Things that make me mad (tax, Canada)

[daverobev]

EI - "Employment Insurance".

The word insurance usually means something where it is possible to claim it. I will have paid a small amount of EI this year, but because the number of hours I've worked will be under the number needed before you are allowed to claim, it is *impossible* for me to claim. I want my money back!

CPP - Canada Pension Plan. I'm not a Citizen, I'm self employed, and I'm near as damnit retired - but because I'm self employed I will be paying 10% (4.95% on 'both sides', ie as the 'employer' and 'employee') into a completely useless pension system (for me) - I will get ~2 years contribution.

Ontario talking about CPP rates rising - they are *out of their fucking minds*. The thing is, it's a percentage! As wages - and hence inflation - go up, CPP amounts will rise naturally - no need to tinker. If you work in Canada, you make CPP payments, and when you get old enough they pay you out - great! About $12k a year (PLUS other stuff too) - if you get to 67 or whatever and you have NO OTHER SAVED MONEY you are going to get OAS+GIS as a minimum (=$1k a month!!), and if you have worked AT ALL you will get more than that.

If you want more money in retirement you should fucking well save for it - the government shouldn't be taking it automatically!

(I know - there are very good reasons for CPP, and partially it is so the tax payer doesn't end up on the hook - and it's fine as it is, but don't *raise* it because people are too stupid to save! IOW - get your hands off my damn money!).

Nanny state (that's what we call it in the UK).

I don't know. I'm so torn - on one hand, yes, make it better for the complete numpties who spend every cent of every paycheque, so they CANNOT be in poverty when they retire. But OTOH, piss off and let me manage my own money - I can do MUCH BETTER for myself than some arse goverment that a) cancels power plants to win elections costing a mind-blowing $1billion, b) (Federal) spends half a million on accountants auditing their own crooked appointees - ie, 4x the amount that was probably claimed fraudulently.

Finally - the fact the Province of Ontario owns Hydro One (electricity supplier) and LCBO (the only place in Ontario, pretty much, you can buy alcohol) makes me livid. Yes, folks, in the year 2013 you cannot buy beer in the supermarket here. It blows my mind. Basically it acts as a massive extra tax on stuff.

Ugh!

Ok, rant over. Feel free to correct me, or post your own rants (and yes I do know there are various reasons for various things, and some of them benefit some people some of the time, etc - these are things that drive ME crazy but might actually be good. Maybe!)

[Griff]

I'm no expert but I thought, as a self employed person, you could opt out of EI contributions:
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/sc/ei/sew/cancelling.shtml

As for CPP, Canada has agreements in place with certain countries (including the UK) so that years of work in another country can count towards the eligibility requirements for benefits in Canada (and vice versa if you move from Canada to another country). You might be able to get a benefit out of CPP after all:
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/services/pensions/international/examples.shtml

[Thespoof]

I'm self employed and do not pay EI. I pay myself a paycheque so I get a T4 just like regular employees. Because of that I personally pay CPP and my company pays an equal portion of CPP. I believe the only way for a self employed person to not pay CPP is to pay yourself dividends not a salary.  I ran the numbers on a tax basis and paying myself a dividend would not save squat in taxes but I would save the CPP. I opted to go the salary route to have RRSP eligibility.

On the side though, we Canadians pay WAY too much tax. It is largely squandered on our socialist system to care for the deadbeats, the self imposed unhealthy people, and massive government and their crooked ways. It makes me very angry that I am forced to hand over half of my earnings to these greedy, incompetent pricks.

[daverobev]

Thanks - good info. Re my UK pension - I think I'd rather take the pension from the UK, but there is no way of knowing how that'll all be in 40-odd years!

Re EI, dividends etc - I was doing a very minor paid job here (growing food for my wife's charity), so the total amount I earned as an employee is very small. Most of my income is from self-employed work but.. I forget the nomenclature - it counts as services, so I couldn't incorporate or anything - so I'm stuck with what I'm doing.

But the same still stands - if I'm not going to be eligible to *receive* CPP, I should not have to pay it (or at the very least be able to claim a refund at some point).

[GuitarStv]

Government ownership of the liquor stores in Ontario is one of the best thing the province has ever done.  It's a cash cow that provides money for the social programs we all use.  The best part is, it's a completely voluntary sin tax.  If you don't want to pay into that tax, just don't drink stuff they sell.

The LCBO is not the only place you can buy liquor in Ontario, there's also 'The Beer Store', and many people make their own wine/beer at home.

I never understood the reasoning behind the conservatives purchasing Ontario Hydro and then forcing the people of Ontario to assume the massive debts that the company had incurred, so I'm kinda with you on that one.

[daverobev]

Government ownership of the liquor stores in Ontario is one of the best thing the province has ever done.  It's a cash cow that provides money for the social programs we all use.  The best part is, it's a completely voluntary sin tax.  If you don't want to pay into that tax, just don't drink stuff they sell.

The LCBO is not the only place you can buy liquor in Ontario, there's also 'The Beer Store', and many people make their own wine/beer at home.

I never understood the reasoning behind the conservatives purchasing Ontario Hydro and then forcing the people of Ontario to assume the massive debts that the company had incurred, so I'm kinda with you on that one.

I guess this comes down to what you feel the government is for. I do not believe the govt should act in this way; there is no difference between, say, caffeine, and alcohol - it is just *wrong* for the government to provide the only outlet.

Beer Store - yeah sorry I just kinda lump them together. To add insult to injury - I can only by Old Speckled Hen at the LCBO, but I have to go to the Beer Store to get my deposit back on the cans.

I do understand the counter argument - look at Scotland, the alcoholism rate is no doubt fuelled by the abundance of cheap booze at the supermarkets.

And - I don't even drink very often, it really is the principle of the thing.

[tomatoprincess]

The bottle return makes me mad too, it's a small fee that the incentive to return the bottle is not high enough...but the government still collects money on it.

[danzabar]

some hardcore conservative nonsense in this thread! Wow infuriating.
If you have absolutely no concept of the positive influence of social programs on people's lives and how we benefit overall from those services perhaps you can get out of this country and go somewhere else where people pay no taxes. You are in one of the wealthiest countries on earth with fantastic medical care, I know when I've been very sick (through no direct fault of my own) that having free health care was a literal life saver.
Seriously, if you really think people who are poor/sick/addicted/helpless are the ones to be blamed then you are drinking the harper coolaid and have lost touch with reality.

[daverobev]

some hardcore conservative nonsense in this thread! Wow infuriating.
If you have absolutely no concept of the positive influence of social programs on people's lives and how we benefit overall from those services perhaps you can get out of this country and go somewhere else where people pay no taxes. You are in one of the wealthiest countries on earth with fantastic medical care, I know when I've been very sick (through no direct fault of my own) that having free health care was a literal life saver.
Seriously, if you really think people who are poor/sick/addicted/helpless are the ones to be blamed then you are drinking the harper coolaid and have lost touch with reality.

Re-read the OP; nothing I said has ANYTHING to do with what you are going on about. CPP and EI are NOTHING to do with health care; I'm British, and I fully support the NHS; I wish the extent of health services in Canada was better not worse (ie, opticians and dentists should be covered because they are health issues).

Jesus, I wasn't expecting a totally unrelated political rant!

[cbgg]

Ha!  If you think the Canadian tax system sucks, just work on moving to the USA.  That's what I'm doing right now and it's the WORST!  Why, for the love of god, do they have to make everything so dang complicated?  At least in Canada people are EMPOWERED to save for the future through tax savings vehicles that are easy to use. 

Regarding the liquor store - not convenient for consumers, but an extremely efficient form of taxation.  It's better to tax (aka, disincentivise) the things you don't want.  But then, since the demand for alcohol is fairly inelastic, it doesn't have too drastic an effect on demand.  Although I do wonder, couldn't they impart the same tax but allow distribution through other retailers, thus cutting out the retailing costs?  I guess that ignores margin considerations...

