Today in Canada! pogey train for the "self-employed" ?

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Seems a reasonable plan to me. Of course it remains to be seen if it is truly "self funding".

Not sure why it wouldn't be.  EI premiums have always been a huge cash cow for the government.

Espeically since they started limiting who qualifies, and how much they get.

one area of the government that is always in the black somehow is EI.

[crazy canuck]

Seems a reasonable plan to me. Of course it remains to be seen if it is truly "self funding".

Not sure why it wouldn't be.  EI premiums have always been a huge cash cow for the government.

Espeically since they started limiting who qualifies, and how much they get.

The surpluses occured long before that, which was always the argument against cutting benefits.  The Chretian/Martin Liberals main weapon for eliminating the deficit was EI surpluses.  It was only after the government began running surpluses in general revenues that contribution amounts by both employers and employees were reduced.

[crazy canuck]

I haven't looked into it. I suppose it would depend on the definition of "self employed" and how much they would be expected to pay in. 

Good point.  I wonder how they will handle the fact that there is only one payor here rather then both the employee and employer contributing matching funds.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I haven't looked into it. I suppose it would depend on the definition of "self employed" and how much they would be expected to pay in. 

Good point.  I wonder how they will handle the fact that there is only one payor here rather then both the employee and employer contributing matching funds.

yeah this is why I don't see the self employed getting (without proportionally higher premiums and returns) much in the way of a benefit from the system. I guess if it's only for maternity and such (which makes sense to me) then there will be enough to go around so that said person could get the same as someone who has their employer paying too.... Sask: your cash out every month is going to get higher.

[Josephus]

Good point.  I wonder how they will handle the fact that there is only one payor here rather then both the employee and employer contributing matching funds.

Yeah..i was going to ask about that. EI premiums are subsidized by the employer right? I guess that self-employed would have to pay a larger premium, I imagine.

[Malthus]

Good point.  I wonder how they will handle the fact that there is only one payor here rather then both the employee and employer contributing matching funds.

Yeah..i was going to ask about that. EI premiums are subsidized by the employer right? I guess that self-employed would have to pay a larger premium, I imagine.

But the self-employed aren't getting income replacement, so the benefits are also lower.

[Josephus]

Good point.  I wonder how they will handle the fact that there is only one payor here rather then both the employee and employer contributing matching funds.

Yeah..i was going to ask about that. EI premiums are subsidized by the employer right? I guess that self-employed would have to pay a larger premium, I imagine.

But the self-employed aren't getting income replacement, so the benefits are also lower.

OK. I wasn't aware of that. By income replacment you mean if they lose their jobs? So they'll only claim for maternity leave? What other cases are there? Illness is not covered by EI, that's through health plans.

[crazy canuck]

As I think about this more there are some other factors to consider.

They way I have worked around this is that I have incorporated and I am an employee of my corporation so both my company and I, the employee, make EI contributions.  I also make CPP contributions so I will be intitled to pension benefits in due course.

A lot of people who are not technically employees choose not to set themselves up like this because they have made the decision that it is more tax advantageous for them not to be an employee.  They take the risk of losing benefits but they get the tax gain (although I am not sure how beneficial it is at the end of the day).

Hopefully the costs imposed to buy into the system are equivalent for the cost that I incur for equivalent benefits.

[crazy canuck]

Good point.  I wonder how they will handle the fact that there is only one payor here rather then both the employee and employer contributing matching funds.

Yeah..i was going to ask about that. EI premiums are subsidized by the employer right? I guess that self-employed would have to pay a larger premium, I imagine.

But the self-employed aren't getting income replacement, so the benefits are also lower.

OK. I wasn't aware of that. By income replacment you mean if they lose their jobs? So they'll only claim for maternity leave? What other cases are there? Illness is not covered by EI, that's through health plans.

EI does cover time away from work due to illness fyi.  Not in all cases but the exceptions prove the rule.

[Malthus]

Good point.  I wonder how they will handle the fact that there is only one payor here rather then both the employee and employer contributing matching funds.

Yeah..i was going to ask about that. EI premiums are subsidized by the employer right? I guess that self-employed would have to pay a larger premium, I imagine.

But the self-employed aren't getting income replacement, so the benefits are also lower.

OK. I wasn't aware of that. By income replacment you mean if they lose their jobs? So they'll only claim for maternity leave? What other cases are there? Illness is not covered by EI, that's through health plans.

According to the OP article:

At a press conference in Toronto, Finley said the Conservatives are introducing the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, which would extend Employment Insurance "special benefits, including maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits, to the self-employed."

That means everyone from small business owners to farmers can now access maternity leave, parental and adoptive benefits, and sickness and compassionate care benefits for the first time, though they will not get EI's regular weekly income replacement should they become unemployed.

[Monoriu]

To Mono, a lot of self-employed people have to pay large premiums to self insure for disability benefits to guard against sickness preventing them from working.  This will lessen that burden.

I am surprised that there is such a large demand for this kind of insurance.

I don't have any insurance to guard against a complete loss of income.  If I get cancer tonight and somehow can't work tomorrow, I'll get nothing.  If I die today, my wife will get exactly $0 in insurance money.  I am fine with that.  She is fine with that.

[Ed Anger]

AFLAC rocks.

[Monoriu]

Our past colonial masters used to impose an insurance scheme on all HK civil servants - everybody must give up like US$20 per month, in return for a payout of like half a million US$ in case he/she dies (from whatever reason).  Everybody must join the basic scheme, and there was an option to increase the premium for a higher payout.  My father used to rant about this every few months, and the scheme proved to be so unpopular that it was cancalled just before I joined the civil service. 

[Ed Anger]

Our past colonial masters used to impose an insurance scheme on all HK civil servants - everybody must give up like US$20 per month, in return for a payout of like half a million US$ in case he/she dies (from whatever reason).  Everybody must join the basic scheme, and there was an option to increase the premium for a higher payout.  My father used to rant about this every few months, and the scheme proved to be so unpopular that it was cancalled just before I joined the civil service.

I love having the life insurance backstop. Especially with large metal objects running into me and curbs conspiring to trip and kill me.

[saskganesh]

I haven't looked into it. I suppose it would depend on the definition of "self employed" and how much they would be expected to pay in.  Plus there could be all sorts of administration problems causing expense.

EI is actually more of a payroll tax than an insurance scheme. Everyone who works as an employee pays it, and then still may not qualify if they get laid off, because of "lack of hours, regionally adjusted, in the past year." it doesn't matter if you have been paying for 15 years...it's only the last year that counts.

EI generates about 40-50 billion dollars in revenue every year for the government. it's a very successful program.