awesome EI reform idea

[dantonsen]

I was just watching some news and some one talked about EI as an account for each person. Like a personal ei account you pay into as normal, you draw on it your account goes down and if you never draw it goes into your retirement.

It could even go a step further, combine ei and cpp contributions to one account, cut the premiums then the bias would be work and retire better or be a slacker and have to work longer.

Cut contribution cost on payroll, incentivise work, and if some one like most of us do works all thier lives the EI money doesnt go out the window.

[Okotokian]

The purpose of insurance, including EI, is that you pool the risk. Some people will draw less, some more. If each person had an individual account and you could only withdraw what you paid in, there would be absolutely no need for the program in the first place. Just save your own money in the bank.

So if someone was a new worker, perhaps only been in the workforce a year or two, they would be eligible for, what, two or three days worth of EI?

Not so awesome. More pointless. They do need to change the program, but this ain't the solution.

[Sneeze]

?

but this ain't the solution.

The solution is a bus ticket to Ft. McMurray.

[Okotokian]

The solution is a bus ticket to Ft. McMurray.

I'm with you there. No work? Move.

[dantonsen]

The purpose of insurance, including EI, is that you pool the risk. Some people will draw less, some more. If each person had an individual account and you could only withdraw what you paid in, there would be absolutely no need for the program in the first place. Just save your own money in the bank.

So if someone was a new worker, perhaps only been in the workforce a year or two, they would be eligible for, what, two or three days worth of EI?

Not so awesome. More pointless. They do need to change the program, but this ain't the solution.

Yeah but alot of people would never save for a rainy day on their own. It would force people to work more before they can draw which would cut out the abusers who work a seasonal job some where then get laid off and collect ei as long as they can.

[Okotokian]

Yeah but alot of people would never save for a rainy day on their own. It would force people to work more before they can draw which would cut out the abusers who work a seasonal job some where then get laid off and collect ei as long as they can.
Yes, but then it's not insurance. Would you transfer your idea to car insurance? Only get to draw what you paid into it? If not, why not?

[thumper]

Nannyism. Do I need the gov't to legislate how much I save for my future?

[dantonsen]

Nannyism. Do I need the gov't to legislate how much I save for my future?


hmmm, its putting the program in your own hands. You use it up your hooped, you work you get it back.

Nanny ism would be paying for people that dont want to move for jobs etc and dinging people who have made sure they are working.

If you worked all the time under this idea you would have 40 000 $ or more sitting waiting for you when you retire and you wouldnt pay for some ei abuser while getting 0 $

[dantonsen]

Yes, but then it's not insurance. Would you transfer your idea to car insurance? Only get to draw what you paid into it? If not, why not?


Thats an easy one to compare.... 6 months of ei is 9000 $

Run a pedestrian over and take out a fire hydrant and you can get dinged for 200 000-500 000 $

The liability to premium ratio is way larger on automobile insurance.

[Okotokian]

Thats an easy one to compare.... 6 months of ei is 9000 $

Run a pedestrian over and take out a fire hydrant and you can get dinged for 200 000-500 000 $

The liability to premium ratio is way larger on automobile insurance.

But why should I have to pay for your bad driving and hitting a pedestrian? Same argument.

[NEWB]

Yes, but then it's not insurance. Would you transfer your idea to car insurance? Only get to draw what you paid into it? If not, why not?

I would.

I have never needed to make an at fault claim on my vehicle insurance.

I would have $60,000.00 more in the bank. That is the rough total I have spent on vehicle insurance for the last 18 years.

I have only needed to pay out for one collision that was my fault. I cleared that up with cash. Her Jeep wasn't badly damaged and the girl was fine with me settling with a cash payment on her bumper. I knew she was getting it done cheap or not replaced at all. I even threw in a few extra dollars to sweeten the deal so she would go away. I had her sign the release waivers and never looked back.

[Okotokian]

I would.

I have never needed to make an at fault claim on my vehicle insurance.

I would have $60,000.00 more in the bank. That is the rough total I have spent on vehicle insurance for the last 18 years.

I have only needed to pay out for one collision that was my fault. I cleared that up with cash. Her Jeep wasn't badly damaged and the girl was fine with me settling with a cash payment on her bumper. I knew she was getting it done cheap or not replaced at all. I even threw in a few extra dollars to sweeten the deal so she would go away. I had her sign the release waivers and never looked back.

