quote:

---

As of January 1st, 2007, employers will pay a premium rate of $2.52 per $100 of each employee's earnings, up to the annual maximum insurable earnings of $40,000 for each employee. The maximum contribution amount of each employee is $1008.00.

For employees residing in Quebec, employers will pay a premium rate of $2.04 per $100 of each employee's earnings, up to the annual maximum insurable earnings of $40,000 for each employee. The maximum contribution amount for each employee is $816.00.

---

On the other hand, ...

quote:

---

As of January 1st, 2007, for each employee, you need to deduct $1.80 for each $100 of your employee's salary, up to the maximum insurable earnings of $40,000. The maximum contribution amount for each employee is $720.00

For your employees risiding in Quebec, you need to deduct $1.46 for each $100 of your employee's salary, up to the maximum insurable earnings of $40,000. The maximum contribution amount for each employee is $584.00.

---

As you can see, the numbers are different. But the basic information is that EI is financed by employers and employees and administered by the Government of Canada.

The EI program has been savaged by Liberal and Conservative regimes alike. It's hardly an insurance scheme anymore at all. And it is unfair in so many ways. Here's one way:

quote:

---

There is no age limit for deducting EI premiums. In fact, if your employee is working in insurable employment, you must deduct the application EI premiums, whatever the employee's age.

---

So, for example, people over 65 who are working must pay EI premiums. But they are not allowed, by law, to collect EI.

Here is a link: General information for employers on EI

[ 24 March 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

My boss gets annoyed because his share of ei payments for me is bigger than mine.
I tell him than there is no his share or my share. It is our share.

---

Good point you make.

But actually it goes further than that, in economics. The actual fact is that his share is your share, since you, and your co-workers, are the ones whose labour creates the goods and services that people deem of value, therefore giving the business its value.

Unless your boss is actually working along side you doing something directly useful in the business, then s/he isn't participating in that process and therefore isn't creating anything.

Ownership and control in themselves create nothing and serve little purpose to other people in the market place and economy. Rather, it's the labour--as in the work--that people do creating useful goods and services for others that is what matters.

Add to this is the other economic fundamental that it is labour, as in working people, who create the economy via their mostly non-profit consistent investment of consumer and tax dollars that keep the economy going, creates jobs and keeps businesses afloat.

You might try telling your boss that first, his EI payments are a direct investment in keeping his business going by providing consumers with cash to spend; and second, that wage earners pay overall much more in taxes than business owners.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:

I am sure that if it were shown in that way, people would see it as a pretty sneaky EXTRA tax on labour. (which it is).
It is an extra income tax, with a hidden component!

---

This is a lost cause. When you go to a store as a customer you are told up front what the cost will be but with the government that is the last thing they want. The rule in government is to hide the tax, they are candid about this. Things like transit are paid for by three levels of government so who pays for what is entirely blowing in the wind. Some times it's argued that when you access Health Care you should be invoiced so you have an idea what you are getting but even this is not done. Worse nobody does any studies of government programs so what anything costs is unknown. The idea that we, the people, "are not suppose to know" is only the tip of the iceberg -- actually the government doesn't know what things cost. Taxing or spending, it's a grey area.

[ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ]

[ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
If Lib-Cons actually used the EI fund for its intended purpose, I wouldn't mind. But they don't and so I do.

---

quote:

---

It is unacceptable that the EI program should have a surplus of $51 billion when only 33% of women and 44% of men who pay Employment Insurance premiums are able to collect benefits when they lose their jobs. That is why we have to stand up and defend these workers. They work hard for their money and it is theirs,” added Mr. Godin.

The latter will not hesitate to take whatever means necessary to argue a case they feel strongly about in court. The complaint was filed against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Cabinet.

---

Libranos to Canadian Workers:"What $48 Billion Surplus ?"

[ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phrillie:
Who am I to believe? Is there a surplus or not?

---

quote:

---

The Account will continue to record program revenues and expenses, but the accumulated surplus is no longer to be considered in calculating the break-even premium rate.

---

quote:

---

In brief
For the past six years, we have drawn Parliament's attention to our concerns about the government's compliance with the intent of the Employment Insurance Act, with respect to the setting of employment insurance premium rates and its impact on the size and growth of the accumulated surplus in the Employment Insurance Account. The accumulated surplus in the Account increased by an additional $2 billion in 2004–05 to reach $48 billion by the end of March 2005.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phrillie:
I appreciate that that's a lot of money in the bank but does that translate into "theft"?

