long term maternity leave (debate)

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Are we all reading the same thread? How many times to residents of Canada have to explain - it is called employment insurance - you pay into it for the benefit of yourself - that way should you have to use it - there ya go. I'm not asking you to pay it for me! I will have already been paying into the dang system and therefore at that time collecting the benefit. Then when I go back to work - guess what! I start paying into it again.

Sorry, I'm a little late coming into this thread and apologize if this is a repeat reply.

Even though it's called insurance, it's still mandated to be taken out of their pay. If I choose not to own a car, I don't need car insurance and don't have to pay for any. If I choose not to, or can't have children , I don't need insurance that covers maternity/parental leave. But in Canada, they are forced to pay it regardless.

 

[dsneygirl]

I have tried to stay out of this thread because it is making my blood boil. But I wanted to add that what you pay in EI is deducted from your total income when it comes to calculating your amount payable so for instance you pay $800/year that is taken off your total taxable income.

And yes there is a way to get out od paying it. Be self-employed.

And for the upmteenth time it's not maternity benefits it's Employment Insurance so if you company packs up and moves to India you will make some money or if god forbid your mother has terminal cancer and less than 1 month to live you can take time off from work to care for her.

I think the biggest difference is in social ideology as many have already stated. American philosophy is every man/woman for themselves whereas in Canada we are socialist (yes I said the bad word) and we believe that helping everyone benefits all society in the long run.

 

[dsneygirl]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
If I choose not to, or can't have children , I don't need insurance that covers maternity/parental leave. But in Canada, they are forced to pay it regardless.

I know you're late but it's a large umbrella fund that also covers people who are laid off or those who need to take time to care for a dying relative. Not just paternity.

 

[septbride2002]

Even though it's called insurance, it's still mandated to be taken out of their pay. If I choose not to own a car, I don't need car insurance and don't have to pay for any. If I choose not to, or can't have children , I don't need insurance that covers maternity/parental leave. But in Canada, they are forced to pay it regardless.

Elwood - it has been explained many times that the EI is not just for maternity/parental leave. It can also be used in case you lose your job, or have to have some sort of medical problem. Therefore just because you may not use it for maternity does not mean that you many not ever use it for something else.

~Amanda

 

[dsneygirl]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Elwood - it has been explained many times that the EI is not just for maternity/parental leave. It can also be used in case you lose your job, or have to have some sort of medical problem. Therefore just because you may not use it for maternity does not mean that you many not ever use it for something else.

~Amanda

We were posting at the same time.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by dsneygirl
I have tried to stay out of this thread because it is making my blood boil. But I wanted to add that what you pay in EI is deducted from your total income when it comes to calculating your amount payable so for instance you pay $800/year that is taken off your total taxable income.

That's irrelevant. I don't pay federal income tax on taxes that I pay to local government entities.

And yes there is a way to get out od paying it. Be self-employed.

Why would they be exempt?

And for the umpteenth time it's not maternity benefits it's Employment Insurance so if you company packs up and moves to India you will make some money or if god forbid your mother has terminal cancer and less than 1 month to live you can take time off from work to care for her.

I realize that. Adding maternity/parental leave/sick leave benefits to our already mandated unemployment insurance would raise the cost significantly.

I think the biggest difference is in social ideology as many have already stated. American philosophy is every man/woman for themselves whereas in Canada we are socialist (yes I said the bad word) and we believe that helping everyone benefits all society in the long run.

The distribution of the tax dollars collected in the US would prove otherwise. We have TONs of social programs paid for with tax dollars. To paint Americans as "every man for themselves" is inaccurate.

We are a collective of people with similar desires. Those desires are to live our own destiny and hopefully make the right choices a long the way. What we don't want is for the collective to decide for us. What we don't want is a "Mommy" looking after us with the mindset that they know better or can make better decisions for us through the mandated collection of taxes and insurance premiums.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by septbride2002
Elwood - it has been explained many times that the EI is not just for maternity/parental leave. It can also be used in case you lose your job, or have to have some sort of medical problem. Therefore just because you may not use it for maternity does not mean that you many not ever use it for something else.

~Amanda

But for each separate coverage added, the plan costs more. I just don't like the idea of someone else deciding that *I* need certain coverages that I will never use. Just like with my car insurance. If I'm not mandated by the lien holder to have certain a certain level of coverage, I should be able to carry the minimum required by law. And I do believe that everyone that owns a car should be required to have a minimum level of insurance.

Maybe it should be an a-la-carte plan just like a lot of managed health care plans are here. Mine is that way. I can pick and choose from a "menu" of optional coverages.

 

[maxie]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Why would they be exempt?

Self-employed do not pay into the EI system and therefore do not qualify for benefits.

 

[septbride2002]

But for each separate coverage added, the plan costs more. I just don't like the idea of someone else deciding that *I* need certain coverages that I will never use. Just like with my car insurance. If I'm not mandated by the lien holder to have certain a certain level of coverage, I should be able to carry the minimum required by law. And I do believe that everyone that owns a car should be required to have a minimum level of insurance.

??? Where did you get that? From what I understand - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - a % is taken out of your paycheck to pay your EI and then when you need to use it you can. It doesn't matter if I only use it for Maternity leave and you use for heart surgery - we've both been paying into it and therefore are both covered. I don't think they keep a tally of seperate coverage.

~Amanda

 

[maryliz]

If you're self-employed, you are not entitled to collect EI when you have a baby, or if your business were to fail, because you are the "owner". you don't pay into it, so you don't get to collect it. So yes, many of our self-employed people go back to work when their babies are quite small because they cannot afford not to. And even if your worked many years before, you still need to accumulate the required 600 hours of work again before you can claim if in the future you were to return to work, and then need to collect EI. So people having babies need to "space" them accordingly if they want their maternity leave

Mary-Liz

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by maxie
Self-employed do not pay into the EI system and therefore do not qualify for benefits.