Alright, so if someone hits and cripples you, hopefully they can "clear it up with cash". :sign0111:

[NEWB]

Alright, so if someone hits and cripples you, hopefully they can "clear it up with cash". :sign0111:

If someone hits me my insurance isn't paying for it.. It is the other parties insurance is.....

There are also legal proceedings one can follow. However if the person was not financially responsible then they will not have any money to pay. If you can not afford to pay out damage with cash then you shouldn't drive like a moron. If you can afford to pay out with cash then knock your self out! :)

You might want to look into the policies and how they are paid out, who is responisble, etc. It will be an eye opener...

I only carry PLPD as mandated by law. I carry just the basic coverage for vehicle coverage.

[Okotokian]

If someone hits me my insurance isn't paying for it.. It is the other parties insurance that is.....


Yes, but you just finished saying that you would support an insurance system where you could only draw what you put in. So if some teen driver hits you and puts you in a wheel chair, you get the $8,000 he has paid in so far. That's it. Where would the couple of million come from that you would expect?

[NEWB]

Yes, but you just finished saying that you would support an insurance system where you could only draw what you put in. So if some teen driver hits you and puts you in a wheel chair, you get the $8,000 he has paid in so far. That's it. Where would the couple of million come from that you would expect?

A lot of "what if’s" in there.

The probability of that happening is very slim. Let's stick with facts here Oko.

I have a better probability of paying $10.00 and winning the lotto on Friday than encountering any of your what if scenerios.

I suspect people would be a lot more attentive and more risk adverse if they knew they were personally liable for any damage they caused by operating a motor vehicle...

:)

[Kurt505]

I know this thread is about EI, but while we're airing our wish list is like to add mandatory drug testing as a requirement to receive welfare or any social assistance. I believe Florida is currently running under this type of system, I haven't looked into any stats since it was enforced, would be interesting.

As far as EI is concerned, I haven't enquired about it since the early 90's when I was in trade school. I was under the impression it was hard to get signed up on. It's been about 20yrs since I looked into it tho, things probably changed a bit.

[mooseknuckle]

I know this thread is about EI, but while we're airing our wish list is like to add mandatory drug testing as a requirement to receive welfare or any social assistance. I believe Florida is currently running under this type of system, I haven't looked into any stats since it was enforced, would be interesting.

As far as EI is concerned, I haven't enquired about it since the early 90's when I was in trade school. I was under the impression it was hard to get signed up on. It's been about 20yrs since I looked into it tho, things probably changed a bit.

The stats from Florida have been in for some time, so far the cost for all the testing has exceeded the cost of those that take advantage of the system. So as good as it sounds, looks like it would just cost more.

[rayf01]

Thats an easy one to compare.... 6 months of ei is 9000 $

Run a pedestrian over and take out a fire hydrant and you can get dinged for 200 000-500 000 $

The liability to premium ratio is way larger on automobile insurance.

I would.

I have never needed to make an at fault claim on my vehicle insurance.

I would have $60,000.00 more in the bank. That is the rough total I have spent on vehicle insurance for the last 18 years.

I have only needed to pay out for one collision that was my fault. I cleared that up with cash. Her Jeep wasn't badly damaged and the girl was fine with me settling with a cash payment on her bumper. I knew she was getting it done cheap or not replaced at all. I even threw in a few extra dollars to sweeten the deal so she would go away. I had her sign the release waivers and never looked back.


I think you guys need to look at your pay stubs again. The max anyone pays in EI is about $980 per year from what I see on the government website, not sure how you pay $9,000 in EI in 6 months. And $60,000 paid in to EI would take you about 60 years at the current rates.

That said, I think its a horrible idea. Definitely needs reform, but the whole point of it is pooled risk insurance. There needs to be a better way to police the abusers.

[Kurt505]

The stats from Florida have been in for some time, so far the cost for all the testing has exceeded the cost of those that take advantage of the system. So as good as it sounds, looks like it would just cost more.

Well....... There goes that idea.

Cleaning highways and making license plates is probably out of the question too then.

[marxman]

great idea how long till the govt starts spending the surplus in good times and then tacking the deficit to the debt in bad in other words you wouldnt have a nanny piggy bank at all. not my idea of socialism

[Badgerbadger]

A lot of "what if’s" in there.