Ought that money be returned to the workers, in your view? What about future demand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Absolutely it should be returned and made available to unemployed Canadian workers who are in need of income support and job retraining in order to help them become participants in what is an increasingly globalized economy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phrillie:
I appreciate that that's a lot of money in the bank but does that translate into "theft"?

Ought that money be returned to the workers, in your view? What about future demand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phrillie:

But it *is* available to unemployed Canadian workers. That's what EI is for. I guess I don't understand what your issue is.

---

No, EI benefits *are not* available to all unemployed Canadians.You said you are curious to know whether there is a surplus or not. Both the Auditor General's report and the NDP are telling you there *is* a surplus. So what part of $51 followed by nine zeros do you not understand ?.

Yvon Godin's comments are saying that: only 44 percent of unemployed men and 33 percent of unemployed women qualify for EI benefits. They have a "surplus" in Ottawa because they've been witholding EI benefits from unemployed Canadians for years. It's theft to the tune of $51 Billion dollars and counting.

[ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:
Wouldn't it be nice to cancel ei payments for a few years until the surplus is reduced to a practical level.
It is like a condo contingency fund.
You can reduce condo fees when the fund gets greater in size than what is needed.
BUT it is really thieft.
Here is a tax that is levied on lower paid workers to a far greater extent than it is levied on higher paid workers AND they aint using it as directed by law. And this tax is much higher than documented! it is 2.52% +1.80% =3.32% (I could have screwed up because the employer share is before you get your bill) but around 3.3% for sure! WHY does this 3.3% tax stop hurting people at 40,000?
I mean the poor bastard on minimum wage has to pay it in full on every cent he earns but richie rich gets a break after $40,000.
So the scumbags in parliament pay a smaller percentage of ei than you or me.
No wondor they dont care to change it.
Bury your heads in the sand if you like but I concider ei a tax and a really unfair one too.
Why not pay ei out of general tax revinue. Increase tax by 1% and eliminate ei premiums altogether?
Why bluddy not?

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
[QB]
Steppenwolf Allende
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13076
posted 25 March 2007 01:17 AM
quote:
My boss gets annoyed because his share of ei payments for me is bigger than mine.
I tell him than there is no his share or my share. It is our share.

Good point you make.

But actually it goes further than that, in economics. The actual fact is that his share is your share, since you, and your co-workers, are the ones whose labour creates the goods and services that people deem of value, therefore giving the business its value.

Unless your boss is actually working along side you doing something directly useful in the business, then s/he isn't participating in that process and therefore isn't creating anything.

Ownership and control in themselves create nothing and serve little purpose to other people in the market place and economy. Rather, it's the labour--as in the work--that people do creating useful goods and services for others that is what matters.

Add to this is the other economic fundamental that it is labour, as in working people, who create the economy via their mostly non-profit consistent investment of consumer and tax dollars that keep the economy going, creates jobs and keeps businesses afloat.

You might try telling your boss that first, his EI payments are a direct investment in keeping his business going by providing consumers with cash to spend; and second, that wage earners pay overall much more in taxes than business owners.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
But actually it goes further than that, in economics. The actual fact is that his share is your share, since you, and your co-workers, are the ones whose labour creates the goods and services that people deem of value, therefore giving the business its value.

Unless your boss is actually working along side you doing something directly useful in the business, then s/he isn't participating in that process and therefore isn't creating anything.

Ownership and control in themselves create nothing and serve little purpose to other people in the market place and economy. Rather, it's the labour--as in the work--that people do creating useful goods and services for others that is what matters.

---

I really disagree with this. I've been both an employee and an entrepreneur and I would certainly dispute your claim that ownership and control create nothing. By way of evidence, I urge you to consider how easily lower level workers are replaced.

[ 13 April 2007: Message edited by: Phrillie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
But the fact is they are replaced. The boss man and management apparatus don't get their hands dirty as a rule.

---

quote:

---

I really disagree with this. I've been both an employee and an entrepreneur and I would certainly dispute your claim that ownership and control create nothing.

---

Too bad, because it's the plain hard truth. I’ll offer you a personal example, as you did here.

I have also been an employee and an "entrepreneur," and I currently am both--a self-employed union worker, who's part of a small cooperative union shop with three other partners.

We ourselves, like millions of others around the globe, are living proof that ownership and control mean little in creating something useful and tradable for others.

For example, I just described my situation to you above. So what? What does it mean for you? What good does it do you to know this about me?

The answer: nothing. There's absolutely no way what I just wrote about myself above has any relevance to you or anyone else.

However, when I tell you what it is we do: communications, audio-technology and journalism and research.

Now, I bet that sounds a lot more practical and realistic. Who knows? You might even need services like this, or know someone else who might, or at least can think of many instances where someone out there would find this type of work useful.