That's really not what I was asking.

A better question would be why are they allowed to avoid paying into the system (knowing that they can't make claims) but others that aren't self-employed can't opt out?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by septbride2002
??? Where did you get that? From what I understand - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - a % is taken out of your paycheck to pay your EI and then when you need to use it you can. It doesn't matter if I only use it for Maternity leave and you use for heart surgery - we've both been paying into it and therefore are both covered. I don't think they keep a tally of separate coverage.

~Amanda

But to have such an all-inclusive plan certainly costs more than one that doesn't. That was my point.

You should realize this when you shop for car insurance. The more coverage you want, the more you pay. And you car insurance is similar to the Canadian EI. You may need to make a claim for someone that crashed into you and I may need to make a claim for a stolen vehicle. Additional coverage like towing or car rental is usually extra. You may opt out for it, and I may not.

What Canadians are being told is that for X percentage of your pay, this is what you coverage you get.

Does that sound like something you'd like to have?

 

[Susan--Ontario]

WOW!!!

To say that this thread is hot would be a total understatement.

The EI deductions that we pay each paycheque are tax deductable. That means that if we pay $800 in EI premiums then our taxable income is also reduced by $800. Therefore we pay less tax then someone who isn't working and paying the premiums.

I really hope that this thread is not indicative of the thinking process of many people. We in Canada pay high taxes, Ontario is the highest taxed municipality in North American. We know that up front. We calculate how much money we earn by how much we take home in our paycheque at the end of the week.

We don't have to write an additional cheque (check) for our health insurance or many other benefits we have here. Do I like the fact that we support some people who are just too lazy to work for themselves? NO!, but the benefits to our society as a whole when it comes to Unemployment Insurance, Medicare etc far outweigh what I don't take home in my paycheque. If we didn't have our social programs I personally would be bankrupt because when my father had cancer we would have lost everything we own in order to treat him. I am also very happy to know that if I'm 32 years old and want to have a baby, I can go ahead and do that and not have to wait 4 years to save up enough cash/sick time/vacation time in order to be off with my baby. Four years can be the difference between being a Mom and not being a Mom.

As someone has said it didn't start out at 35 weeks maternity and 17 weeks parental leave, it started out with 6 weeks off and has grown from there. As a country we need more children to take care of us in our senior years, the government is trying to get people to have more children. We are 1/10 the population of the States so therefore increasing our birth rate is vital.

Please stop the name calling and put your opinion in a civil manner. We are neighbours! We all have family and friends in each other's countries. Please try to put things into perspective as many places in the world there biggest concern is whether they have water to drink and will their children even live to be one year old.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by Susan--Ontario
Please stop the name calling and put your opinion in a civil manner. We are neighbours! We all have family and friends in each other's countries. Please try to put things into perspective as many places in the world there biggest concern is whether they have water to drink and will their children even live to be one year old.

Certainly can't argue with that. Well said.

 

[Maleficent13]

Not arguing with what the rest of your post said, Susan, but I haven't seen any name calling. I admit I'm only checking back now and then, but I thought I had read the whole thread.

I think the biggest issue with this is the issue of choice. A lot of people like to make the choices that affect our lives, and we get kinda cranky when someone else makes those choices for us.

 

[jrydberg]

A few pages back there was a bit of name calling.

As far as I'm concerned, Canadians love their sysem -- great! That's why it's been implemented in Canada. I'm not trying to say Canada is wrong for implementing it. Just trying to say I think it's the wrong system for the US

 

[DarrenSt]

Speaking from the male perspective I pay EI premiums knowing full well I will never use the maternity side of things. I do however know that if the need were to arise I would have it to fall back on for any time I may be laid off or if I was involved in say a job loss for whatever reason. I like knowing that my money is helping to fund this type of plan for the betterment of our wives mothers etc and for the rest of us that choose to be active in the working society. I hope to never have to use it but hey there may come a time I have to I also used my short and long term disability from work they still had to pay me while I was off and had to pay someone to fill my position and I didn't use the EI I could have. I soon after recovery left that company to move on to greener pastures as it would be.

 

[jmmom80]

Originally posted by maxie

Why are you so worried if someone pays themselves anyhow?

i'm not worried about it, i just want to correct the misperception that people are *only* taking out what they have put in, and that *no one* else is having to pay for the year they stay home after the baby is born. it would appear that in most cases that simply isn't true.

 

[DarrenSt]

You also have to consider the father is still contributing to it while the mother is off so his contribution would also help cover that of what his wife would be using. In most cases the woman is married and the spous also contributes to EI some people think it is just so black and white and has to be that way to figure it out time to take the bliders off people life isn't like that.

 

[talicskai]

Originally posted by jmmom80
earlier on the thread i gave an example, but i'll be happy to do it again.

say an employee makes $1000/week or $52,000/year. that employee pays in about $21/week to ei. three months into the job, the employee becomes pregnant, and continues to work up to her delivery date. so this employee has worked for a year and paid in $1092 to ei. she now takes one year off with 55% pay, or $28,600. where does the additional $27,508 come from? it obviously isn't

I am not sure of the exact amount but there is a maximum that you can claim. You do not automatically get 55% of your income. I believe it is somewhere around $400 weekly. Of course when income tax time comes, this is not tax free. You must pay tax on your income, whether it is from an employer or from EI payments.
I never made enough to worry about it (55% of not much is really not much! )