The probability of that happening is very slim. Let's stick with facts here Oko.

I have a better probability of paying $10.00 and winning the lotto on Friday than encountering any of your what if scenerios.

I suspect people would be a lot more attentive and more risk adverse if they knew they were personally liable for any damage they caused by operating a motor vehicle...

:)

Statistics is obviously not your long suit.

It appears you are also short on "cold, harsh reality of how people are stupid and selfish", as well.

[Badgerbadger]

I know this thread is about EI, but while we're airing our wish list is like to add mandatory drug testing as a requirement to receive welfare or any social assistance. I believe Florida is currently running under this type of system, I haven't looked into any stats since it was enforced, would be interesting.

As far as EI is concerned, I haven't enquired about it since the early 90's when I was in trade school. I was under the impression it was hard to get signed up on. It's been about 20yrs since I looked into it tho, things probably changed a bit.

There's more to be garnered in tightening up on corporate welfare/tax breaks/etc.

[Kurt505]

There's more to be garnered in tightening up on corporate welfare/tax breaks/etc.

I don't doubt that one bit!

[HyperMOA]

How about a 10% decrease on the contribution every year (or 2) that you do not claim a file; until after 10 years (or 20) you are no longer paying into the program. At which point if you claimed a file you immediately start over.

To counter that on the opposite spectrum; your maximum payable benefit of EI reduces by 10% every consecutive year that you collect until you are no longer eligible in the program. So if you collected for 5 years straight you would only receive 50% benefits. Then it would take you an additional 5 years claim-free to get back to max benefits. At this point if you continue claim-free your contribution reduces 10% every year (or 2).

[elkhunter11]

How about a 10% decrease on the contribution every year (or 2) that you do not claim a file; until after 10 years (or 20) you are no longer paying into the program. At which point if you claimed a file you immediately start over.

To counter that on the opposite spectrum; your maximum payable benefit of EI reduces by 10% every consecutive year that you collect until you are no longer eligible in the program. So if you collected for 5 years straight you would only receive 50% benefits. Then it would take you an additional 5 years claim-free to get back to max benefits. At this point if you continue claim-free your contribution reduces 10% every year (or 2).


Now that is a sensible idea, the habitual users get less, so they have more incentive to work, and the people that don't ever collect get a break as well.

[Wild&Free]

How about a 10% decrease on the contribution every year (or 2) that you do not claim a file; until after 10 years (or 20) you are no longer paying into the program. At which point if you claimed a file you immediately start over.

To counter that on the opposite spectrum; your maximum payable benefit of EI reduces by 10% every consecutive year that you collect until you are no longer eligible in the program. So if you collected for 5 years straight you would only receive 50% benefits. Then it would take you an additional 5 years claim-free to get back to max benefits. At this point if you continue claim-free your contribution reduces 10% every year (or 2).

Depending on where you live, every year on benefits would reduce the distance you could look for other full time work. 50% benefits is about 700$ a month. single moms with kids get more on welfare, would be less incentive to take seasonal/temp work if it becomes available.

Sounds good on paper, but not practical.

[Ivo]

Depending on where you live, every year on benefits would reduce the distance you could look for other full time work. 50% benefits is about 700$ a month. single moms with kids get more on welfare, would be less incentive to take seasonal/temp work if it becomes available.

Sounds good on paper, but not practical.

Leaving "single moms" out of the equation, I think it sounds pretty good.

People who are unfit to work like kids, physically or mentally challenged... should be protected and supported by different social programs. As well, single parent families should be eligible for other types of assistance(which I'm sure they already are).

I just think of how much we(all of us) pay in taxes every year and can't figure out why this country doesn't run like a well oiled machine and it keeps coming back to people taking advantage of the system(and us tax paying folks). Like many folks, I have been contributing for over 20 years and have never collected a penny from the government yet my wife and I have to pay for daycare/dayhome for the kids because the government doesn't have a program set up for our kids so that we can both go to work and pay taxes.

On the flip side there are entire families that are collecting with nobody working and paying into the system, a gross example of injustice and just plain irresponsible.

[nekred]

If someone hits me my insurance isn't paying for it.. It is the other parties insurance is.....

There are also legal proceedings one can follow. However if the person was not financially responsible then they will not have any money to pay. If you can not afford to pay out damage with cash then you shouldn't drive like a moron. If you can afford to pay out with cash then knock your self out! :)

You might want to look into the policies and how they are paid out, who is responisble, etc. It will be an eye opener...

