EI Benefits for the Self Employed
As the ranks of self employed Canadians increases, there is a growing problem of employment insurance coverage. What is the problem? Self employed business owners previously were not eligible for employment insurance coverage. As it’s especially applicable to the female entrepreneurs, business income could dry up quickly while on maternity leave. With no business income or employment insurance benefit, the financial situation could get ugly unless there is substantial savings.
This has recently changed however with a new bill introduced for employment insurance for the self employed. This bill extends to maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care leave for the self employed.
According to The Telegram, here are some of the details:
..entitled the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, would provide the following:
Maternity benefits of up to 15 weeks for mothers, beginning up to eight weeks before the expected birth date.
Parental benefits of up to 35 weeks for biological or adoptive parents while they are caring for a newborn or newly adopted child; they may be taken by either parent or shared between them.
Sickness benefits of up to 15 weeks for those unable to work because of sickness, injury or quarantine.
Compassionate-care benefits of up to six weeks for those who have to be away from work temporarily to provide care or support to a family member who is gravely ill with a significant risk of death.
The article goes on to state that the self employed individual would have to pay the same premium as a salaried worker. However, I assume that the business would have to cover the employer portion of the EI premium.
For example, the maximum insurable earnings for 2010 is $42,300. The employee rate is 1.73% ($731.79) with the employer rate being 2.422% ($1024.51). If a self employed person were to opt into the employment insurance program, I would suspect that they would have to pay the full 4.152% or $1756.50 per year.
Another important point is that self employed individuals can also opt in or out of the program at the end of any tax year unless they have claimed benefits. If they have claimed benefits, they must continue to pay EI premiums as long as they are self employed. Depending on how long term the business is expected to last, paying the premiums can get expensive.
I may be 100% self employed someday and it’s always comforting to know that there is a safety net out there.
What are your thoughts on employment insurance for the self employed??
25 Comments, Comment or Ping
1. Ramona
It’s way too expensive if the self employed person has to fund the entire premium themselves. 15 weeks of benefits at the maximum rate would be about $6,700. The yearly premium, assuming no increases is $1,756. In four years you could self insure, and have the money for other things if not needed for maternity or sickness. The self employed have always known there are no EI benefits, and plan accordingly.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 9:29 am
2. mp
The opting in and out part means waged workers and their employers will be subsidizing the self-employed. Hardly seems fair, especially since many waged workers who pay into EI don’t even qualify for benefits when they’re laid off. If EI is going to be extended to the self-employed it should be on the same terms as CPP – mandatory, no opting in and out. After all it is an insurance.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 10:01 am
3. This is why I signed up with ING Direct
@ Ramona: I agree
Thanks for the useful article FT !
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 11:08 am
4. andrewbpaterson
I will look into this and possibly set it up for my wife – a stay at home hair dresser.
Thanks, FT!
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 11:11 am
5. Four Pillars
It’s not worth doing for the mat leave alone but there is the possibility of true unemployment where you could get 50 weeks of benefits which might make it worthwhile.
Even in that case I would probably self-insure.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 11:13 am
6. ldk
I was self-employed for 12 years (owned a retail store) and while the option of EI benefits/mat leave would have been nice, they don’t begin to address the bigger problem of “who’s minding the store?” while we are off work.
As with all of the other ’safety nets’ (pensions, health/dental benefits, workers comp, sick days, etc.) the self-employed/small business owner is best served by careful planning and self-insuring. (and really, “mat leave” is just something you give up in the trade off when you decide to forgo traditional employment….at least in my experience.)
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
7. Kevin Beitel
Since moving to Alberta and entering the workforce after graduating from Post-Secondary school in 1996, I have paid in to the EI. I had been fortunate to have worked and built my skill set. Come April 2009 I was laid off for the first time in my life. I put in my claim for EI and was only eligible for 39 weeks of benefits… Paying EI premiums for 13 years and not one claim for only 39 weeks. What a Joke!!!!! I was called back not 20 days later and did not recieve any benefits. That is understandable, I am just burned that I was only eligible for 39 weeks of benefits…I know that this does not have much to do with self-employed EI benefits, but I would not trust any government agency for anything. The cost of relying on something(that isn’t very much) is just to expensive.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
8. Mike
The fact that they don’t cover losing your job definitely doesn’t make it appealing to me. I’m a consultant working for a high tech firm – they don’t want to make me full time because they don’t want to increase their headcount. But if the contract was not renewed I’d be out of work and even if I was paying into EI, I wouldn’t qualify for benefits. Might as well save my money.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
9. Subversive
As an IT contractor, I doubt I’d opt into this, even though I believe I technically would qualify as self employed. It seems unlikely that I’d be eligible to make a claim under most of the circumstances where my contracts might end. I’ll need to look into the details more closely, but my sense is I wouldn’t likely opt in.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
10. Tim Landry
OH BOY WILL THEY EVER BE FLOODED WITH DISABILITY CLAIMS FOR STRESS! Another “we do not think” move by a government
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
11. Alexandra
I don’t really think it’s a good idea to enable people to opt in and opt out. If I were a self-employed woman, I would simply opt-in when I became pregnant, go on maternity leave, and then opt-out as soon as the leave was over. This is a loophole that needs to be addressed.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
12. FrugalTrader
Alexandra, that’s the catch, once you opt in and obtain benefits, you cannot opt out.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
13. jt
I thought being “self employed” was to avoid paying payroll taxes and earning income, less expenses for a profit. The profit is your EI fund. Save your money. I’ve been self employed for 30 years. Any downturn in the economy, I’ve always drawn money saved from my profitable self employment to offset any decrease in earnings. I my POV, you’re no longer “self employed” paying payroll taxes. It’s bad enough paying GST on your earnings, over and above what taxes on net income are. Just a Bar Code on my forehead stamped “property of the federal government” like I was a piece of rental equipment. Don’t forget that governments use those EI premiums to “balance” their books, too.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
14. Cam Birch
I would definitely not opt in for those benefits. Unless I was on sick leave half of the time there would be no real benefit from EI. Since it doesn’t appear to actually protect you against job loss which is the only area that would really matter to me. The benefits they are talking about are interesting but a terrible waste of money. If you are eligible for half the benefit you should pay half the costs.
