I did answer your fundamental objection. You are eligible to be covered if you meet the reasonable requirements - even through multiple sources of pt employment. You do not do so by choice because you have immigrated to Canada and do not need to work.
If you object to paying the $12/month or so for EI benefits, the alternative is to work for fun as an independent contractor. You can meet the CRA test for this if you are doing gardening. Govern yourself accordingly instead of complaining about unfairness.
Same question as I asked Daleth - why should any person be forced to subsidise people who are eligible claimants?
Because at the start of any given 52-week period, there is no way to know which people are going to work enough hours for an employer to qualify. In other words you don't know UNTIL A PERSON FILES A CLAIM whether they worked enough in the previous 52 weeks to qualify--because there is no "previous 52 weeks" to measure until they file a claim. Everyone pays in up front because no one knows much in advance whether, or when, they're going to file a claim.
Even if you shout from the rooftops that in the next 52 weeks you're not going to work enough to qualify, no way, no how, circumstances could change: as but one example, what if the biggest client(s) for your freelance work go out of business or change vendors? What if your efforts to land new clients aren't working? What if your wife also loses her job, or wants to be a SAHM or go back to school? I'm guessing you'd try to increase your hours at your other gig (perhaps just as a stopgap measure, but your intention is irrelevant--all that matters for qualification purposes is how many hours you worked, not why you worked them).
And that is true of everyone. There actually isn't a way to operate a functioning EI system without both (1) making everyone pay AS THEY GO, not just at the end of the year, and (2) NOT reimbursing people who failed to qualify at the end of the year, because EI doesn't operate on a calendar-year or fiscal-year basis--it operates on a "previous 52 weeks" basis, i.e., on the basis of how many hours you worked in the 52 weeks preceding the date on which you filed a claim (and it has to work that way: what if someone gets laid off in, say, March 2014, after working full time for 12 months and being a student or stay-at-home parent from January to March 2013? If you evaluate their claim based on the hours worked in 2013, they won't qualify--even though they've been working full time for twelve solid months).
Honestly, if you're going to be so passionate and vociferous--if you're going to spend this much time arguing about something--wouldn't it be more productive to find something that MATTERS to argue about, rather than simmering with rage over $12/month that helps other people in the country where you live?
To my mind it should not - private enterprise should own profit making business, the government should provide services and tax things.
We all live in countries whose systems we are not in total agreement with. Welcome to reality. The only way to have a government that some part of the population agrees with in every detail is to have a dictatorship--those in power will support it in every detail and those not in power won't. In other words, welcome to democracy.
Again, thanks for the measured reply, I appreciate it.
Pay as you go - fine, I get that. In fact, I'd (if I was going to work) prefer nothing more than to not have to do a tax return at all, knowing that all deductions were made as I went along - just as it is in the UK for most people.
And I agree, the one problem with my plan is that EI works on a rolling 52 weeks, not a (tax) year by year basis. Actually I would fundamentally redo EI - IMHO it shouldn't be based on your earnings, but rather a set, means-tested amount, again as in the UK. If you have more than $x in savings, you can't claim. And it should just be part of general taxation, paid by everyone including me the self employed person. Parental benefit would be a bit better.
As to finding something else to argue about.. sure, but bear in mind the original post took all of 2 minutes, and if you read it through you'll see it's not exactly "rrrargh I hate Canada". There are plenty of things I disagree with, plenty I prefer here, etc. I have *much* more rage about the Ontario gas plant mismanagement/seat saving nonsense, the military cost overruns and obfuscation, the oiliness of being a senator... but those are corruption and political issues. My points are structural, though I admit the lines are blurred.
Finally - $12 here, $12 there, it all adds up. And it's not about my particular $12 - it's that I think the structure is wrong. Yes, there are many loopholes, problems, and some no doubt work for me. I'm certainly not losing any sleep over it. And I think both the federal government and the provincial government are *very* generous - GST rebates, UCCB, OAS, GIS, etc. That, also, is not the point.
Interestingly, your point about 52 weeks - it works incorrectly like that for things like UCCB, I think. So, my wife is on mat leave now, and once the child is born we'll put in our claim for UCCB and whatever else - that will work on last tax year's earnings, right? Not the last 52 weeks. I did a lot more work last year than this, but until ~June next year we'll be getting that benefit based on our earnings in 2012! So we'll end up with maybe $50 a month less until the middle of next year. I don't mind either way - anything > $0 is great, free money! - but if it works like that for EI, shouldn't it work like that for other things too?
Honestly I was looking for a bit of discussion, but it seems like, in respect to EI at least, it is a
strongly respected piece of the state. That is a good piece of knowledge to have.
*Edit* regarding your last point "welcome to democracy" - but part of that is being able to talk about wanting to change parts of it, no? I mean, I'd love to get rid of "First Past the Post" as an electoral system. Sadly they... totally screwed up that debate in the UK, and the current system will stay for probably another generation without further debate. Now, that's fine in that there was a referendum and people voted how they voted, but the campaigning was dodgy. Anyway. "Welcome to reality"... yeah, I'm an idealist, still making things up as I go along as to what is "right" and what is not. Does that in itself make me a bad person..? Because that's how this thread is making me feel!