[Gerard]

Jesus, I wasn't expecting a totally unrelated political rant!

But, but, your OP was a political rant! What *were* you expecting? "Gosh, dude, you're right, I never realized how much all these things suck, so I'm going to stop paying for them!"? :-)

[daverobev]

Jesus, I wasn't expecting a totally unrelated political rant!

But, but, your OP was a political rant! What *were* you expecting? "Gosh, dude, you're right, I never realized how much all these things suck, so I'm going to stop paying for them!"? :-)

Argument, or debate - usually follows the format:

I posit "a" because x, y, z
I reject your "a" because p, q, r

Not

I posit "a" because x, y, z
I reject "gerbils" because "fuck Harper!"

:)

'Twas a political rant, but not party political - which is most of the problem, I think, too much "I HATE CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS OR THOSE DAMN SEPARATISTS!!!11"

Truth is all the parties have some bits that are good, some that are ridiculous, and most of *their* arguments are.. not what they seem which drives me absolutely insane. How can you have a sensible debate on things when everything is reduced to the absurd? There is *some* justification to having a party that protects Quebec's French history and culture - because nobody wants it to disappear, but OTOH it has to be held in balance, right? (Unless separation which.. I think is a bad thing on the whole, just like I think Scotland leaving the UK would be bad).

My other thought - about the alcohol thing - I have no issue with the ON govt getting the money. I just don't think they should be in the business of selling the stuff to consumers - that's the job of supermarkets. Anyone should be able to apply for a license to sell alcohol, and if they meet whatever tests (I don't know, whatever they use in the UK, or in Quebec?), then work away.

[daverobev]

Ha!  If you think the Canadian tax system sucks, just work on moving to the USA.  That's what I'm doing right now and it's the WORST!  Why, for the love of god, do they have to make everything so dang complicated?  At least in Canada people are EMPOWERED to save for the future through tax savings vehicles that are easy to use. 

Regarding the liquor store - not convenient for consumers, but an extremely efficient form of taxation.  It's better to tax (aka, disincentivise) the things you don't want.  But then, since the demand for alcohol is fairly inelastic, it doesn't have too drastic an effect on demand.  Although I do wonder, couldn't they impart the same tax but allow distribution through other retailers, thus cutting out the retailing costs?  I guess that ignores margin considerations...

I think the fact certain companies lobby to keep the US tax code so complicated it outrageous. No doubt the same is true in Canada. I know that the UK system is FAR better - most people DO NOT FILL IN a tax return. Now, I have to as I have rental income in the UK, but even so the UK tax return is a walk in the park!

Seems there's a lot of talk of Roths and 401s and all sorts, so I just assumed the US system was at least comparable to the Canadian?

[mr. T]

Be happy you don't live in Holland. Taxes are high over here and government services are mediocre at best. Enormous amounts of money are just squandered. When they built a high-speed rail line from Amsterdam to the border, they also built a huge, very expensive tunnel under farmland. Obviously we don't have enough farmland over here... Just one example.

There is no end to government construction projects that go way over budget. I will only mention the new Amsterdam metro line that also caused a lot of damage to historical buildings.

Earlier this year there was a big burglary in a major museum. The authorities suspected the burglars to be highly skilled professionals, since the alarm didn't go, the guards had seen nothing and they stole very valuable paintings. Turned out that it was just a couple of Romanian low-lives who simply forced the back door and nicked a couple of small, transportable paintings. It's hard to beat that kind of incompetence.

Pensions: we have compulsory enrollment into company pension funds. The funds are tied to the employer, you have no choice whatsoever and the only way to go to another fund is changing jobs. The funds are run by trade unions and employers. The unions are supposed to represent the employees, although they have membership of < 10%, heavily concentrated in government and semi-govenment sectors. Retirees are not represented at all. If you don't like their investment policy or cost base: bad luck. You can only hand in your money and hope for the best. And that is when you are lucky: if you're unlucky your employer has outsourced the pensions to an insurer that of course charges ridiculous "costs" for sub-par investment funds. Again, only way to get out is changing jobs.

There are almost no tax-incentived long-term saving plans. The only one I know of is a tax-deferred savings account. Of course the rules are so restrictive, that it's not worth the trouble. Doing anything long term in a government sponsored plan is unwise anyway, because the chance it will be abolished in the short term is close to 100%.

We have an enormous amount of gas in the ground, one of the largest seaports in the world and a major airport. Still the country is not richer than say Denmark, which lacks all this. Taxation is high, still the government runs consistently high deficits and is heavily indebted. Taxation on petrol, alcohol and energy are absurd. For you Americans: here petrol costs €1.8 per litre, which is €6.813 per gallon, which is $9.19 per gallon. More than half the energy bill is tax.

<end political rant>

[daverobev]

Be happy you don't live in Holland. Taxes are high over here and government services are mediocre at best. Enormous amounts of money are just squandered. When they built a high-speed rail line from Amsterdam to the border, they also built a huge, very expensive tunnel under farmland. Obviously we don't have enough farmland over here... Just one example.

There is no end to government construction projects that go way over budget. I will only mention the new Amsterdam metro line that also caused a lot of damage to historical buildings.

Earlier this year there was a big burglary in a major museum. The authorities suspected the burglars to be highly skilled professionals, since the alarm didn't go, the guards had seen nothing and they stole very valuable paintings. Turned out that it was just a couple of Romanian low-lives who simply forced the back door and nicked a couple of small, transportable paintings. It's hard to beat that kind of incompetence.

Pensions: we have compulsory enrollment into company pension funds. The funds are tied to the employer, you have no choice whatsoever and the only way to go to another fund is changing jobs. The funds are run by trade unions and employers. The unions are supposed to represent the employees, although they have membership of < 10%, heavily concentrated in government and semi-govenment sectors. Retirees are not represented at all. If you don't like their investment policy or cost base: bad luck. You can only hand in your money and hope for the best. And that is when you are lucky: if you're unlucky your employer has outsourced the pensions to an insurer that of course charges ridiculous "costs" for sub-par investment funds. Again, only way to get out is changing jobs.

There are almost no tax-incentived long-term saving plans. The only one I know of is a tax-deferred savings account. Of course the rules are so restrictive, that it's not worth the trouble. Doing anything long term in a government sponsored plan is unwise anyway, because the chance it will be abolished in the short term is close to 100%.

We have an enormous amount of gas in the ground, one of the largest seaports in the world and a major airport. Still the country is not richer than say Denmark, which lacks all this. Taxation is high, still the government runs consistently high deficits and is heavily indebted. Taxation on petrol, alcohol and energy are absurd. For you Americans: here petrol costs €1.8 per litre, which is €6.813 per gallon, which is $9.19 per gallon. More than half the energy bill is tax.

<end political rant>

Interesting. I know there has been political unrest with the right coming back in lately. My old company in the UK is now.. well, merged in with a Dutch company. The UK is certainly having a time of it with military cost overruns, and I can't see this new "HS2" going well. Cutting the travel time from Birmingham to London just seems stupid - they should do the second bits first, the B'ham-London bit is already pretty damn good!

I certainly didn't know... how poor the pension thing is. The UK has the *awesome* ISA, as well as a variety of pension choices. Canada has both RRSP and TFSA which are excellent places to save up.

Tax here is about 30c a litre I think, petrol round here is $1.22. More expensive than much of the US but still pretty 'good'. Depending on how you look at it - carbon emissions in Canada are insane!

OTOH - how much is a 'small beer' where you are? Because a pint in a bar here is $8-10!