So it's not my ownership of or position of authority in anything that is relevant. Rather, it's my labour--as in what I do, and what I can do for others, that makes it worth something.

And that’s just it. It’s people’s practical productive labour in doing useful things for others, and not their ownership or position of power (if they have one), that creates the wealth and value of things in our economy.

quote:

---

By way of evidence, I urge you to consider how easily lower level workers are replaced.

---

Well, with due respect, I don’t think this counts as evidence for anything. The very fact that they NEED to be replaced shows that they are the productive force in the firm, and not the bosses who dictatorially decide to replace them.

That’s one of the fundamental reasons that ties unions and workplace democracy to social justice and freedom: the fact that, in most cases, those who do the productive useful work, that gives any business its value, are not the ones who democratically run it. Capitalism creates, or often worsens, so many problems largely because of this one fact: those who do the work don’t get a say in calling the shots.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phrillie:
I didn't say they were available to ALL unemployed Canadians. But I do believe they are available to MANY unemployed Canadians, e.g. T4ed employees with minimum qualifying hours.

---

That's precisely the point. The government screws with the minimum hour requirement as a way to limit eligibility, so by paying less they can grab for the rest of the EI fund and use it for general revenue.

quote:

---

Here is a tax that is levied on lower paid workers to a far greater extent than it is levied on higher paid workers.

---

Well, with due respect, I don’t think this counts as evidence for anything. The very fact that they NEED to be replaced shows that they are the productive force in the firm, and not the bosses who dictatorially decide to replace them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phrillie:

The only point I was trying to make was that entrepreneur does not equal evil.

---

How would you describe warfiteering in Iraq ?. Are Haliburton, Raytheon and McDonnel-Douglas just in it for the innovation and entrepreneurial contribution to the betterment of mankind, or are they profiteering SOB's with friends in the shadow government and Pentagon ?.

Were IBM, Standard Oil, IG Farben, Silesian Steel, Union Bank of NYC just taking advantage of a business opportunity in the 1930's and 40's, or did people in those business entities have geopolitical interests in preventing the spread of communism to the west ?.

How about Ken Lay, John Roth, Bernie Ebbers and a slew of entrepreneurial types whose shareholders and worker's interests were the last things on their minds when they put personal, individual, appalling greed ahead of the interests of thousands of people ?.

But to return to the question, economists have acknowledged in recent years that there are viable alternatives to "flexible labour markets." And both Liberal and Conservative governments in Ottawa have renegged on a decades-old pledge to provide unemployed workers with support benefits and funds for job training and retraining. The two old line parties are despicable, imo.

[ 30 April 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

OTTAWA – NDP leader Jack Layton and NDP Employment Insurance critic Yvon Godin (Acadie-Bathurst) joined central labour bodies today to demand that the Harper government take action as quickly as possible to help workers.

The NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois have agreed to move forward as quickly as possible on Bill C-269, which aims to reform the Employment Insurance program.

“For too long, workers’ rights have been put aside. It’s totally unacceptable and incomprehensible that in 2007, with an EI surplus of $51 billion, 68% of women and 62% of men who pay into the system aren’t eligible for benefits,” said Layton.

After Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives first gutted Employment Insurance, the Liberal Party followed their example as soon as they came into power, emptying EI coffers at workers’ expense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
This is somewhat true, but totally irrelevent. The reason that there is a cap on premiums for higher income earners is because a cap has been set on the maximum amount payable through the program. The amount they pay is equivalent to the amount they are allowed to collect.

---

quote:

---

The only point I was trying to make was that entrepreneur does not equal evil.

---

It's not a matter of individuals being evil or good (although the latter always helps). Rather, the evil is the system and its structures.

The evil part is the economic mantra of creating a ruling class of profiteering bosses and bureaucrats exploiting workers and consumers via various undemocratic corporate institutions.

There are obviously good and evil individuals in both classes and at every level in these hierarchical institutions. But the nature of those structures is such that they allow evil to flourish and all too often dominate over the good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
There are obviously good and evil individuals in both classes and at every level in these hierarchical institutions. But the nature of those structures is such that they allow evil to flourish and all too often dominate over the good.

---

But the horrible bosses exploiting the underclass are just one of the many existing scenarios. Obviously, in our greedy society, we've got lots of bad actors. All I was trying to say (poorly, obviously) is that not all bosses are evil and that not all workers are downtrodden. I've abused and been abused on both sides of the fence.

As far as the EI mess goes, I've always had some concerns about it:

(1) If you can't collect (i.e. you're over 65), then you shouldn't be forced to contribute.

