Guess who is going to pay it back?
http://www.therecord.com/news/local...cused-of-2-million-employment-insurance-fraud
http://www.therecord.com/news/local...cused-of-2-million-employment-insurance-fraud
Kitchener bookkeeper accused of $2-million employment insurance fraud
- Thread starter Jampy00
- Start date
Employment insurance is a fraud in itself. It's just another disguised tax that the government mandates. It really should be optional. A steadily employed person will never recover the full benefits of all the deductions paid. And they make you jump through hoops to claim benefits.
optionfa
Well-known member
Not really... they pretty much just give it to you.
Since when? Last time I claimed was in 2005 and I had to report every week about trying to find a new job. After several months I was obligated to take a job search seminar and was sent these job listings that paid $10-$15/hr. They won't let you cruise for a few months while you take a break from the working grind even after paying thousands in EI deductions for years of full time employment. It's rigged so you can never get even close to the amount you put in.
rmemedic
Well-known member
Pretty much my experience as well the time that I needed it.
Didn't matter I was in a ****** little town with no job offerings. Couldn't travel outside of town to get work since there was no public transportation and the EI wouldn't cover the cost of car insurance and gas after the costs of food and rent.
Employees contribute max around $900 annually to EI... if you wanted to game the system, you can easily collect back far more than you've put in. If you work 40-45 weeks you can sit on your *** for almost the same amount of time and collect $500/wk while 'looking for work'. Im sure there are tons of people out there doing exactly this, every year. They're bums.
Couldnt say it better myself
Dresden
Well-known member
No, trust me (1st hand) they just give it to you (2010) .... i didn't even have to visit the office....
Become self employed and you don't have to pay E.I.
Rather than E.I. government should mandate a savings account for each person where the $900 goes annually. This can only be accessed if the person has lost their job. Give them a decent interest rate and only be allowed to have it as a savings account. This way it's fair and equitable.
Rather than E.I. government should mandate a savings account for each person where the $900 goes annually. This can only be accessed if the person has lost their job. Give them a decent interest rate and only be allowed to have it as a savings account. This way it's fair and equitable.
They have recently changed the rules on EI, they have tightened up the requirements, and if you claim you have to get double the hours before you can get it ever again...
i have a friend who is a seasonal worker who goes on EI every winter collecting about 850 every two weeks, but puts in about $600 every year. Come income tax he gets a nice refund also.
I was laid off for 2 months in 2008, and needed to use E.I. That year i made over 80K, and come tax return time, guess who was on the hook for the money i needed for those two months? Even though every year i max out my contribution around May. I give more and get less. He gives less and gets more
I would love to have the option not to give 'donate' to E.I
I have thought this as well. This way you have to work to earn it. My father worked his entire life in Canada, most of it with the Governement. He retired but still wanted to work as a school bus driver. At 65 he was able to claim his first E.I cheque that he has paid into for decades..he was denied. The look on his face was heartbreaking, it is a system I have never used nor will I every see a penny from. If it was the bank account as stated above he would not have to worry about working past retirement, just withdraw and enjoy..
Wasn't EI or Unemployment Insurance as it was originally called, created to subsidize the east coast fishing industry? The rest of the country that works all year round would contribute a percentage of pay to the fisherman who didn't work during the off season.
FFS,The Employment and Social Insurance Act was passed in 1935 during the Great Depression by the government of R.B. Bennett as an attempted Canadian unemployment insurance program. It was, however, ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada as unemployment was judged to be an insurance matter falling under provincial responsibility. After a constitutional amendment was agreed to by the provinces, a reference to "Unemployment Insurance" was added to the matters falling under federal authority under theConstitution Act, 1867, and the first Canadian system was adopted in 1940. Because of these problems Canada was the last major Western country to bring in an employment insurance system. It was extended dramatically by Pierre Trudeau in 1971 making it much easier to get. The system was sometimes called the 10/42, because one had to work for 10 weeks to get benefits for the other 42 weeks of the year. It was also in 1971 that the UI program was first opened up to maternity and sickness benefits, for 15 weeks in each case.
Last edited:
That's retarded. Like, brutally retarded. Sorry.