Actually for that amount of money you should be able to get pretty decent wage replacement insurance from an insurance company. Real insurance might be a much better option because the terms are “negotiable” (or at least printed out on a document you sign) and most have return of premium if you never make a claim.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
15. zud
i thought most mothers take a year off for maternity, is this because they combine the 15 weeks maternity (ie female only) then take the other 35 weeks parental leave for themselves? so a total of 50 weeks of benefits?
are both leaves paid at the same rate?
the first commenter noted that the 15 weeks paid at 6700$ would be covered by 4 years of premiums however what would the total be after 15+35 weeks?
i’m self employed and already have to pay all my cpp, plus business expenses but i remit gst via quick method.
how long before we know if it passes?
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
16. Mike Graf
I think they should just turn EI into a account that you can access when you have a legitimate need. You/the Employer (one and the same in the case of self employed) pay into it, and they keep it in an account. When you need it you can remove money until the account is empty, then no more free ride. And you can empty the account when you retire.
It forces people to save for when they might be unemployed and it stops any form of abuse because in the end its just your money you’re spending.
my 2c
-Mike Graf
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
17. Tax Guy
My wife is self employed. I can tell you this would have been a blessing if it were in place 10 years ago. We had a baby three years ago and she had to go back to work after 6 weeks.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
18. Kate
I remember reading somewhere that a self-employed person will be paying only employee premium though I am not sure. If somebody could dig into the bill itself and find this out, that would be great.
http://canadaonline.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=canadaonline&cdn=newsissues&tm=4&f=11&su=p649.3.336.ip_&tt=11&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx%3FLanguage%3DE%26Parl%3D40%26Ses%3D2%26Mode%3D1%26Pub%3DBill%26Doc%3DC-56_1
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
19. Canadian Free Stuff
ouch!!!!. Thats what I say. There are perks to being Self Employed, and then there are disadvantages. and IE is both an advantage and disadvantage to paying. Its nice to self employed, and skip out on the premium payments, but when and if the well runs dry, it sucks not to have the back up.
One thing I have noticed about “Child Benefit” thing a lot of parents get, is that every single one of my self employed family friends, seem to collect every possible cent from the gov’t every month, because they can cook the books to make themselves into a lower tax bracket.
Just food for thought is all
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
20. Subversive
@ 19 CFS: I think that’s one of the benefits of being self employed, beneficial tax treatment. However for many people it is simply too stressful taking care of their own finances to this level. This year is my first year of self employment, and I can definitely say the tax benefits are enormous, and well worth a couple of evenings sorting out paperwork.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
21. Gordon Biddy
I think the self employed individual is infinitely better off bypassing the federal system where possible and looking at other sources of unemployment ‘insurance’…like rental income.
Relying on the Govt for anything related to your financial well being is a risky approach at best.
Nov 16th, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
22. used tires
I am not too sure to be honest with you about this program, personally I am a big believer of less government involvement. I mean why do we need the government to “share the wealth” around, which is essentially what most government programs do. We all put up the money, some benefit alot more when compared to others, so its never “fair”… I don’t know… I guess I tend to think more different than others and probably more in line with my economic professors at my college.
Till then,
Jean
Nov 17th, 2009 @ 1:25 am
23. BasicallyMoney.com
If the self-employed won’t have access to *regular* unemployment benefits and only parental and other “special” benefits, then I don’t think they should be paying the same premium — that’s simlpy not equitable.
I actually like the Quebec model, where parental benefits have been factored out into a separate premium and plan, QPIP “Quebec Parental Insurance Plan”, separate from regular EI. That way, you’re paying just for the “special benefits” and not wasting money on regular benefits you’d never be able to claim as a self-employed individual.
However, the Quebec model isn’t voluntary – you must participate in QPIP if you are self-employed. Nevertheless, factoring out the benefits that self-employed people would get makes more sense than bundling them together with non-applicable benefits and corresponding premiums.
Nov 17th, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
24. Robert
Personally, I wouldn’t touch this with a 10 foot pole. I am fullt self-employed now and have been for 6 years. I have taken all that EI premiums and self-insure. Prior to being self-employed I enquired about EI benefits and it was far less than 39 weeks … I am past the child/maternity age age too … This program will b e used by the self-employed who are really on the lower wage end and are seasonally unemployed … Professionals earning over the max. allowable will not go into this.
More politics than policy.
Nov 17th, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
25. vicki
I have a question if anyone knows the answer that would be so helpful! I am currently a self employed home daycare provider. I am pregnant and due October 2010. Everything I am reading on the gov’ websites are saying that I can start paying into the self employment program before April 1st and claim benefits starting Jan 1 2011. Since I am having the baby in October before I can make a claim will I be eligible to make a maternity or parental leave claim 3 months after the baby is born?? Thanks =)
Feb 18th, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
Trackbacks
Reply to “EI Benefits for the Self Employed”