(2)(a) If you can't collect because you're a part-timer, ditto.

OR

(2)(b) Part-time contributors should be eligible for part-time benefits.

(3) (And this is my most contentious point) EI is insurance and it should be treated as insurance. If you're a crappy risk, you should pay more or choose to opt out. If you've worked for years in your field without a claim, your premiums should decreased accordingly.

(4) Way back when in this thread, someone mentioned increasing general revenue by 1% and scrapping the whole program and I think this would be the best option of all. However, I feel this way about lots of government programs e.g. the GST rebate bureaucracy, MSP billing, etc., etc.

[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: Phrillie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phrillie:

(4) Way back when in this thread, someone mentioned increasing general revenue by 1% and scrapping the whole program and I think this would be the best option of all.

---

But this would suggest that the EI program isn't a worthwhile program. The point is, unemployment benefits and money for job training programs are a part of what contributes to Scandinavian and N.European economic competitiveness. Those governments have recognized that industry can be fickle when it comes to supply of skilled workers. Denying unemployed and under-employed workers access to income supplements and job retraining does nothing for competitiveness.

The most competitive economies are said to be competitivebecause of generous social programs not in spite of them. And PSE tuitions in Canada are some of the most expensive in the world. Canadian students are more than $20 billion dollars in debt today. Canada didn't rack up that much national debt between WWI and 1974.

According to Mel Hurtig's research published in The Vanishing Nation from 2002, if Ottawa was to collect tax revenues at just the OECD average as a percentage of GDP, they'd have about another $30 billion dollars in coffers.

And if Ottawa was to fund program spending at the OECD average, again as a percentage of GDP, they'd be spending at least another $47 billion dollars a year. If Canadians and corporations are overtaxed, then by what comparison and with which country ?.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
But this would suggest that the EI program isn't a worthwhile program.

---

No, not what I meant at all. Unemployment benefits and job training are very much worthwhile endeavours. The trouble is the EI bureaucracy. We have the same problem with the WCB.

quote:

---

The point is, unemployment benefits and money for job training programs are a part of what contributes to Scandinavian and N.European economic competitiveness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phrillie:

If P.J. O'Rourke is to be believed (and I'm not at all sure that this is so), these countries in fact aren't competitive -- they're borrowing against the future as they can't afford their programs. They are buckling under that debt.

---

Which countries are saddled with more national debt than the most politically conservative western nations ?. As the hawks shifted their economy to the neo-Liberal right since 2001, they've dropped from second to sixth place on the list for
Global Economic Competitive Growth Index.

It looks to me as if socialism for the rich isn't working in the USA. Bush is running the economy like a banana republic with that country's: trade, accounts, budget and savings deficits. That's unsustainable.

P.J. O'Rourke is one of the chickenhawk's propaganda brigade.

[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

But the horrible bosses exploiting the underclass are just one of the many existing scenarios.

---

Actually, that is the underlying scenario that creates, or at least exacerbates, all of the others.

quote:

---

Obviously, in our greedy society, we've got lots of bad actors.

---

As said, our oppressive capitalist-dominated economy and its rotten greedy ethics creates these types of attitudes among people.

quote:

---

All I was trying to say (poorly, obviously) is that not all bosses are evil and that not all workers are downtrodden. I've abused and been abused on both sides of the fence.

---

The main fact is, though, that any time you work under the dictates of a boss who profits from your labour, pays the bills of the firm off the money your work and the goods and services you create via your labour, and uses this at his/her sole discretion without your input makes you down-trodden as a worker.

The fact is, workers, whether they are saints or scumbags, create the wealth of business and the economy via their labour, and stimulate the economy via their mostly non-profit investments as consumers; and bosses, whether they are saints or scumbags, exist and often enrich themselves via the exploitation of that process.

That's why being a good person alone isn't enough. We need to democratize the economy to a point where those who do the work have a binding say in what happens, and everyone works to get paid.

As far as your position on EI, I agree with you.

There are far too many working people, especially among low-paid part-time and casual workers, as well as the self-employed owner-operators/proprietors, who are disqualified from collecting benefits, even though they contribute and often need those benefits the most.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
The main fact is, though, that any time you work under the dictates of a boss who profits from your labour, pays the bills of the firm off the money your work and the goods and services you create via your labour, and uses this at his/her sole discretion without your input makes you down-trodden as a worker.

---

What does "without your input" mean? A worker's "input" is their efforts at the job. That's the deal. If you don't like it, start your own business and show us how it's done.

quote:

---

The fact is, workers, whether they are saints or scumbags, create the wealth of business and the economy via their labour

---

That's only part of the story, though. The guys who risk their money to set up the venture in the first place surely should take some (though, obviously not all) the credit.

quote:

---

That's why being a good person alone isn't enough. We need to democratize the economy to a point where those who do the work have a binding say in what happens, and everyone works to get paid.