[cbgg]

Ha!  If you think the Canadian tax system sucks, just work on moving to the USA.  That's what I'm doing right now and it's the WORST!  Why, for the love of god, do they have to make everything so dang complicated?  At least in Canada people are EMPOWERED to save for the future through tax savings vehicles that are easy to use. 

Regarding the liquor store - not convenient for consumers, but an extremely efficient form of taxation.  It's better to tax (aka, disincentivise) the things you don't want.  But then, since the demand for alcohol is fairly inelastic, it doesn't have too drastic an effect on demand.  Although I do wonder, couldn't they impart the same tax but allow distribution through other retailers, thus cutting out the retailing costs?  I guess that ignores margin considerations...

I think the fact certain companies lobby to keep the US tax code so complicated it outrageous. No doubt the same is true in Canada. I know that the UK system is FAR better - most people DO NOT FILL IN a tax return. Now, I have to as I have rental income in the UK, but even so the UK tax return is a walk in the park!

Seems there's a lot of talk of Roths and 401s and all sorts, so I just assumed the US system was at least comparable to the Canadian?

The Canadian system is clean and simple in comparison to the US system.

I think that you comments on CPP and EI are more related to your political/social leanings rather than the tax system itself.  Some people (most Canadians) believe in making contributions to a centralized EI and CPP system as they see it as a social good, even if they know that they may not directly benefit.  Some (you, it seems) do not.  It's not a tax system issue.  Although as other posters have said, I do believe you can opt out of some of these contributions if you are self employed. 

[mr. T]

[...]

Interesting. I know there has been political unrest with the right coming back in lately. My old company in the UK is now.. well, merged in with a Dutch company. The UK is certainly having a time of it with military cost overruns, and I can't see this new "HS2" going well. Cutting the travel time from Birmingham to London just seems stupid - they should do the second bits first, the B'ham-London bit is already pretty damn good!

I certainly didn't know... how poor the pension thing is. The UK has the *awesome* ISA, as well as a variety of pension choices. Canada has both RRSP and TFSA which are excellent places to save up.

Tax here is about 30c a litre I think, petrol round here is $1.22. More expensive than much of the US but still pretty 'good'. Depending on how you look at it - carbon emissions in Canada are insane!

OTOH - how much is a 'small beer' where you are? Because a pint in a bar here is $8-10!

Don't get me started on the high speed rail stupidity. Originally they built the line for the connection to Brussels and Paris (Thalys) and London (Eurostar). Fair enough, it makes sense on those connections. But then, they also wanted high speed links from Amsterdam via Rotterdam to Brussels, and of course also The Hague and Breda wanted to be connected. So they started the Fyra service. The Dutch rail company didn't want to look like a French or German subsidiary, so they didn't buy the proven French or German trains, but a brand new Italian design. It failed miserably (never buy version 1.0). The trains were not designed for winter conditions and broke down in the snow. Now the contract is cancelled and law suits are in progress. I also suspect the Belgians to play a double game, because they are shareholder in Thalys (Dutch rail isn't).

As an alternative, Dutch rail wants to run conventional trains on the high speed line for the short-distance service. But now Parliament is making a big fuss over that, because they want high speed. It's in the contract after all. Which imho is stupid, because on those distances the difference in travel time will be a matter of minutes. Of course for high speed they will need new, expensive trains that will take years to arrive, assuming they buy proper material this time around.

When the Dutch army was in Afghanistan, they had an (1) armoured howitser over there that on its own shot the Defence budget to pieces. There was barely sufficient money for the ammunition. Just to show how tight the budget is and how unprepared the country is for any real emergency.

The pension thing over here is really old school. It's based on the assumption that people are too stupid to invest for themselves and that they should be forced to have it done by professionals. The professionals are to be trusted blindly. Also, there is the old assumption that people will basically work at one company for life. Until the 1980s it was not really possible to transfer pension participations from one fund to the other, which made switching jobs highly damaging. That has been repaired, but still the system is very much tied to the employer. Also Dutch public opinion seems to be that investing is very scary and "just for the rich". Many people don't want to know. They just pay the bill and assume that money will automagically be paid into their accounts when they retire.

At least there is a huge amount of capital behind the pension system. In many European countries pensions are paid directly from the government budget. They will be in deep trouble when aging hits.

For self-employed people there is no system at all. They are to fend for themselves. Of course, nowadays there are way more self-employeds than before and also people who combine employeeship with a small company. The design of the system doesn't really allow for these situations. Which leads to more tinkering, more complexity and more inefficiency.

The price of a beer really depends on the location. In touristy places it will be expensive. At a normal pub in a normal place, a small beer (approx 20 cc) will be around €2, probably a bit more these days. Of course some 10% of it is foam.

The root of the problem is that Dutch government (like most European governments) is bloated and inefficient. Combined with a lot of complacency and self-congratulating.

[totoro]

I too am self employed.  I have little patience for your post.  Do your tax planning, figure out the rules in detail, and stop complaining about what you cannot control.  Head over to Quebec every so often if you must buy your liquor in a supermarket.

I have no time to respond in further right now, but my main thought is that you are not a citizen of Canada presumably by your own choice.  If you are so unhappy about things you might better spend your time looking to change that as if you cannot participate in elections and public policy as a citizen you might be further frustrated.

[daverobev]

Ha!  If you think the Canadian tax system sucks, just work on moving to the USA.  That's what I'm doing right now and it's the WORST!  Why, for the love of god, do they have to make everything so dang complicated?  At least in Canada people are EMPOWERED to save for the future through tax savings vehicles that are easy to use. 

Regarding the liquor store - not convenient for consumers, but an extremely efficient form of taxation.  It's better to tax (aka, disincentivise) the things you don't want.  But then, since the demand for alcohol is fairly inelastic, it doesn't have too drastic an effect on demand.  Although I do wonder, couldn't they impart the same tax but allow distribution through other retailers, thus cutting out the retailing costs?  I guess that ignores margin considerations...

I think the fact certain companies lobby to keep the US tax code so complicated it outrageous. No doubt the same is true in Canada. I know that the UK system is FAR better - most people DO NOT FILL IN a tax return. Now, I have to as I have rental income in the UK, but even so the UK tax return is a walk in the park!

Seems there's a lot of talk of Roths and 401s and all sorts, so I just assumed the US system was at least comparable to the Canadian?

The Canadian system is clean and simple in comparison to the US system.

I think that you comments on CPP and EI are more related to your political/social leanings rather than the tax system itself.  Some people (most Canadians) believe in making contributions to a centralized EI and CPP system as they see it as a social good, even if they know that they may not directly benefit.  Some (you, it seems) do not.  It's not a tax system issue.  Although as other posters have said, I do believe you can opt out of some of these contributions if you are self employed.

No, you misunderstand. I have no problem with CPP or EI, per se. However, the fact is that CPP is generous already. It works. It's fine. And most importantly *it's a percentage*. I understand what it's for - it moves the burden of providing basic income to the worker, as they make their way through life. But changing the percentages, making it give up to $20k a year (ON-Lib proposal) is just madness - provide the bare bones, a living income, great. But don't impose any further savings on people who *do not need it*.

EI - my point is simply that it should not be called *insurance* because it is not. Or, one should NOT have to pay into it if one CANNOT claim it. That is theft. I have NO problem with it, generally speaking.

[daverobev]

I too am self employed.  I have little patience for your post.  Do your tax planning, figure out the rules in detail, and stop complaining about what you cannot control.  Head over to Quebec every so often if you must buy your liquor in a supermarket.

I have no time to respond in further right now, but my main thought is that you are not a citizen of Canada presumably by your own choice.  If you are so unhappy about things you might better spend your time looking to change that as if you cannot participate in elections and public policy as a citizen you might be further frustrated.

Nope, I only arrived a couple of years ago, so I haven't done my 3 years before I am allowed to apply for citizenship yet.

