Unlike the private sector with its scandal-free record; scrupulous neutrality in political affairs; modestly paid executives; and parsimonious expense accounts?I will never be happy with ANY kind of tax considering the way government waste taxpayers' hard earn money on their scandals, partisan-political decisions, overpaid unions, overpaid govt officials with their crazy expenses (expensive meals, etc)
At least I dont get enforced to share my money with themUnlike the private sector with its scandal-free record; scrupulous neutrality in political affairs; modestly paid executives; and parsimonious expense accounts?
This sounds like mentality of quite a lot of people in Canada, not necessarily just when they are old, some people can do this even if they are at age where they can work. The mentality of relying on government support rather than trying to provide for yourself - something I see as lazy mentality.and when I am old and gray I will get a little cheque every month to help me get by
Standard of living - I guess I should say yes, I have better standard of living where I came from (in terms of wealth and what I can get for my money there). May be then you'll be asking what the heck I am doing in Canada ... well, I came here for education, and now I am already working - And currently thinking to go back home sometime in the future for many reasons. One of the bigger reasons will be building wealth.Curious Reader, I understand and agree with many of your points. But be honest now. Was your standard of living better in this other country you were living in?
If not, I suspect its because of the social safety net that Canada has. It doesn't just benefit the lazy. It benefits everyone. When the poor or unemployed (many times people are poor or unemployed through no fault of their own) have a safety net to rely on, it benefits everyone.
Joseph Heath's book "Filthy Lucre" has a very interesting chapter on personal responsibilty / moral hazard. He is far more eloquent than I so...I agree to some extent it does benefit everyone, but after certain point, it becomes a wealth distribution from the hard working ones to the lazier ones.
This brings us, finally, to the fallacy underlying the "personal responsibility" crusade of the right. Conservatives blame government handouts for undermining the spirit of self-reliance. This is just a moralizing way of describing a generic problem with insurance systems, whenre indemnity ("handouts") tends to generate moral hazard ("irresponsibility"). What conservatives fail to realize is that the moral hazard effect in question is a generic feature of any type of insurance system-it has nothing to do with the question of public or private ownership. There is, however, a prior selection effect that gets ignored. Because private insurance markets are so prone to failure in the face of information asymmetries, the type of insurance that is usually prone to moral hazard or adverse selection tends to be feasible only when provided by the "insurer of last resort": the state. So it doesn't make much sense to blame government for the moral hazard. It's usually because of the moral hazard problem that the government is running the program in the first place.
But of course EI at it's core is exactly what it's name implies. Insurance. I own a house and have homeowners insurance. I will be paying for that insurance as long as I own my home. But I sure hope I never have to make a claim. Such is the nature of insurance. You may spend a long time, and significant $$ paying for it, but you hope you never have to make a claim. I have life insurance too, but I would rather live than have it pay out. Not many people can afford to "self-insure" for all risks. It's the pooling of risk that makes insurance useful.One example (again, might be a bit extreme): I am paying EI premiums (I just happen to read that it might increase quite significantly) but let say I never out of job and never claim those EI, then basically those money was just distributed away from me. True that if I dont pay EI premium then I wont get EI in turn when I lose my job, but the risk of me needing EI is very minimal and not worth for me paying the premiums - I would rather save the money myself (and create my own personal "EI") rather than giving it to the government.
But how long would it take for someone to build their own safety net? What happens if you need that net before it is built? There in lies the advantage to participating in an insurance plan that pools risk and cost.So the argument is that I would rather build my own safety net,
I agree to some extent it does benefit everyone, but after certain point, it becomes a wealth distribution from the hard working ones to the lazier ones.
One example (again, might be a bit extreme): I am paying EI premiums (I just happen to read that it might increase quite significantly) but let say I never out of job and never claim those EI, then basically those money was just distributed away from me.
It is an insurance after all I know ... but at least with health/life/auto insurance, I get to make my own choice. Depending on my own calculation of the risk, I can make my own decision and have some control on how much I want to.Regarding why you should pay EI if you never collect it, the same could be said of any term life insurance policy - you hope you never collect, and your premiums pay for those who do. (Not that there aren't things that need reforming about EI)