

 

I am suggesting that those making more than $40k have EI deducted on ALL of the annual earnings and then the EI claim becomes 55% of that.

 

So if you make $100k, then you are charged EI deduction on the entire 100. You then get to claim 55% of the 100k should you find yourself out of work.