Tax planning... not really the issue. I count as a service provider not a 'proper business' (I forget the nomenclature). I earn what I earn, I pay whatever tax I have to. AFAIK there is no way for me to dodge the CPP stuff.

Complaining about what I cannot control is *exactly* what I'm doing here, that's kinda the point!

I don't mind paying *tax*. I don't have a problem paying for schools, fire service, police, etc, etc, etc. I have a problem paying 2% EI on a short term, low paid 'just doing it to help out' job where I cannot ever receive money back - that is not insurance!

I barely buy alcohol, again, it is the principle of the thing. The government has no place monopolising the sale of alcohol. They can tax it, regulate it, whatever. I don't care about that. I care that in this province the government (and previous governments, this is not a political thing) think it is within their purview to *own and control* alcohol sales. It's just free-market wrong.

[Gerard]

OP: I think your narrow interpretation of "political" (=relating to the party you vote for) is what's confused me (and a couple of other folks). Saying liquor should be sold by private businesses instead of by the government is political, to me. So is saying it should be sold by the government!
It sucks that you can't collect from a system that you pay into. I wonder if it's just more efficient for the system to not have an opt-out option when so few people fall through the cracks the way that you do. Or there may be a fear that  an opt-out/refund option would be used by a bunch of people who would later scrounge money out of govt through other means. In effect, in your terminology, the numpties outnumber you, so you fall victim to an economy of scale. In the same way that I, who haven't needed medical attention since, um, about 2000, pay into a medicare system (technically health "insurance") that takes care all the fat smoking inactive drinking numpties.

[daverobev]

OP: I think your narrow interpretation of "political" (=relating to the party you vote for) is what's confused me (and a couple of other folks). Saying liquor should be sold by private businesses instead of by the government is political, to me. So is saying it should be sold by the government!
It sucks that you can't collect from a system that you pay into. I wonder if it's just more efficient for the system to not have an opt-out option when so few people fall through the cracks the way that you do. Or there may be a fear that  an opt-out/refund option would be used by a bunch of people who would later scrounge money out of govt through other means. In effect, in your terminology, the numpties outnumber you, so you fall victim to an economy of scale. In the same way that I, who haven't needed medical attention since, um, about 2000, pay into a medicare system (technically health "insurance") that takes care all the fat smoking inactive drinking numpties.

Absolutely. Though - at least in the UK - the tax paid by smokers more than pays for their treatment (or, it did a few years back, I'm not sure anything will have changed).

And I totally agree - I completely understand why it's impractical for me to get that money back (though, arguably, "if empolyable hours in a year < threshold then collect no ei").

The replies here have got me thinking about another thread which I will post :)

[totoro]

"I count as a service provider".  What?

Do you mean independent contractor?  If so, you are self-employed.  If you are self employed you can collect some benefits once you have worked the requisite hours: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/self-employed-to-get-ei-benefits-1.826456

If you are a casual employee you need to pay EI benefits and get the requisite number of insurable hours before you collect.  This is fair and is in place to stop individuals from working a measly amount of hours and collecting benefits and then doing it over and over again. 

Also, why are you not employable currently?  I presume you have landed immigrant status?  Why are you not just looking for work and taking what you can find - that is the obligation that would be imposed upon you if you were collecting benefits?

The fact that you did not work enough hours to collect benefits but had to pay EI premiums is also, imo, fair.  You are part of a collective system of insurance and you are capable of becoming eligible if you meet the rules and your payments now may benefit you in the future.  The fact that you did not qualify this year does not mean that your work does not count - the way EI is calculated is by looking back over the previous 52 weeks for hours worked - not the previous calendar year. 

I myself have been paying EI for close to 30 years and have never ever collected a cent.  The service is there for true need imo and the limits seem reasonable to me.

[daverobev]

"I count as a service provider".  What?

Do you mean independent contractor?  If so, you are self-employed.  If you are self employed you can collect some benefits once you have worked the requisite hours: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/self-employed-to-get-ei-benefits-1.826456

If you are a casual employee you need to pay EI benefits and get the requisite number of insurable hours before you collect.  This is fair and is in place to stop individuals from working a measly amount of hours and collecting benefits and then doing it over and over again. 

Also, why are you not employable currently?  I presume you have landed immigrant status?  Why are you not just looking for work and taking what you can find - that is the obligation that would be imposed upon you if you were collecting benefits?

The fact that you did not work enough hours to collect benefits but had to pay EI premiums is also, imo, fair.  You are part of a collective system of insurance and you are capable of becoming eligible if you meet the rules and your payments now may benefit you in the future.  The fact that you did not qualify this year does not mean that your work does not count - the way EI is calculated is by looking back over the previous 52 weeks for hours worked - not the previous calendar year. 

I myself have been paying EI for close to 30 years and have never ever collected a cent.  The service is there for true need imo and the limits seem reasonable to me.

Ah, well. I did two things this year - continued to be self employed, which is fine. I don't want to opt in to EI on self employed stuff, god no, it's a terrible idea! I mean - if you get what it means (paying into it forever), and it works for you, go for it. For me it would just be a waste of money because, again, I'd never claim it.

I also worked as an employee doing gardening. It worked out at about a day a week for 15 weeks, something like that. That's it. Low wages, doing it.. for fun. Basically, then, I'm paying the EI premium for nothing.

I'm not looking for work because I have no desire to work! I'm retired.. soon to be SAHD. I'm PR status.

Doesn't it drive you insane, all the seasonal workers that claim EI for half the year?! I know they are trying to stop/reduce it but.. ugh. Human nature I guess.

I guess at the end of it, I just dislike bad definitions, bad naming. EI is not insurance. It should just be part of general taxation. It's welfare - if you're out of work, here's some money until you get back to work - fine.

[totoro]

Now for your CPP complaining. 

If I understand things correctly you are from the UK.  Canada and the UK have a social security sharing agreement.

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/services/pensions/international/countries/unitedkingdom.shtml

UK State Pension is payable in Canada. Periods when you lived in Canada may, in some circumstances, be taken into account when deciding your entitlement to UK State Pension.  When conditions are satisfied, you are treated as if you had paid UK contributions for periods of residence in Canada.  This will help you to satisfy the contribution conditions for UK State Pension, or to get a higher rate of UK State Pension.

[totoro]

"I count as a service provider".  What?

Do you mean independent contractor?  If so, you are self-employed.  If you are self employed you can collect some benefits once you have worked the requisite hours: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/self-employed-to-get-ei-benefits-1.826456

If you are a casual employee you need to pay EI benefits and get the requisite number of insurable hours before you collect.  This is fair and is in place to stop individuals from working a measly amount of hours and collecting benefits and then doing it over and over again. 

Also, why are you not employable currently?  I presume you have landed immigrant status?  Why are you not just looking for work and taking what you can find - that is the obligation that would be imposed upon you if you were collecting benefits?

The fact that you did not work enough hours to collect benefits but had to pay EI premiums is also, imo, fair.  You are part of a collective system of insurance and you are capable of becoming eligible if you meet the rules and your payments now may benefit you in the future.  The fact that you did not qualify this year does not mean that your work does not count - the way EI is calculated is by looking back over the previous 52 weeks for hours worked - not the previous calendar year. 

I myself have been paying EI for close to 30 years and have never ever collected a cent.  The service is there for true need imo and the limits seem reasonable to me.

Ah, well. I did two things this year - continued to be self employed, which is fine. I don't want to opt in to EI on self employed stuff, god no, it's a terrible idea! I mean - if you get what it means (paying into it forever), and it works for you, go for it. For me it would just be a waste of money because, again, I'd never claim it.

I also worked as an employee doing gardening. It worked out at about a day a week for 15 weeks, something like that. That's it. Low wages, doing it.. for fun. Basically, then, I'm paying the EI premium for nothing.