I only carry PLPD as mandated by law. I carry just the basic coverage for vehicle coverage.

well as pointed out you had one accident that was ypour fault showing you are not perfect..... Now what happens if you are at 100k and some mechanical failure causes and accident that is fatal to you.....that is where insurance kicks in.....

Insurance is like a gun..... better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it!....

Now back to the original topic.... right now while economy is hot and jobs are plentiful for good money everyone looks at EI as unnecessary, however again it is insurance in the event of a downturn.... also EI is used for parental leave and for apprenticeship training too which are good things, maybe if we had more kids we would not have to use TFW's.... or had more trained tradesmen this province would be better off....i.e more sustainable....

not saying the system could not be made better but really we are pretty foirtunate the 2 week waiting period and 4 week wait for benefits is a good thing.....

I suddenly lost a job when company went into recievership, and my wife worked there too, we had baby 1 with baby 2 on the way and just before she went on parental leave the company crashed and she lost her EI benefits for parental leave.... at first until it was corrected....

Meanwhile it was a pretty stress filled time but knowing there was EI was a pretty big relief, but having a brand new just finished house I had to sell and move to a different area was a pretty big adjustment and had to live in a tent trailer in the fall until we could find a place to rent was an adventure but it all worked out. I did not have to go on EI but sure was nice to know it was there....

[nekred]

On a different vein I wish we could count family income and split income. I am the main wage earner but if we could income split it would sure save in taxes, if we both worked at jobs with same pay where our household income was the same I would pay way less tax.....

Meanwhile we can't income split and my wife is a stay at home mom with young children and we get hosed for this in taxes.

meanwhile if both parents work and let their kids be latch key kids (which is shown to be a huge social problem now) they save major on taxes but then their kids are a drain on the tax ssystem.....

If we could income split then we could look at the tax savings as paying for in-home daycare with their parents which is best of all worlds.....

[CanuckShooter]

I was just watching some news and some one talked about EI as an account for each person. Like a personal ei account you pay into as normal, you draw on it your account goes down and if you never draw it goes into your retirement.

It could even go a step further, combine ei and cpp contributions to one account, cut the premiums then the bias would be work and retire better or be a slacker and have to work longer.

Cut contribution cost on payroll, incentivise work, and if some one like most of us do works all thier lives the EI money doesnt go out the window.

Better yet, just get rid of the EI program all together. If you lose your job and need help, go on social assistance. Never did understand why we need two separate govt agencies providing essentially the same service.

[NEWB]

Statistics is obviously not your long suit.

It appears you are also short on "cold, harsh reality of how people are stupid and selfish", as well.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

One can mitigate risk and improve the stats in their favour very easy with a few adjustments to driving behaviour... Yes.. Statistics can be skewed to support or deter for what ever cause you want.

I am well aware of how stupid and selfish people are. I see it every day and catch it frequently on my dash cam. Why should I need to pay for their stupidity? These people should be take the financial burden of their own negligence.

Do you not think that if people were financially responsible for their stupidity we would see a reduction in collisions and stupidity on the roads?


well as pointed out you had one accident that was ypour fault showing you are not perfect..... Now what happens if you are at 100k and some mechanical failure causes and accident that is fatal to you.....that is where insurance kicks in.....

Insurance is like a gun..... better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it!....

Now back to the original topic.... right now while economy is hot and jobs are plentiful for good money everyone looks at EI as unnecessary, however again it is insurance in the event of a downturn.... also EI is used for parental leave and for apprenticeship training too which are good things, maybe if we had more kids we would not have to use TFW's.... or had more trained tradesmen this province would be better off....i.e more sustainable....

not saying the system could not be made better but really we are pretty foirtunate the 2 week waiting period and 4 week wait for benefits is a good thing.....

I suddenly lost a job when company went into recievership, and my wife worked there too, we had baby 1 with baby 2 on the way and just before she went on parental leave the company crashed and she lost her EI benefits for parental leave.... at first until it was corrected....

Meanwhile it was a pretty stress filled time but knowing there was EI was a pretty big relief, but having a brand new just finished house I had to sell and move to a different area was a pretty big adjustment and had to live in a tent trailer in the fall until we could find a place to rent was an adventure but it all worked out. I did not have to go on EI but sure was nice to know it was there....


