Wrong time to raise EI premiums, Rae says
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:32 am
CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
PA, don't forget that Paul Martin gutted the Canadian Forces as well. If it wasn't for Stephen Harper, the military would still suck, and we'd have suffered the same fate as parts of Europe in the current financial crisis. The Economic Action Plan was the right thing to do at the right time.
-J.
-J.
I'm surprised Martin didn't register all of the military's rolling stock offshore so it could be repaired by cheap labour in a country with non-existent labour laws.
andyt @ Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:33 am
$1:
the military would still suck, and we'd have suffered the same fate as parts of Europe in the current financial crisis.
Sounds like you're connecting the two. If not, why would we have suffered the same fate as Europe if not for Stevo "if we were going to have a recession we would have had it by now", blow the Liberal surplus in the first year in office, Harper? Seems to me with Paul Martin's continued prudent fiscal management we'd likely be in even better shape than we are now.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:39 am
andyt andyt:
$1:
the military would still suck, and we'd have suffered the same fate as parts of Europe in the current financial crisis.
Sounds like you're connecting the two. If not, why would we have suffered the same fate as Europe if not for Stevo "if we were going to have a recession we would have had it by now", blow the Liberal surplus in the first year in office, Harper? Seems to me with Paul Martin's continued prudent fiscal management we'd likely be in even better shape than we are now.Hmmm I really wonder just how better off we'd be. How long could he continue to raid the various pension funds and the EI fund? How many more property tax hikes would cities have to enact?
I am curious though, were all those funds that were raided ever replaced??
andyt @ Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:48 am
So you give no credit to Martin's huge turnaround of our economy that was about the have the IMF get involved? And the good shape he left our books in for Harper to immediately go on a vote buying tax cutting spree?
Harper/Flaherty have done a pretty good job, once they reluctantly came to accept that their neo-con agenda wasn't going to fly. And, they've been able to do a good job because of the good condition that Martin left Canada in, including strong bank regulations - wonder if those would have been in place if Harper had a majority earlier in the decade.
All this partisan stuff is crap. Curtman is wrong about the deficit - I'm sure a Liberal govt would also have had to go into debt to deal with the recession, tho it would not have cut GST and so would possibly have less debt. But for Patriot to say that we're in good shape because of Harper, and would not be if the Libs were in is also blind partisanship. For him it seems to all come down to the military, as long as that's well funded he's happy.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:08 am
andyt andyt:
So you give no credit to Martin's huge turnaround of our economy that was about the have the IMF get involved? And the good shape he left our books in for Harper to immediately go on a vote buying tax cutting spree?
Harper/Flaherty have done a pretty good job, once they reluctantly came to accept that their neo-con agenda wasn't going to fly. And, they've been able to do a good job because of the good condition that Martin left Canada in, including strong bank regulations - wonder if those would have been in place if Harper had a majority earlier in the decade.
All this partisan stuff is crap. Curtman is wrong about the deficit - I'm sure a Liberal govt would also have had to go into debt to deal with the recession, tho it would not have cut GST and so would possibly have less debt. But for Patriot to say that we're in good shape because of Harper, and would not be if the Libs were in is also blind partisanship at it's worst. For him it seems to all come down to the military, as long as that's well funded he's happy.
Harper/Flaherty have done a pretty good job, once they reluctantly came to accept that their neo-con agenda wasn't going to fly. And, they've been able to do a good job because of the good condition that Martin left Canada in, including strong bank regulations - wonder if those would have been in place if Harper had a majority earlier in the decade.
All this partisan stuff is crap. Curtman is wrong about the deficit - I'm sure a Liberal govt would also have had to go into debt to deal with the recession, tho it would not have cut GST and so would possibly have less debt. But for Patriot to say that we're in good shape because of Harper, and would not be if the Libs were in is also blind partisanship at it's worst. For him it seems to all come down to the military, as long as that's well funded he's happy.
I'm not disagreeing at all about the partisan crap. But here's why I give no credit to Martin's "miracle". It's one thing to attain a budget surplus, and the way he did it was to download onto the provicnes and raid various funds. It's another thing entirely to maintain that surplus without continuing the practices that got you there in the 1st place. It was a band-aid solution with it's own set of long term problems if it continued. The real problem wasn't fixed, it was merely spackled over.
Now, this next statement is in no way meant to be partisan. I have grave doubts Martin or any other Liberal could have maintained the surplus for much more than 2-3 years without causing major damage in other areas using the methods used to achieve the surplus in the first place.
It's funny cuz EI was one of the funds raided. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if the "Martin Method" was still in use, those EI premium increases Rae is bitching about would have happened long before now.
andyt @ Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:15 am
Martin has certainly got his share of accolades for what he did. At least he had Canada pull itself out of it's mess, reverse direction. But, that was then, so to speculate either way how somebody else would have done is meaningless. So judge the CPC by what they're doing now. As I said, they actually acted surprisingly rationally once they got it thru their heads we were going to have a problem. Let's hope they keep it up, since there isn't anybody else on the horizon who would do a better job right now.
Curtman @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:34 am
andyt andyt:
Curtman is wrong about the deficit - I'm sure a Liberal govt would also have had to go into debt to deal with the recession, tho it would not have cut GST and so would possibly have less debt.
The Liberals weren't stupid enough to make these statements:
while economists were saying that the Conservatives were creating a structural deficit. Whether Harper was lying, or wrong makes no difference. It's just bad management.
CDN_PATRIOT @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:46 am
Speaking of statements, wasn't it a certain Liberal Prime Minister that brought us this:
"The proof is the proof, and when you have good proof, it is proven."