I'm not looking for work because I have no desire to work! I'm retired.. soon to be SAHD. I'm PR status.

Doesn't it drive you insane, all the seasonal workers that claim EI for half the year?! I know they are trying to stop/reduce it but.. ugh. Human nature I guess.

I guess at the end of it, I just dislike bad definitions, bad naming. EI is not insurance. It should just be part of general taxation. It's welfare - if you're out of work, here's some money until you get back to work - fine.

I see.  Because you have made the choice to work for fun you expect that you can opt out of a system set up to provide protection for workers who need to work to pay for basic costs.  I don't have much sympathy for those who work for fun and don't want to contribute to benefits for those who are not in the same position.  You do realize that you benefit from the lack of desperate circumstances the social safety net provides right?  This is, in part, the reason our crime rates are lower imo. 

If you are in a position to "work for fun" I have little sympathy for complaints about having to pay any part of your income towards social welfare. 

I'm personally in favour of paying these fees my whole life long and I have no intention of ever collecting.  I am also in favour of higher levels of taxation, while maintaining the legality of proper tax planning.

[daverobev]

Ok, reading back through.

1. I don't believe it is possible to opt out of anything. The only thing is that it is possible to opt-in to EI when self employed; the link given then shows you can choose to undo that opt-in within 60 days. I don't believe it is possible for me to incorporate and pay myself dividends as I am classified as a Service Provider.

2. My point is that insurance is something you pay to cover something. In my case I categorically will not be able to claim EI - therefore I should not have to pay in. It's a piffling amount - 2%? of a couple of thousand dollars. It's the principle of it. If you've worked the 600+ hours and are therefore eligible to claim, it's fine (though as I mentioned the seasonal worker thing is crazy, and perhaps it should just be part of general taxation).

3. UK-Canada agreement is interesting, thanks. But I don't think it helps. I'm not posted here temporarily to work; my wife is Canadian, that's why I'm here (I like it, too!). I have no idea how it'll work out in the future with my British pension, should I be eligible to get one. I'm pretty sure I'll get about 1/3 British pension, plus some OAS, plus a tiny tiny amount of CPP. I think it's possible, too, to transfer my British pension in to Canada somehow. Not sure I'd want to, though, and honestly I don't know for sure where we'll live for the next 60 years.

Bear in mind I'm an outsider here in Canada - I will be British til the day I die - and that means firstly I have a different perspective on all things Canada, and secondly I'm allowed to dislike them. I'm here for Love. Moving country seems like so much fun! But then you find out.. oh, I dunno. That cheese is insanely expensive. And christ the winters are *cold*. So what? Petrol's cheap. But people drive stupid SUVs. There are so many good things here, and so many bad too. The same is true of 'back home' - politicians there drive me nuts-o too! I find it fascinating observing the differences in culture. But, again - I'm allowed to dislike parts.

And yes, I would like to stand for election, some day, maybe. Except I'm really shy, and I know I'd shoot myself in the foot by saying something (perhaps like something in this thread!) that *people* wouldn't like. Oh well.

[daverobev]

"I count as a service provider".  What?

Do you mean independent contractor?  If so, you are self-employed.  If you are self employed you can collect some benefits once you have worked the requisite hours: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/self-employed-to-get-ei-benefits-1.826456

If you are a casual employee you need to pay EI benefits and get the requisite number of insurable hours before you collect.  This is fair and is in place to stop individuals from working a measly amount of hours and collecting benefits and then doing it over and over again. 

Also, why are you not employable currently?  I presume you have landed immigrant status?  Why are you not just looking for work and taking what you can find - that is the obligation that would be imposed upon you if you were collecting benefits?

The fact that you did not work enough hours to collect benefits but had to pay EI premiums is also, imo, fair.  You are part of a collective system of insurance and you are capable of becoming eligible if you meet the rules and your payments now may benefit you in the future.  The fact that you did not qualify this year does not mean that your work does not count - the way EI is calculated is by looking back over the previous 52 weeks for hours worked - not the previous calendar year. 

I myself have been paying EI for close to 30 years and have never ever collected a cent.  The service is there for true need imo and the limits seem reasonable to me.

Ah, well. I did two things this year - continued to be self employed, which is fine. I don't want to opt in to EI on self employed stuff, god no, it's a terrible idea! I mean - if you get what it means (paying into it forever), and it works for you, go for it. For me it would just be a waste of money because, again, I'd never claim it.

I also worked as an employee doing gardening. It worked out at about a day a week for 15 weeks, something like that. That's it. Low wages, doing it.. for fun. Basically, then, I'm paying the EI premium for nothing.

I'm not looking for work because I have no desire to work! I'm retired.. soon to be SAHD. I'm PR status.

Doesn't it drive you insane, all the seasonal workers that claim EI for half the year?! I know they are trying to stop/reduce it but.. ugh. Human nature I guess.

I guess at the end of it, I just dislike bad definitions, bad naming. EI is not insurance. It should just be part of general taxation. It's welfare - if you're out of work, here's some money until you get back to work - fine.

I see.  Because you have made the choice to work for fun you expect that you can opt out of a system set up to provide protection for workers who need to work to pay for basic costs.  I don't have much sympathy for those who work for fun and don't want to contribute to benefits for those who are not in the same position.  You do realize that you benefit from the lack of desperate circumstances the social safety net provides right?  This is, in part, the reason our crime rates are lower imo. 

If you are in a position to "work for fun" I have little sympathy for complaints about having to pay any part of your income towards social welfare. 

I'm personally in favour of paying these fees my whole life long and I have no intention of ever collecting.  I am also in favour of higher levels of taxation, while maintaining the legality of proper tax planning.

Hold on there. I have no problem paying *tax* which allows people who need it to claim welfare. That is not EI.

You're contradicting yourself - "legality of proper tax planning" means paying as little tax as possible, no? Surely, then, you should be opting to pay extra out of the kindness of your heart.

You do not know the circumstances, so please refrain from judging my personal situation. I am in a position to be able to do as I choose *because* I have worked hard and saved like crazy for years and years and years. Paying a considerably higher rate of tax in the UK than I do here. "For fun" was perhaps a bad turn of phrase. "To help out" might've been better.

As I said - we're talking about $40 here. Yes, I feel I should not pay that money into an insurance system, just like I don't expect people who do not drive to purchase auto insurance policies - there is nothing to cover. If you lost your job, you would be covered under EI - I would not. See the difference?

[daverobev]

Addition - totoro honestly it seems like you're not reading what I'm actually writing, and you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to steal candy from babies, or kick the poor and needy out on the street. You're just picking out and judging me personally. Whatever - this is the internet, and you are entitled to your opinion. I would much rather have you come back and say, no, I think EI is a great program because it allows the government to separate people's short term unemployment from the general mass of taxation, or whatever you believe.

You are trying to cast me as something I'm not, and something I don't *think* I have said I am. I don't like EI because it is mis-named in my situation. As I've said repeatedly, I have no issue with welfare. I wish I could opt out of CPP because I don't want it, don't need it, and for the 2-3 years I'll pay into it it will be pretty much useless - but as I have also said I understand why it's there, and in its current incarnation it's perfectly adequate - $12k a year is pretty good, if you ask me! But again, you are entitled to believe that it should be increased, decreased, whatever.

This is, after all, the Mr. M M forum, where I think we're encouraging people to tone down their consumerism. Consumerism in Canada is Big. Again, IMHO, if you work in Canada for the requisite number of years, you'll get AT LEAST $1k a month in retirement - no need whatsoever to raise that by a forced increase in CPP contributions. No need source: I am living quite happily on $1k a month. The reason I don't need these social safety nets is because I've saved hard, and live a frugal life. Again - I don't want to take the social safety net away, I just feel EI is mis-named. You don't pay insurance on things unless you are eligible to be covered (see: PPI mis-selling scandal in the UK).