---

If that were the case, I think we'd have a severe drop-off in new business start-ups. What would be the point in taking the risk, then? If it bombs, it's your problem, but if you do well, you have to share the wealth equally. I really don't think that's workable.

quote:

---

There are far too many working people, especially among low-paid part-time and casual workers, as well as the self-employed owner-operators/proprietors, who are disqualified from collecting benefits, even though they contribute and often need those benefits the most.

---

You're right, this sucks, and is the reason the EI bureaucracy should be dismantled.

[ 04 May 2007: Message edited by: Phrillie ]

quote:

---

What does "without your input" mean? A worker's "input" is their efforts at the job.

---

No, I mean as in the democratic input as in the decision-making and direction, investments, etc. to the operation. Unions should be allowed to elect representatives to the boards of corporations and firms, and have a direct binding democratic say on their own terms in these matters --if not fully controlling and owning them democratically, as in various socialistic type ventures, like co-ops, labour-sponsored enterprises, credit unions, etc.

These may seem like futuristic Marxist ideals. But these are fairly common and highly successful ventures in many parts of Western Europe, especially Scandinavia, Italy and Spain, and, on smaller scales, throughout various parts of Asia and the Africa.

quote:

---

The guys who risk their money to set up the venture in the first place surely should take some (though, obviously not all) the credit.

---

This, with due respect, is the elitist and chauvinistic attitude of the corporate power brokers and their apologists.

First, if you read the business pages, even of the corporate media, like, say, the Globe & Mail report on Business, you find the "guys who risk their money" are most often risking other people's money--as in trusts, banks loans, pension funds (without the consent of the workers), government business development grants.

Second, the "guys who risk their money" also include the workers who invest their money and time learning the useful trades and professions that give the business its value, their health and safety in doing the jobs, the usual stress on the family life, etc.--most of which they are not compensated for.

Third, the "guys who risk their money" are automatically given dictatorial power over the business in the form of bureaucratic title of ownership, or by appointing bosses and managers or becoming those themselves. Meanwhile, the workers are reduced to being largely de-humanized employees or human resources to be used and discarded at their whim.

Fourth, if the venture fails, the "guys who risk their money" most often get to walk away with huge severance bonuses and dividend packages, tax-sheltered private trusts, tax hand-outs, etc., while the workers might get EI or welfare and possible lose their pension or other retirement benefits.

So in the total picture, the "guys who risk their money" don't do that much to deserve that much of the credit to begin with.

quote:

---

If that were the case, I think we'd have a severe drop-off in new business start-ups. What would be the point in taking the risk, then? If it bombs, it's your problem, but if you do well, you have to share the wealth equally. I really don't think that's workable.

---

Why? If the money supply is democratized, as in the working people who earn it get to have a democratic say in how it's used (like workers' control over their pension funds, credit unions instead of banks, etc.), that would lead to somewhat more equitable distribution of the money and thus more equitable distribution of the risk, and more in sharing of the success.

quote:

---

This, with due respect, is the elitist and chauvinistic attitude of the corporate power brokers and their apologists.

---

quote:

---

Can't comment on that but I can tell you that it's also spoken by someone who invested her life savings to get a small business off the ground.

---

So have I, as have many people I know. That is a real problem with the capitalist economy: it denies access to the capital we all create by centralizing into various elite hands, that set all sorts of restrictive conditions on the release of it.

What I was mentioning above are ways that are being tried as to how to change that in the long-run and try to get around it as much as possible in the meantime.

[ 06 May 2007: Message edited by: Steppenwolf Allende ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
Why? If the money supply is democratized, as in the working people who earn it get to have a democratic say in how it's used (like workers' control over their pension funds, credit unions instead of banks, etc.), that would lead to somewhat more equitable distribution of the money and thus more equitable distribution of the risk, and more in sharing of the success.

---

The NDP has discussed these issues for many years. They feel the lowest common denominator for Canadians right now would be to understand how the banking cabal gouges us with transaction fees for what is an essential service. Like Duncan Cameron said recently, there aren't many MP's themselves who understand money creation and banking. There are several long-time NDP'ers who do. Canadians as a whole understand it even less so. We can't have democracy without an informed, well-educated public. And this is one of the reasons our two old line parties, in power and sharing power since Tsarist era Russia, have defamed and defunded post-secondary education to the tune of several billion dollars a year in this frozen Puerto Rico.