-J.
Curtman @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:00 am
CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
Speaking of statements, wasn't it a certain Liberal Prime Minister that brought us this:
"The proof is the proof, and when you have good proof, it is proven."
-J.
"The proof is the proof, and when you have good proof, it is proven."
-J.
That's not so bad.. It was a Conservative PM who said:
"[Y]our country [the USA], and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."
During the beginning of their downward spiral.
CDN_PATRIOT @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:32 am
Downward spiral? Conservatives won a majority last I checked, instead of getting stomped into third party status behind the NDP. Canada's 'natural governing party' eh? LOL.
-J.
Curtman @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:01 pm
CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
Downward spiral? Conservatives won a majority last I checked, instead of getting stomped into third party status behind the NDP. Canada's 'natural governing party' eh? LOL.
-J.
-J.
I know it's easy to confuse Conservatives and Republicans. It's a simple mistake, I forgive you.
Tricks @ Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:17 pm
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
martin14 martin14:
Yeah, we can only dream how much the Libs and Dippers would have lowered all those
taxes, including lowering taxes to pay for their Green BS and Commie agenda.
Just more whining from the hacks.
taxes, including lowering taxes to pay for their Green BS and Commie agenda.
Just more whining from the hacks.
>NDP
>Commie agenda
>Greentexting outside of 4chan
>ISHYGDDT
QBall @ Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:36 pm
With Employment Insurance, you either raise premiums a little now or you raise them a lot later. What disturbs me is that with the increase either the government is anticipating an increase in the number of claims or an increase in claims cost (same number of claims but the cost of each claim is increasing). As the amount of the benefit isn't going to be increasing any time soon (AFAIK) are we getting ready for net job losses in the economy?
Caelon @ Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:56 pm
EI premiums are set by experience, which is why the fund is in a deficit position today. The increase is not to cover an anticipated increase, but to pay for a past increase due to the recession. Some people may have missed the following in the media coverage.
$1:
"To protect the economy and jobs, we cut any potential increases in half for 2012 — keeping EI premiums near their lowest level since 1982," Chisholm Pothier said in a statement. "This change is expected to save employers and employees $600 million in 2012."
Pothier says the average family of four now receives almost $3,100 in extra tax savings due to measures introduced by the Conservative government.
The EI fund is in deficit and has been since the government froze premiums during the recession, he said.
"Because recovery is fragile, we keep overruling the EI board’s maximum increases to continue giving employers and employees a break," Pothier said, referring to an advisory board that recommends where to set EI premiums.
"We also introduced the Small Business Hiring Tax Credit in budget 2011, to give employers a break on EI premiums and encourage them to hire new employees."
"To protect the economy and jobs, we cut any potential increases in half for 2012 — keeping EI premiums near their lowest level since 1982," Chisholm Pothier said in a statement. "This change is expected to save employers and employees $600 million in 2012."
Pothier says the average family of four now receives almost $3,100 in extra tax savings due to measures introduced by the Conservative government.
The EI fund is in deficit and has been since the government froze premiums during the recession, he said.
"Because recovery is fragile, we keep overruling the EI board’s maximum increases to continue giving employers and employees a break," Pothier said, referring to an advisory board that recommends where to set EI premiums.
"We also introduced the Small Business Hiring Tax Credit in budget 2011, to give employers a break on EI premiums and encourage them to hire new employees."
Pothier says the average family of four now receives almost $3,100 in extra tax savings due to measures introduced by the Conservative government.
The EI fund is in deficit and has been since the government froze premiums during the recession, he said.
"Because recovery is fragile, we keep overruling the EI board’s maximum increases to continue giving employers and employees a break," Pothier said, referring to an advisory board that recommends where to set EI premiums.
"We also introduced the Small Business Hiring Tax Credit in budget 2011, to give employers a break on EI premiums and encourage them to hire new employees."
"To protect the economy and jobs, we cut any potential increases in half for 2012 — keeping EI premiums near their lowest level since 1982," Chisholm Pothier said in a statement. "This change is expected to save employers and employees $600 million in 2012."
Pothier says the average family of four now receives almost $3,100 in extra tax savings due to measures introduced by the Conservative government.
The EI fund is in deficit and has been since the government froze premiums during the recession, he said.
"Because recovery is fragile, we keep overruling the EI board’s maximum increases to continue giving employers and employees a break," Pothier said, referring to an advisory board that recommends where to set EI premiums.
"We also introduced the Small Business Hiring Tax Credit in budget 2011, to give employers a break on EI premiums and encourage them to hire new employees."
The other point that keeps getting missed is that the quoted dollar increase is the combined amount for the employer and the employee. The employer premium is set at 1.4 times the employee premium. The employers rate can be reduced if they can prove they have short term disability coverage (without EI pays 15 weeks of benefits).
QBall @ Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:54 am
Caelon Caelon:
EI premiums are set by experience, which is why the fund is in a deficit position today. The increase is not to cover an anticipated increase, but to pay for a past increase due to the recession.
There's a saying that many actuaries use when making their recommendations to whatever insurance company they work for: Today's premiums are used to pay for tomorrow's claims using yesterday's data. Any insurer, and that includes EI, who constantly looks back when trying to determine how much they need to meet expenses and turn a profit is eventually going to fail because they will always be one step behind. I can't say if the people in charge of EI adopt this philosophy, or if it's even possible in an environment with so much political interference, however IMHO it's this backward thinking that's put the EI fund in the predicament in the first place.