Ok, enough. Sweet dreams!

[totoro]

I don't know if I'm missing the point - maybe. 

All insurance benefits are limited by terms and conditions whether it be health, home, car, life, disability or employment insurance.  Limits are necessary otherwise premiums would never cover benefits.  There is a spread of the risk of a claim which results in lower premiums to all people.

You are not eligible for EI because you haven't worked enough hours by your own choice.  The system of EI is based on social policy which sets the minimum hours as a reasonable limit on claiming.  I still have no patience for you complaining about having to pay - what did it work out to - $60 total during your time in Canada - and then not being able to get paid $550 or so a month for 14-45 weeks because you voluntarily did not work enough hours. 

There are many years where I have worked, paid EI premiums, and not been eligible for EI at the end of the job because I was in school or had not worked enough hours.  I, in fact, never thought of applying for EI because I felt I could find another job and it was my responsibility.  My contributions were for the worst case scenario where I needed the income but could not work due to illness or circumstances beyond my control.

[daverobev]

I don't know if I'm missing the point - maybe. 

All insurance benefits are limited by terms and conditions whether it be health, home, car, life, disability or employment insurance.  Limits are necessary otherwise premiums would never cover benefits.  There is a spread of the risk of a claim which results in lower premiums to all people.

You are not eligible for EI because you haven't worked enough hours by your own choice.  The system of EI is based on social policy which sets the minimum hours as a reasonable limit on claiming.  I still have no patience for you complaining about having to pay - what did it work out to - $60 total during your time in Canada - and then not being able to get paid $550 or so a month for 14-45 weeks because you voluntarily did not work enough hours. 

There are many years where I have worked, paid EI premiums, and not been eligible for EI at the end of the job because I was in school or had not worked enough hours.  I, in fact, never thought of applying for EI because I felt I could find another job and it was my responsibility.  My contributions were for the worst case scenario where I needed the income but could not work due to illness or circumstances beyond my control.

I don't *want* to claim EI! That isn't the point at all! I have absolutely no intention of ever claiming EI - I am fortunate enough in that I don't have to. As I said, I'm semi-retired and frugal.

It's worse in the UK - you have to pay in to National Insurance for ten years before you are eligible to get any state pension. That is, IMHO, theft - if you paid in, you should get out - a proportion. So if you worked and paid in to NI for 3 years, you should get 3/35ths. I understand you'd want to have some lower limit for administrative reasons - but if someone retires and has paid in but is ineligible, they should get all their premiums refunded with interest. As it is I've worked something like 11 eligible years so - with the current setup - I squeak in to get 11/35ths of the UK pension. Should people be able to get 4/35ths? Absolutely.

You're mixing up my situation, which is not relevant, vs my beef, which is that it should not be mandatory to pay in to a system where you cannot claim. EI should be self supporting, self funding, etc.

Honestly, it seems like a huge amount of money to provide a small amount of insurance. I think it would be much fairer if you paid in up to a maximum and then could stop. If you ever claimed, then you draw that down, and when you go back to work have to re-contribute back to the maximum. But that is another issue.

[totoro]

I see.  In my opinion you are mixed up.

You are paying into a system which you voluntarily choose not to be eligible for benefits for - not that you are ineligible for. 

You are legally allowed to work in Canada as an employee and, as such, you are governed by employment insurance benefit rules which are part of our social safety net. 

Your position is that because you do not need these benefits you do not want to pay for them.  You do not want to work enough or for long enough to be eligible. 

I have a solution for you.  Stop complaining and request to work as an independent contractor.  Be a freelance gardener.  You won't have to pay for EI and you can work as much or as little as you want. 

Otherwise, if you are choosing to be an employee for fun you will be part of the EI social insurance safety net and my view is that it is appropriate.

[daverobev]

I see.  In my opinion you are mixed up.

You are paying into a system which you voluntarily choose not to be eligible for benefits for - not that you are ineligible for. 

You are legally allowed to work in Canada as an employee and, as such, you are governed by employment insurance benefit rules which are part of our social safety net. 

Your position is that because you do not need these benefits you do not want to pay for them.  You do not want to work enough or for long enough to be eligible. 

I have a solution for you.  Stop complaining and request to work as an independent contractor.  Be a freelance gardener.  You won't have to pay for EI and you can work as much or as little as you want. 

Otherwise, if you are choosing to be an employee for fun you will be part of the EI social insurance safety net and my view is that it is appropriate.

No, not really. There are not enough hours at that particular job to give a person enough to be able to claim EI when seasonally unemployed - if they even wished to claim it. As I said, it was 1 day a week. The rest of my time I spend doing self employed computer work.

You're still not answering my fundamental objection: I believe that, if a person is not able to be covered by insurance, they should not be mandated to pay that insurance.

We did talk about going the freelance route, but decided that according to my understanding of the law, the CRA would rightly see us as employees. But that really isn't the point. You are still mixing up my situation, and the underlying issue.

[totoro]

"I believe that, if a person is not able to be covered by insurance, they should not be mandated to pay that insurance."

The thing is that you can be covered by that insurance if you choose to meet the eligibility criteria by increasing your hours.  Part-time workers pay EI premiums as they can be covered if they work multiple jobs. 

The system is set up to cover all workers who are employees.  These payments don't just go to cover a time when you lose your job, the also cover parental leave, compassionate care leave and sickness benefits.

If you had worked your whole life in Canada there is a good chance you would have paid and never collected benefits and at times not have been eligible - like me and like you right now.  I have; however, benefited by being in a society where these benefits are payable to those employees in need and I believe the criteria that are applied are reasonable. 

My view is that you are accessing health care and other social service benefits here in Canada you should contribute your part to the program and 1.4% is not too big of a price to pay.  If it is, make sure you freelance.  Gardening can easily fit into the freelance category under CRA rules if you supply your own tools and have some flexibility in your work hours.  Maybe you can make adjustments to the position if you want to do it again by negotiating these points.

[Deano]

Wow, nice rant.

If you cared to look, you'd know that wages in Ontario/Canada are stagnant and have been for some time. That means, no "natural" increase in CPP, hence, the move to increase it on one level. On the other, the move to increase it would be to increase the amount you get in retirement, not to fund a shortfall (which doesn't exist).

So, at least figure some stuff out before you rant.

Oh, booze at LCBO is not the same as beer at the Beer Store. LCBO generates over 1 billion a year for public spending. The Beer Store is a legitimate beef, that's a cartel.

EI is a public good most of us pay for, if you don't want to pay for it, perhaps the UK has a better deal and you can go back there. Do you read the Daily Mail by chance?

[daverobev]

I pay for healthcare through federal and provincial tax. I pay for schools, fire service, police, military (that I often don't agree with), etc, etc, etc through tax. That is fine.

totoro you mentioned 'low crime rate' - but lower than where? You're saying EI means less crime. Ok. That is not relevant to my main point. You say it's a social good - sure. If you lose your job, there should be money available while you find a new one. Absolutely. I'm not against that, I didn't say I was. And that has to be paid for somehow.

You say I can choose to be covered by working more. IF I could find a job, which I possibly could. But if I don't choose that, I should get my money back. Because it's my money. See?

Deano - as I said before, I have no problem with *tax* on alcohol sales. That needn't change. I am talking about the fact that only the LCBO and Beer Store can sell beer. Any shop should be able to get a license and sell alcohol, if they meet the criteria. That's all.

Wages are stagnant and inflation is low, meaning your $12k today is just as viable as it was a few years back. That's the point. Oh so you only have CPP + OAS when you retire? No cruises? No new cars? Boo-hoo - should've saved. Can you afford to be warm, fed, protected from the elements, clothed, etc? Yes? Well that is the limit to what the government should impose on people as forced savings. The rest is optional. There are *great* services available - the public library not least of them.

