home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky can.general:6170 can.politics:11047
- Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
- Path: sparky!uunet!van-bc!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn
- From: amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn)
- Subject: Re: UI Benfits Cut
- Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
- Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 14:33:18 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Dec24.143318.4952@mongrel.UUCP>
- References: <derry.725061307@sfu.ca> <Bzpo3x.E4u@mach1.wlu.ca> <1992Dec23.235045.5253@sol.UVic.CA>
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1992Dec23.235045.5253@sol.UVic.CA> dmanke@sanjuan (Dennis Manke) writes:
- >
- >Why should taxes rise? Currently there is a whole lot of people
- >(self employed) who get away without paying for UIC which as you
- >have recognized is a welfare system and not an insurance.
- >
- >If UIC where really UIC and the welfare aspect was
- >funded through general revenue, then you would pay a ***LOT***
- >less in premiums and probably less in taxes (if you believe there
- >won't be a tax grab) since it would get rid of the loop hole that
- >self employed people have (they would pay their fare share for the
- >welfare part + if they elected, they would pay for UIC in some
- >appropriate insurance bracket that covers in total their risk).
-
-
- Why would it reduce the cost? If it were really UIC, as you suggest,
- and self-employed people paid UI premiums, they'd be entitled to
- claim benefits if they became unemployed. Which probably happens more
- often to self-employed people than to others.
-
-
-
- --
- :-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
- : Andy Dunn <amdunn@mongrel.UUCP> or <dunn5177@mach1.WLU.CA> :
- : "AT&T thinks Usenet is an Underground organization" - are we really? :
- :-------------------------------------------------------------------------:
-