As it should be. The insurers would interpret (correctly) that it was either an abuse of the system or that you were not insurable at all.
Elizabeth May on her pogie past
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
As it should be. The insurers would interpret (correctly) that it was either an abuse of the system or that you were not insurable at all.
Most resource industry workers collect EI on a semi regular basis. Most often it is clawed back at tax time since when we work we make good money. Not so with part time , seasonal tourism jobs. Most people could not afford to live on what EI pays for any length of time since it pays less than 2 days worth of work.
There are of course chronic abusers that don't want to work and are happy being broke. They also tend to use a disproportionate share of other government programs.
This is also part of the reason why forcing EI recipients to take a lower paying job than their qualifications is a non issue. Those with ambition are not going to stay on EI or a dead end job for long and there is still the overlooked fact that some employer still has to offer them a job.
There are of course chronic abusers that don't want to work and are happy being broke. They also tend to use a disproportionate share of other government programs.
This is also part of the reason why forcing EI recipients to take a lower paying job than their qualifications is a non issue. Those with ambition are not going to stay on EI or a dead end job for long and there is still the overlooked fact that some employer still has to offer them a job.
Are you saying that in good times, you pay more than normal EI contributions to make up for collecting EI at other times? Or are you simply pointing out that you pay income tax, and therefore deserve EI, which are different pots of money.
Why?
Paul Martin left it in excellent sustainable shape, even with the abuses.
The loopholes and abilities to use the system, should be looked at closely and those issues fixed.
Even private management would fast track the sealing of loopholes, tag a "hands off" ruling for dipping into the fund by govt and offer tiered levels of deductions and benefits. The more stable your employment the less you pay.
if you make a certain amount of money the next year they take a percentage of it back at income tax time because you were on EI
I'm sure it's splitting hairs and some keener can look up rules and such but claiming UI while working for the family restaurant business sounds a little crutchie.
She's probably glad though that her hippie parents migrated and found our social network better than back home in the states.
She's probably glad though that her hippie parents migrated and found our social network better than back home in the states.
Well, look at that:
At the time you file your income tax return, depending on your net income and if you were paid regular benefits, including regular fishing benefits, you may be required to repay some of the EI benefits you received. If your 2012 net income from all sources exceeds $57,375 you will be required to repay 30% of the lesser of:
At the time you file your income tax return, depending on your net income and if you were paid regular benefits, including regular fishing benefits, you may be required to repay some of the EI benefits you received. If your 2012 net income from all sources exceeds $57,375 you will be required to repay 30% of the lesser of:
- your net income in excess of $57,375; or
- the total regular benefits, including regular fishing benefits, paid in the taxation year.
Exactly,but if you were on EI for any length of time with a family and payments then chances are you are in debt so getting a bill at the end of the year for 5 grand on top of your max income tax payments can really hurt.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing.
When you also factor in that the govt. employees have been staging a work to rule/slowdown on processing any claims it can take months to get a cheque.
the only time I used EI was for paternity leave, and because the gov't employees and our own payroll dept screwed it up, by the time I got any money, I was going back to work, and they paid me double, and then asked me to pay half of it back. I've never seen anything so screwed up.
When I went in to try to understand the system, they were saying things like, See, you were paid for weeks 1276 and 1277, but it should have been for weeks 1385 and 1386...which they wouldn't explain to me for the longest time what they were talking about. Turns out, they started numbering weeks a few years ago, and unless you're a habitual user of the system, you don't know what they are talking about. Week 1276 doesn't mean anything to anyone who isn't either an employee or regular customer. The whole thing is set up to deal with repeat customers, those who've never used the system are looked down on by the employees, for not understanding it.
If you earn more than $57,375 would you need E.I.? :lol:
Same thing! No?