The Daily Mail is a terrible rag, the fact that anyone buys it is a real shame. As I mentioned elsewhere, the same - but worse - exists with the State Pension in the UK - you need to pay into it for 10 years before becoming eligible for any percentage (ie at 10 years you get 10/35; at 35 years you get full pension; if you contribute for 9 years and stop you get *nothing*). That's wrong, IMHO.

PS thanks for the "if you don't like it, GTFO" - that is a truly enlightened comment. So, any Canadian that doesn't like it should also leave for another country? You're saying if you don't like something you shouldn't discuss it? Wow.

Anyway, I guess I'm done here. There have been a couple of helpful links and ideas for which I'm grateful. But the close-mindedness and xenophobia... yeah, I wasn't expecting that.

[Deano]

The LCBO made 1.7 dollars...that is independent of tax my friend (the tax transfer was slightly under 800 million for 2012-2013). Yes, it's a monopoly, but no market is truly free and this is in our favour.

The LCBO reduces our need for taxes by nearly 2 billion. That's not chump change.

The Beer Store? That's a shit show, extra profits pumping into both domestic and foreign breweries. The government should take it over, they obviously know how to handle their booze (other things maybe not so much).

[Deano]

I pay for healthcare through federal and provincial tax. I pay for schools, fire service, police, military (that I often don't agree with), etc, etc, etc through tax. That is fine.

totoro you mentioned 'low crime rate' - but lower than where? You're saying EI means less crime. Ok. That is not relevant to my main point. You say it's a social good - sure. If you lose your job, there should be money available while you find a new one. Absolutely. I'm not against that, I didn't say I was. And that has to be paid for somehow.

You say I can choose to be covered by working more. IF I could find a job, which I possibly could. But if I don't choose that, I should get my money back. Because it's my money. See?

Deano - as I said before, I have no problem with *tax* on alcohol sales. That needn't change. I am talking about the fact that only the LCBO and Beer Store can sell beer. Any shop should be able to get a license and sell alcohol, if they meet the criteria. That's all.

Wages are stagnant and inflation is low, meaning your $12k today is just as viable as it was a few years back. That's the point. Oh so you only have CPP + OAS when you retire? No cruises? No new cars? Boo-hoo - should've saved. Can you afford to be warm, fed, protected from the elements, clothed, etc? Yes? Well that is the limit to what the government should impose on people as forced savings. The rest is optional. There are *great* services available - the public library not least of them.

The Daily Mail is a terrible rag, the fact that anyone buys it is a real shame. As I mentioned elsewhere, the same - but worse - exists with the State Pension in the UK - you need to pay into it for 10 years before becoming eligible for any percentage (ie at 10 years you get 10/35; at 35 years you get full pension; if you contribute for 9 years and stop you get *nothing*). That's wrong, IMHO.

PS thanks for the "if you don't like it, GTFO" - that is a truly enlightened comment. So, any Canadian that doesn't like it should also leave for another country? You're saying if you don't like something you shouldn't discuss it? Wow.

Anyway, I guess I'm done here. There have been a couple of helpful links and ideas for which I'm grateful. But the close-mindedness and xenophobia... yeah, I wasn't expecting that.

Did NOT say GTFO, I said look at your options. You're playing a silly game there, you mentioned you were an ex-pat brit (like my wife), my comment was above board.

[totoro]

I see.  In my opinion you are mixed up.

You're still not answering my fundamental objection: I believe that, if a person is not able to be covered by insurance, they should not be mandated to pay that insurance.

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.

As for xenophobia, that seems an odd response and one calculated to shut down discourse.  You have no idea who you are dealing with online and, in fact, have no idea if I or my family are first generation immigrants.  You might be surprised with who reads these posts.

[Daleth]

EI is not "misnamed in your situation." The only reason you won't be able to collect on it is that you have chosen to (1) work too few hours for an employer and (2) not opt in to EI as a self-employed person. That's your choice; no one is doing that to you--it IS insurance, but it's insurance you have decided not to qualify for filing a claim under.

Here's a clunky but valid analogy: if you have life insurance but choose to commit suicide, does that mean you don't really have life insurance? No, it just means you've chosen a way of dying that makes it impossible to collect on the life insurance.

With your EI, you've chosen a way of working that makes it impossible to collect on the employment insurance. How is that Canada's problem? And how does that change the fact that you have the same EI everyone else does, and could collect on it if you chose a different way of working? Or for that matter, the fact that you could opt out of it entirely if you decided to be 100% self employed instead of whatever it is, 80%-90% self employed and 10%-20% employed by someone else?

And the fact you have to pay EI on the few hours you choose to work as an employee is because an EI system can't work unless everyone pays into it up front. Asking the system to not require payments until you've worked enough hours to qualify would make the system fail, and asking it to customize everyone's EI payments based on how many hours they *currently* intend to work over the *following* 52 weeks would be a logistical nightmare. The only way an EI system can function is if it collects now on the work you just did. It can't be based on what everyone currently intends to do up to a year in the future; how would you even do the math for that, given that what people intend and what they actually end up doing are almost never going to match up exactly?

[BPA]

Here are two ideas:  Get your facts straight and if you don't like Canada, move your business back to the UK.

[daverobev]

I pay for healthcare through federal and provincial tax. I pay for schools, fire service, police, military (that I often don't agree with), etc, etc, etc through tax. That is fine.

totoro you mentioned 'low crime rate' - but lower than where? You're saying EI means less crime. Ok. That is not relevant to my main point. You say it's a social good - sure. If you lose your job, there should be money available while you find a new one. Absolutely. I'm not against that, I didn't say I was. And that has to be paid for somehow.

You say I can choose to be covered by working more. IF I could find a job, which I possibly could. But if I don't choose that, I should get my money back. Because it's my money. See?

Deano - as I said before, I have no problem with *tax* on alcohol sales. That needn't change. I am talking about the fact that only the LCBO and Beer Store can sell beer. Any shop should be able to get a license and sell alcohol, if they meet the criteria. That's all.

Wages are stagnant and inflation is low, meaning your $12k today is just as viable as it was a few years back. That's the point. Oh so you only have CPP + OAS when you retire? No cruises? No new cars? Boo-hoo - should've saved. Can you afford to be warm, fed, protected from the elements, clothed, etc? Yes? Well that is the limit to what the government should impose on people as forced savings. The rest is optional. There are *great* services available - the public library not least of them.

The Daily Mail is a terrible rag, the fact that anyone buys it is a real shame. As I mentioned elsewhere, the same - but worse - exists with the State Pension in the UK - you need to pay into it for 10 years before becoming eligible for any percentage (ie at 10 years you get 10/35; at 35 years you get full pension; if you contribute for 9 years and stop you get *nothing*). That's wrong, IMHO.

PS thanks for the "if you don't like it, GTFO" - that is a truly enlightened comment. So, any Canadian that doesn't like it should also leave for another country? You're saying if you don't like something you shouldn't discuss it? Wow.

Anyway, I guess I'm done here. There have been a couple of helpful links and ideas for which I'm grateful. But the close-mindedness and xenophobia... yeah, I wasn't expecting that.

Did NOT say GTFO, I said look at your options. You're playing a silly game there, you mentioned you were an ex-pat brit (like my wife), my comment was above board.

And the Daily Mail jab?

[daverobev]

EI is not "misnamed in your situation." The only reason you won't be able to collect on it is that you have chosen to (1) work too few hours for an employer and (2) not opt in to EI as a self-employed person. That's your choice; no one is doing that to you--it IS insurance, but it's insurance you have decided not to qualify for filing a claim under.

Here's a clunky but valid analogy: if you have life insurance but choose to commit suicide, does that mean you don't really have life insurance? No, it just means you've chosen a way of dying that makes it impossible to collect on the life insurance.

