EI: Entitlement, Right or Insurance

[X Royal]

George they collect EI premiums to fund that program not the general fund. Premiums are based on money earned as are the benefits.
Problem is they also use these funds to beef up the general fund by making it harder to draw benefits. Leave the money separate and reduce premiums if surpluses grow over a certain level.

 

[X Royal]

One other thing is on my pay stub it says EI insurance premiums not Federal Tax for the money that goes into the program.

 

[George Wallace]

As for raising premiums for repeat users I think the system of reduced benefits for them is the way to go.

I like that idea as well.

 

[Remius]

I like that idea as well.

Sounds good but then you would have to penalise people that go on MATA/PATA more than once, seasonal workers would take a hit as well. 

 

[George Wallace]

George they collect EI premiums to fund that program not the general fund. Premiums are based on money earned as are the benefits.
Problem is they also use these funds to beef up the general fund by making it harder to draw benefits. Leave the money separate and reduce premiums if surpluses grow over a certain level.

When it boils down to it, is it not just another "tax"?  Sure it is supposed to go into a program that is called "Employment Insurance", but individuals who really want to, can create their own "savings for rainy days" to cover periods of unemployment.  It is an idea thought up and developed by a "socialist" in government, passed and implemented by the Government.  You have GST and other taxes on the Fuel you buy for your auto, all of them supposedly dedicated to paving roads, the environment, Provincial coffers, etc.  EI is no different. 

If you are concerned about the Government raiding those funds for other reasons, then think of our CAF/RCMP Pension Funds that were also raided and monies skimmed off.  There are numerous other instances where Treasury Board ( who govern all the movement of Government monies ) has approved the Government's dipping into different Funds.  Is the way that the Government handles its finances really any different than the way any individual may be handling their personal finances? 

 

[George Wallace]

Sounds good but then you would have to penalise people that go on MATA/PATA more than once, seasonal workers would take a hit as well.

I suppose, but in the case of some seasonal workers, there are thousands of cases where these "seasonal workers" are third or fourth generation EI dependent.  It has become a way of life for some families, and I am not thinking of the Farm workers, nor those in the occupations that are truly Seasonal.  I am thinking of those who only work seasonally, and then "vacation"; otherwise abusing the system.  (Perhaps Welfare Cases would be too strong to use.)  Go back to this interesting case:

I met a lady the other day who says EI is her Right as an Acadian to keep her nation together on their native soil to resist English oppression. That's an interesting reason for generational EI dependence.

 

[Remius]

Not disagreeing with that.  I myself overheard a claimant ask how many weeks he had to work before he could go back on EI again at an HRDC when i was touring them as a recruiter.

We just have to be careful of some things like MATA and true seasonal workers (fisheries is a prime example) that rely on EI to be able to function.

 

[dapaterson]

Fisheries is a bad example. If it's not a viable job, don't prop it up.

 

[George Wallace]

Fisheries is a bad example. If it's not a viable job, don't prop it up.

Do you say the same about Farmers?

 

[Remius]

Fisheries is a bad example. If it's not a viable job, don't prop it up.

Actually you have to look at it from an industry perspective.  It is an industry worth billions in Canada.  And is the economic engine of hundreds if not thousands of communities. The job itself may not be viable but the industry is.  You either need seasonal workers (which leads to EI unfortunately) or you bring in foreign workers.  Either the ressource will be eploited one way or the other.  People are already leaving those comunities to begin with.  Adding EI restrictions on those workers that do stay would potentially cripple the industry.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I am okay with 40% plus of my salary financing general government programs - it comes with citizenship.  I am not okay with financing a specific benefit with contributions tied to that benefit if I will never draw from the fund.

I have never collected, and will never collect EI benefits.  I should be able to opt out of the entire scheme.

Ouch.
Pink Floyd may have said it best....."I'm alright Jack, keep your hands offa my stack."
Consider yourself lucky, many who thought they were golden turned out not to be.....

 

[Lightguns]

Interesting discussion. When I was kid which was about when Trudeau changed the UI system. Seasonal workers worked Planting in the spring, fishing or tree thinning in the summer, picking in the fall and cutting pulp in the winter.  In 74 my uncle had labour shortage on his wood lot. The workers were still around but now they were all snug in their homes on UI. The result was that he like many others bought sliders to keep his business going.  In short maritimers moved to the next job.  An insurance that insures everyone and always pays is doomed to failure in the market place. This insurance survives only by the government raising rates so it can raid it in hard times.

 

[ballz]

I am instinctively in support of privatizing income insurance, but I'd like to do an objective comparison.

