54 billion stolen by the government!

[samsquench07]

The story is this. Canadian Taxpayers federation found out the government had an EI surplus in 2008 of 54 Billion, yes billion.

The feds decided to pass a bill to take that 54 billion and pay off bills, and make it disappear, yes make it disappear. gone

At the same time our EI premiums rose 28 % even though we had a 54 billion dollar surplus. Basically that is our money as Canadians for EI, and the feds stole it.

Apparently Stephen Harper did say it won't happen again

How do you feel about this?

[36Drew]

I think our EI system is entirely broken and useless and would simply rather not have to deal with paying into it. I'd rather keep my own money and manage it myself, thank you.

[Bsuds]

I think our EI system is entirely broken and useless and would simply rather not have to deal with paying into it. I'd rather keep my own money and manage it myself, thank you.

There are too many people who work seasonal jobs and rely on the system to survive.

[hobbyguy]

The EI system used to work. It was supposed to be the "I" part, as in "insurance". You paid in, and if you got laid off, you got up to 52 weeks.

In this case, it was Paul Martin who messed it up. Turning the premiums into just another tax. Harper made noises about returning things toward the status of the old UI program, but guess what, once in power - he and Flaherty have made it worse.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/government-broke-law-on-ei-financing-in-3-years-top-court-1.750084 and http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/flahertys-planned-surplus-relies-on-keeping-ei-rates-too-high-watchdog-says/article15781473/

Both are wrong in doing this. UI was an effective program for the middle class. It was also much more efficient that the EI program - if you paid your premiums, and showed your claim was legit, you got your benefits without all the hooping around and extra bureaucrats involved today. Yup, some changes were in order due to abuse, but not turning it into the sham it is today.

[Captain Awesome]

Basically that is our money as Canadians for EI

If this was our money, and they paid our bills with it, is it really stealing?

[Gone_Fishin]

If this was our money, and they paid our bills with it, is it really stealing?

That makes too much sense to be taken seriously by the leftist fear-mongerers. There's a huge disconnect between the line on a pay deductions statement as to where that money goes.

You'd think the leftists would be rejoicing in the fact that companies pay 1.4 times as much as their employees into the EI premium fund...would people rather the expenses be covered by their income taxes, which are not matched by employers? Think about it for a minute.

[Woodenhead]

If EI did have that much of a surplus, I'd say the system is working great. Perhaps too well, even. Why raise rates if it generated that big a surplus as it was? And if the government used that surplus to turn around the budget deficit, I'd say it was an effective measure, albeit quite disingenuous + 1-time-only. Basically, that amounts to taking extra cash generated by previous administration's policies, and claiming it as their own policy initiative/result. Happens all the time, though.

If the story is even true. Personally I don't really care either way. Politics suck, I hate both sides, whatever.

[36Drew]

There are too many people who work seasonal jobs and rely on the system to survive.

I don't care. It's a system that I pay in to to insure my earnings, not theirs. It doesn't provide me with anything usable. I have an in-demand skillset, and it pays a weekly maximum that's less than a day's salary. It's a bad investment no matter how you slice it.

[LoneWolf_53]

There are too many people who work seasonal jobs and rely on the system to survive.

I don't care. It's a system that I pay in to to insure my earnings, not theirs. It doesn't provide me with anything usable. I have an in-demand skillset, and it pays a weekly maximum that's less than a day's salary. It's a bad investment no matter how you slice it.

It's "insurance" not an investment, so is there some aspect of that concept you're missing?

The hope as with any insurance, is that you won't have to use it, so unless the day comes that your situation takes a turn for the worse, there isn't supposed to be anything in it for you.

I could just as easily point to ICBC and say they aren't providing me with anything useful, as I haven't had the need to use them.

[36Drew]

I don't care. It's a system that I pay in to to insure my earnings, not theirs. It doesn't provide me with anything usable. I have an in-demand skillset, and it pays a weekly maximum that's less than a day's salary. It's a bad investment no matter how you slice it.

It's "insurance" not an investment, so is there some aspect of that concept you're missing?

The hope as with any insurance, is that you won't have to use it, so unless the day comes that your situation takes a turn for the worse, there isn't supposed to be anything in it for you.

I could just as easily point to ICBC and say they aren't providing me with anything useful, as I haven't had the need to use them.