With your EI, you've chosen a way of working that makes it impossible to collect on the employment insurance. How is that Canada's problem? And how does that change the fact that you have the same EI everyone else does, and could collect on it if you chose a different way of working? Or for that matter, the fact that you could opt out of it entirely if you decided to be 100% self employed instead of whatever it is, 80%-90% self employed and 10%-20% employed by someone else?

And the fact you have to pay EI on the few hours you choose to work as an employee is because an EI system can't work unless everyone pays into it up front. Asking the system to not require payments until you've worked enough hours to qualify would make the system fail, and asking it to customize everyone's EI payments based on how many hours they *currently* intend to work over the *following* 52 weeks would be a logistical nightmare. The only way an EI system can function is if it collects now on the work you just did. It can't be based on what everyone currently intends to do up to a year in the future; how would you even do the math for that, given that what people intend and what they actually end up doing are almost never going to match up exactly?

Ok, as I said above, it could be refunded on completion of the tax return the following year. If I chose to get life insurance and then jump that's fine - just like I don't expect my house insurance to cover a car crash. I get what EI is for. I just don't think it's fair for people who are not covered to be forced to pay in when they cannot draw out. That's like having a car insurance policy that only covers you if you have driven more than 1000km!

I could collect on it if I chose a different way of working only by paying a lot more money in. Again, that's fine. But because I have worked too few hours, I haven't reached a threshold to be covered, I should get the cash refunded! Tell me why people who are not eligible to claim should be mandated to subsidise those others who have worked enough hours? Shouldn't it be the opposite - people who have only managed to work a couple of hundred hours probably actually need that money as they are *not* eligible to claim?

1) I did not *choose* to work too few hours; there were only that many available.
2) Absolutely I chose not to opt in because it's a bad deal

[daverobev]

Here are two ideas:  Get your facts straight and if you don't like Canada, move your business back to the UK.

Thanks, that's a true "GTFO".

I'm married to a Canadian, even if I *despised* Canada (which I don't - I like it here. Is it "better" than the UK? In some ways yes, in some ways no), I would stay with my wife.

But thanks for the suggestion.

[daverobev]

I see.  In my opinion you are mixed up.

You're still not answering my fundamental objection: I believe that, if a person is not able to be covered by insurance, they should not be mandated to pay that insurance.

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.

As for xenophobia, that seems an odd response and one calculated to shut down discourse.  You have no idea who you are dealing with online and, in fact, have no idea if I or my family are first generation immigrants.  You might be surprised with who reads these posts.

Same question as I asked Daleth - why should any person be forced to subsidise people who are eligible claimants? "Eligible to be covered if" - it's a big if. Eligible to get a big government pension, if I worked at the government or the senate or whatever for x number of years - not relevant to my situation.

If you didn't know, being accused of reading the Daily Mail is actually a really offensive suggestion. It is an often hateful, racist-without-being-racist awful awful newspaper.

Anyway. It seems people see the EI thing differently - which is of course fine. I disagree. So that's that.

This thread is very helpful in some ways - I had assumed that the LCBO would be reviled, and clearly I was wrong on that one. I believe I said in the first post that I'd like to be convinced, so in that sense, great.

Very useful to know that the LCBO is actually profitable in excess of the tax take, I wasn't aware of that - pretty straight forward I guess. But it just makes me think, even more - should the provincial government be making money as a business from the sale of alcohol? Would it be ok for the government to own car parks, amusement parks, shopping centres? To my mind it should not - private enterprise should own profit making business, the government should provide services and tax things.

[daverobev]

Couple more comments. The xenophobia comment was just to counter "oh well if you don't like Canada why don't you go back where you came from" (which Deano didn't *exactly* say, but I took it as such because of the Daily Mail comment). The thing is that I said I don't like *EI*. EI != Canada. EI is not a reason to leave the country.

I didn't even say I disliked EI, really - just that I didn't agree with.. well, I think I have said what I meant, either I'm not explaining myself right or people disagree, either of which is fine.

Maybe I overreacted. But BPA's comment following... ah well, whatever.

It feels like *I'm* being attacked here, not the idea I'm putting forward. I believe in fairness. I know it is possible to structure tax-related stuff in order to pay less, but I don't necessarily think that is a good thing (aside from something like the RRSP, though arguably that should be a flat amount of room for everyone each year like the TFSA).

[Daleth]

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.

[RetiredAt63]

Most points were pretty well covered.

General comments - Insurance - if we all collected on things we are covered for, there would be no insurance - we are gambling that we will need the service and the company or government is gambling that we won't.  I paid EI all my working life, never collected and am glad I never needed it.  Same for my house insurance and car insurance.

If you are gardening for fun, why bother doing it as a job?  There are Horticultural Societies all over Ontario, they do a lot of public gardening and education, and that could certainly keep you busy.  Not to mention volunteering for their other activities.   In Ottawa there is "Friends of the Farm" - if you are in a large city I am sure there are equivalent groups.

As far as I know, every province controls alcohol sales, most by having their own liquor stores.  There is nothing automatic in having private or public liquor stores, it is just what a society decides.  For all of Canada's puritanical past (my great-grandfather married the daughter of the founder of the local temperance league, never touched a drop in his life and neither did she), at least we have been happy enough with those social controls that we never went the Prohibition route.  And you can always make your own wine and beer.  For dandelion wine (very good, actually) or mead, you don't even need to buy grape concentrate. And on another ironic historical note, when family allowance came in, it went to the mother because they figured too many of the fathers would drink it instead of the money going to the children.  Sorry, guys. And sorry, I got a bit off topic there.

[daverobev]

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!

[daverobev]

Most points were pretty well covered.

General comments - Insurance - if we all collected on things we are covered for, there would be no insurance - we are gambling that we will need the service and the company or government is gambling that we won't.  I paid EI all my working life, never collected and am glad I never needed it.  Same for my house insurance and car insurance.

If you are gardening for fun, why bother doing it as a job?  There are Horticultural Societies all over Ontario, they do a lot of public gardening and education, and that could certainly keep you busy.  Not to mention volunteering for their other activities.   In Ottawa there is "Friends of the Farm" - if you are in a large city I am sure there are equivalent groups.

As far as I know, every province controls alcohol sales, most by having their own liquor stores.  There is nothing automatic in having private or public liquor stores, it is just what a society decides.  For all of Canada's puritanical past (my great-grandfather married the daughter of the founder of the local temperance league, never touched a drop in his life and neither did she), at least we have been happy enough with those social controls that we never went the Prohibition route.  And you can always make your own wine and beer.  For dandelion wine (very good, actually) or mead, you don't even need to buy grape concentrate. And on another ironic historical note, when family allowance came in, it went to the mother because they figured too many of the fathers would drink it instead of the money going to the children.  Sorry, guys. And sorry, I got a bit off topic there.

Thanks. Again, I'm not saying I have an issue implicitly with there being EI, or for people who are eligible to claim but don't need to having to pay it. It is just in the situation where you have a side job that leaves you with too few hours to be eligible to claim *should you need to*, but still having to pay in. It's not a question of choosing whether you are above the threshold hours or not - with car insurance, house insurance, IF you pay, you ARE covered. I'm paying but I am NOT covered. I don't think that's right. That's all!

My friend, who now lives in France, makes very good blackberry, rosehip and elderberry wine, mmm.

"Fun" was the wrong word. It was more to help out my wife's NGO. As it turned out they ran out of money half way through so my friend and I ended up volunteering for half the season. Financially it was a disaster for me, as the place where the garden is is the other side of the city (about a 200km round trip from home). So all the money earned just ended up paying for petrol. But, of course, I couldn't pull out as I'd promised my wife! Ah well, it all worked out ok in the end. Next year I will be gardening at home much more, which is great. I need to get a few more raspberry bushes, amongst other things.