Is it not my responsibility to ensure my vehicle is in top mechanicle shape before departing on any voyage? Lets assume you are talking used.

If you are talking Brand new off the lot and under warranty the responsibility would still fall on me. There would be responsibility shared with the manufacturer/dealer as theses vehicles are to be inspected pre delivery.

The onous should be on the owner to mitigate risk and pay for damages. My collision with the jeep was because I was driving too fast. Had I been doing the speed limit and anticipated better what would have happened the collision would not have happened. I collided, I paid, lesson learned.

As for EI,

I have never needed to claim it. One should be saving part of their income in the event of a work shortage or lay off. Yes it is a miniscule amount every year that I pay for EI, however paying for something that I can not claim as I am not eligible for is not my idea of money well spent.

I do strongly believe there should be a reform in EI. What is the answer... I don't know.

[riden]

I don't think we need to make any changes to the program at all, leave it and all the rules exactly the same.

Let's hire 10 times the people to enforce the existing rules though. Lets really start making people accountable for why they can't find a job. Make them answer some tough questions, maybe a phone call or two to see if they are actually applying for work where they say they are. When they are caught loafing or lying, they are disqualified.

Now, I am sure they will not recover their wages and it will cost us money, who cares. It would be best for everyone involved, the taxpayer and the deadbeat.


Not sure that I am right, but I was told that there is no longer any relocation money involved in EI, if that is true, it is a travesty.

[HyperMOA]

Depending on where you live, every year on benefits would reduce the distance you could look for other full time work. 50% benefits is about 700$ a month. single moms with kids get more on welfare, would be less incentive to take seasonal/temp work if it becomes available.

Sounds good on paper, but not practical.

Well there are exceptions to all rules. My idea involved 2 minutes of thought process, and a final draft of it would be much cleaner. Also, there could be exceptions to these rules.

For example, any tradesman collecting to attend school could be exempted provided they pass that years course.

Paternity / maternity leave could be exempted.

As for single mothers something could probably be worked out.

I for one, think it has less holes in it, written on a bar napkin, than the program in place right now.

[Ken07AOVette]

Ever watch wicked tuna?

"I have to catch all the fish I can to feed my family over the next month so I can survive the other 10 months without work."

Sounds so very familiar.

[rugatika]

Just let individuals buy private unemployment insurance. No need for Gov't involvement...UNLESS it's not really insurance but just another form of welfare and or tax. Hmmm. Methinks there would be an unheralded amount of squawking if Unemployment Insurance were actually treated like insurance.

[marxman]

Just let individuals buy private unemployment insurance. No need for Gov't involvement...UNLESS it's not really insurance but just another form of welfare and or tax. Hmmm. Methinks there would be an unheralded amount of squawking if Unemployment Insurance were actually treated like insurance.

but it is real insurance and it pays for itself i think it even had a surplus not long ago. my pension plan goes into my own pot supposedly but im pretty sure my benefits will be payed by future workers the pension plan is a ponzi scheme.

[deerhunter]

Worked for 47 years.
Never drew EI.

[CanuckShooter]

Just let individuals buy private unemployment insurance. No need for Gov't involvement...UNLESS it's not really insurance but just another form of welfare and or tax. Hmmm. Methinks there would be an unheralded amount of squawking if Unemployment Insurance were actually treated like insurance.

Don't forget the employers make EI contributions along with yours.....it's another form of payroll tax. It also drives up the cost of carrying workers, we would be better served with higher corporate taxes, and providing employers the ability to 'capitalize' their workforce.

[huntsfurfish]

The purpose of insurance, including EI, is that you pool the risk. Some people will draw less, some more. If each person had an individual account and you could only withdraw what you paid in, there would be absolutely no need for the program in the first place. Just save your own money in the bank.

So if someone was a new worker, perhaps only been in the workforce a year or two, they would be eligible for, what, two or three days worth of EI?

Not so awesome. More pointless. They do need to change the program, but this ain't the solution.

I agree Oko. I paid all my career/life never collected a cent. So be it. It was there if I would have needed it.

[huntsfurfish]

Wow!

Where are we headed?

The me me's are out in full force again(as usual).

I get the "get rid of the abuse" comments on threads like this but I dont get the rest!

Makes me wonder.