Insurance absolutely is an investment. It's a risk management plan in which you're investing money (your EI contribution) in order to transfer risk from yourself to another (the government). What part of *that* do you not understand? The problem I have with EI is that, as I stated, is entirely and completely useless to me. I have my own savings, and I make far more than it can even insure. At least in places like the EU, for example, I could indeed insure my entire earnings and not some arbitrary maximum of $48k/year (of which you only get 55% in "benefits"). Screw that. I have my own savings. If you, as a berry picker or gas jockey, can't figure out how to be responsible and save up your own money then that's just simply not my problem or anybody else's. For those that would be absolutely destitute, there's Welfare.

As for ICBC - the basic mandatory insurance is liability insurance. It's a reasonable trade-off made by means of legislation that if you are going to use public highways with your vehicle and be at risk of causing serious injury to others, you should be able to at least pay for that injury or damage. Additionally, you can purchase optional insurance to cover off whatever value you wish to declare, and and absolute minimum deductible for collision or comprehensive damages. You have a choice as to how little or how much you want to pay for your vehicle insurance. You can opt only for the bare minimum to ensure you don't cause harm or damage to society, or you can fully insure yourself so that you can drive your car off a cliff and have ICBC pay the full shot.

EI isn't insurance in the least. It's another form of public welfare that's grossly abused, overrated, and in reality useless for most.

[Gone_Fishin]

A person gets back > their yearly contribution to EI with only two weeks of benefits. Insurance with premiums at only 4% of payout is a pretty damned good deal!

[samsquench07]

Basically that is our money as Canadians for EI

If this was our money, and they paid our bills with it, is it really stealing?

In my opinion and view, yes it is stealing, because the reality is they are not paying our bills, our infrastructure... They keep grossly overspending on lobster and fancy hotel rooms and things that don't need to be purchased. Peter McKay flying around in the jet on vacation is one that comes to mind.

[samsquench07]

If its called EI, it should be used for insurance only. If you have a surplus, great.... always keep a surplus. if the surplus gets to big, how about dropping the rate for a few years.

Otherwise the method the government does, it becomes not an insurance benefit, but more a tax grab so they can continue reckless spending. $20 dollar orange juice is what ive always wanted to pay as a Canadian. Its the Canadian dream

[Captain Awesome]

They keep grossly overspending on lobster and fancy hotel rooms and things that don't need to be purchased.

Meh. As soon as they cut something, the general public like a proverbial PMS-ing cow starts mooing and disagreeing about cutting services.

Can't please idiots. I mean general public.

[hobbyguy]

CA - you miss the point. UI, Unemployment insurance, or EI employment insurance. It was set up to provide a mechanism to spread the risk of losing your job. The intent was that over time, it would be revenue neutral. Working folks paid "x" for premiums, and got "y" for benefits. Employers paid "x" for premiums, and in return, employees laid off for short periods did not rush off and look for employment elsewhere, thus giving business some return in not having the expense of training new employees. Surplus funds were built up as a reserve precisely so that during a recession, the system would not have to dip into general revenues, and if the surplus amount was large enough and the circumstances warranted, then benefits could be extended to keep money flowing in the economy. That's a win-win because it keeps demand up for businesses.

When you arbitrarily dip into that surplus for general revenue, or arbitrarily knock down benefits, or raise premiums for the purpose of general revenue, then you destroy the inherent values of the system.

Those basic inherent values, as intended, were:

1. A social safety net.
2. An incentive for workers to take jobs that may not be 100% stable.
3. An automatic business cycle stabilizer.

That was a win-win-win. Workers had a fall back. Businesses had more stable markets. Governments had an economic stimulus that kicked in with no effect on general revenues/budgets. UI was much more than a benefit for workers, it provided benefits for business, and benefits for the government of the day.

Paul Martin, much as I admire some of the things he did for Canada, erred significantly on this issue. Harper and Flaherty, instead of reversing that error - which they had rightly criticized, are destroying a valuable system by doubling down on the very error they criticized.

Harper/Flaherty are doing so for political expediency. They have gone overboard with their corporate tax cuts and other tax cuts, and so are using EI premiums as a "hidden tax" to cover for their other errors. In doing so, they are imposing a regressive tax on small business and working folks.

Bad policy. And bad policy driven by their own intent to get re-elected, not with an intent to make Canada a better country. The worst kind of bad policy.