I just Googled some stuff about auto insurance companies and had no problems finding the info I needed. However, I am having problems finding it for the Gov't of Canada for some strange reason (I remember this being easy to find last time I tried). Does anyone know where I can get the latest financial sheets (Balance Sheet, Income Statement, Cash Flow, etc) for the Federal Gov't? Or more specifically the EI program?

EDIT to add:

Found some of it... still looking for more info though.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Car insurance is mandatory, I don't see a huge problem if EI is the same.  However, my car insurance premiums are pretty low as I don't purchase comprehensive and I don't get in accidents - I want that same effect with EI.

But you are "rewarded" for safe driving ... well, not really, you are punished for anything the insurance industry regards as less than perfect conduct. In an "employment insurance" scheme I would think that when you achieve a status as, say, a CF member who will go out on a pension which will (it used to, anyway) preclude you ever drawing EI, then I would hope that your EI premiums would be drawn down to near zero. The analog might be a person who has no car: he pays no car insurance premiums. A person who cannot, possibly, collect EI ought not to be required to pay "insurance" premiums either, should (s)he? Of course that never happened to me and I'm guessing it's not happening to PPCLI Guy, either.

 

[Halifax Tar]

But you are "rewarded" for safe driving ... well, not really, you are punished for anything the insurance industry regards as less than perfect conduct. In an "employment insurance" scheme I would think that when you achieve a status as, say, a CF member who will go out on a pension which will (it used to, anyway) preclude you ever drawing EI, then I would hope that your EI premiums would be drawn down to near zero. The analog might be a person who has no car: he pays no car insurance premiums. A person who cannot, possibly, collect EI ought not to be required to pay "insurance" premiums either, should (s)he? Of course that never happened to me and I'm guessing it's not happening to PPCLI Guy, either.

Except for MATA/PATA.  How would that work into the equation ? 

 

[GAP]

But you are "rewarded" for safe driving ... well, not really, you are punished for anything the insurance industry regards as less than perfect conduct. In an "employment insurance" scheme I would think that when you achieve a status as, say, a CF member who will go out on a pension which will (it used to, anyway) preclude you ever drawing EI, then I would hope that your EI premiums would be drawn down to near zero. The analog might be a person who has no car: he pays no car insurance premiums. A person who cannot, possibly, collect EI ought not to be required to pay "insurance" premiums either, should (s)he? Of course that never happened to me and I'm guessing it's not happening to PPCLI Guy, either.

But CF members are eligible for MATA/PATA LEAVE which is EI based. It could still be a lower rate because of what you pointed out, but likely not zero.

 

[larry Strong]

But CF members are eligible for MATA/PATA LEAVE which is EI based. It could still be a lower rate because of what you pointed out, but likely not zero.

When a CF member goes on M/PATA leave, are you on "leave with out pay"? Not trolling, I do not know the answer.


Thanks for your help
Larry

 

[Halifax Tar]

When a CF member goes on M/PATA leave, are you on "leave with out pay"? Not trolling, I do not know the answer.


Thanks for your help
Larry

It seems hazy to me because I still get a portion on my CF pay rate to "top up" EI. 

 

[Strike]

AFAIK, being on MATA/PATA is being on LWOP.  The amount that DND 'tops up' is not considered pay but a benefit, which is why EI is not affected.  That's also why you are not putting anything into either your pension or EI with what DND is giving you.

 

[Brad Sallows]

To reiterate what I've written here before, EI is not properly insurance.  For some people (long-term employed who rarely are out of work) it functionally can be insurance.  Otherwise, it is chiefly a wage subsidy.  I remain unconvinced that a select few categories of workers in certain regions of the country should be able to work less than a year to support themselves for a year, while others must work all year round.  EI is, bluntly, capricious and unfair - something no government entitlement should be.  Economically, it reinforces failure and retards success.

The additional paid social leave entitlements that were grafted on in recent years were introduced because of the surplus funds sloshing around in the pot.  The genuine merits of what those programs deliver are irrelevant; they should have been funded out of general revenues if they are worthwhile and the government should have raised taxes accordingly.

Real unemployment insurance can be purchased as a financial product without the government holding your hand.  Or, you can self-insure (ie. respect the "6" in the 10/10/6 rule - or use 10/10/3 if you are a little stretched).

No-one ineligible to collect should have to contribute.

Benefits should be inaccessible to anyone with less than two years continuous employment.  Premiums paid by anyone terminated with less than two years continuous employment should be refunded.  IOW, you won't get screwed (lose the premiums) if you can't get a proper full-time year-round job, but you won't collect unless you had a proper full-time year-round job.