Socialism at work here in Beaverdale. I say Yay. great. about time, but don't expect much out of it.
Pogey ain't what it used to be. It ain't that nice acushion, really, except that it will motivate your ass to find a job. What say you Citizen of The World (that is Languish)
Yay or Nae!
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/720351---special-ei-benefits-for-self-employed-to-begin-in-2011?bn=1 (http://www.thestar.com/business/article/720351---special-ei-benefits-for-self-employed-to-begin-in-2011?bn=1)
Quote
'Special' EI benefits for self-employed to begin in 2011
Comment on this story »
Iain Marlow Business Reporter
Published On Tue Nov 03 2009
The federal government has introduced legislation to extend some Employment Insurance benefits to the self-employed, human resources and skills development minister Diane Finley said Tuesday morning.
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.
Opting in would be voluntary, Finley said, and the government expects the program to be largely self-financing, though she was unable to give numbers or predictions based on expected demand.
Canadians could start paying premiums as early as January, at rates essentially frozen at 2009 levels. However, claims wouldn't be able to be paid out until January 2011, well into the recovery and after what many expect to be a record dip in unemployment in2010.
The act follows up on previous Conservative promises to protect the self-employed from the devastation of the current recession.
"About 2.6 million Canadians are self-employed," Finley said in a release. "The self-employed have had little or no income protection to cope with major life events, such as giving birth, caring for a newborn or newly adopted child, being sick or injured, or caring for a gravely ill family member."
The new legislation, if passed, would provide maternity benefits (up to 15 weeks), parental and adoptive benefits (up to 35 weeks), sickness benefits (up to 15 weeks), and compassionate care benefits (up to 6 weeks). These are the same benefits available to working Canadians.
"Farmers will be happy to hear this," said Richard Phillips, executive director of the Grain Growers of Canada, who was present, noting that farmers and their spouses are considered self-employed
Sure, why not. Don't know if an actuarially fair, self-financing system of benefits really qualifies as socialism though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2009, 09:59:08 PM
Sure, why not. Don't know if an actuarially fair, self-financing system of benefits really qualifies as socialism though.
It was a sarcastic use of the term. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2009, 09:59:08 PM
Sure, why not. Don't know if an actuarially fair, self-financing system of benefits really qualifies as socialism though.
I love how you justify the good things socialism has brought. :D
Anyways, to the point. Yeah, why not. If they opt in, they should qualify for it.
I don't understand. Is this some sort of insurance scheme run by the government? Say, if I join, I'll have to pay a premium. Then, when an event comes along (e.g. we have a baby, our business is closed etc), we get some money from the scheme?
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2009, 11:15:27 PM
I don't understand. Is this some sort of insurance scheme run by the government? Say, if I join, I'll have to pay a premium. Then, when an event comes along (e.g. we have a baby, our business is closed etc), we get some money from the scheme?
ideally yes... but there's often a catch. lots of forms and whimsical bureaucrat reforms happening constantly ( ie less money every year, less chance of qualifying unless you are Newfoundese.)
My question is, if this thing is able to be self-financed and self-sustained, how come the private market doesn't come up with these policies already? There is a good chance that the government cannot reduce the payout or raise the premiums if necessary. Another thing is, the purpose of an insurance is to guard against unexpected events which the insured have little control over. But this policy covers things like adopting a child and having a baby. These events are almost entirely within the control of the insured. What stops me from joining the scheme just before I decide to have a child and then claim the benefit?
Quote from: Josephus on November 03, 2009, 11:06:30 PM
I love how you justify the good things socialism has brought. :D
I don't follow. :huh:
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2009, 11:38:40 PM
My question is, if this thing is able to be self-financed and self-sustained, how come the private market doesn't come up with these policies already? There is a good chance that the government cannot reduce the payout or raise the premiums if necessary. Another thing is, the purpose of an insurance is to guard against unexpected events which the insured have little control over. But this policy covers things like adopting a child and having a baby. These events are almost entirely within the control of the insured. What stops me from joining the scheme just before I decide to have a child and then claim the benefit?
Like with most insurances, you need to have been paying premiums for a minimum time before you can qualify.
In Canada, the minimum amount of work time, I think, is a year. So, for instance, if I get a job today, haven't worked before, and get fired tomorrow, I don't qualify.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 03, 2009, 11:38:40 PM
My question is, if this thing is able to be self-financed and self-sustained, how come the private market doesn't come up with these policies already? There is a good chance that the government cannot reduce the payout or raise the premiums if necessary. Another thing is, the purpose of an insurance is to guard against unexpected events which the insured have little control over. But this policy covers things like adopting a child and having a baby. These events are almost entirely within the control of the insured. What stops me from joining the scheme just before I decide to have a child and then claim the benefit?
Because the market base is too thin.
The government already cover this for workers, but it won't cover employers/self-employed people.
Having an insurance program just for these people, assuming, say 30-40% are interested in joining, there's really not enough people in this situation to justify the insurance plan.
And as the article says, you can start paying in 2010, but can't claim until 2011.
A much needed reform. Buddha, this has less to do with giving pogey to self employed people that become unemployed than giving sick and maternity benefits to people who are actively self employed.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2009, 11:58:56 AM
A much needed reform. Buddha, this has less to do with giving pogey to self employed people that become unemployed than giving sick and maternity benefits to people who are actively self employed.
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.
Yeah, story says self-employed will not be eligible for income replacement on unemployment.
Seems a reasonable plan to me. Of course it remains to be seen if it is truly "self funding".
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:14:53 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2009, 12:25:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:14:53 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2009, 12:25:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:14:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 12:30:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2009, 12:25:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:14:53 PM
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.
:yes: one area of the government that is always in the black somehow is EI.
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 12:30:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2009, 12:25:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:14:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:29:23 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2009, 01:14:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:29:23 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2009, 01:14:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2009, 01:14:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 02:32:12 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2009, 01:14:58 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 02:42:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 02:32:12 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2009, 01:14:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 02:42:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 02:32:12 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 02:20:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2009, 01:14:58 PM
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:
QuoteAt 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 04, 2009, 11:58:56 AM
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.
AFLAC rocks.
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.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 04, 2009, 08:47:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:29:23 PM
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. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:29:23 PM
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.
as per your tax declaration, I suppose.
Employment income VS Business income.
Plus the little things like being registered as an employer for source deductions and contributions.
Possibly being registered for GST+PST (above 30k revenues it's mandatory).
Basically, the same criterias already used for tax purposes. The same ones they use to deny you unemployment payments even if you paid your premiums.
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 02:20:22 PM
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.
Employer pay 1.4x what the employees pay.
The way it's gonna work, is I think the same as RRQ (Régie des Rentes du Québec/RPC in Canada), is that the self-employ will pay both amounts, assuming he pays himself a salary.
Quote from: Josephus on November 04, 2009, 02:42:41 PM
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.
It is covered. And you can get your 2 weeks wait at the end of your subsidy period instead of the beginning.
Quote from: saskganesh on November 05, 2009, 05:52:31 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 04, 2009, 12:29:23 PM
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. ;)
ya, this has always irked me a bit. If I got laid off tomorrow in a way that qualified me for EI (Unlikely to happen) I'd still have to wait six weeks for my less than 50% of earnings from the last year. I would have no choice but to get a job before a cheque ever got close to me.
waste of my money every month really.