Is collecting EI (Employment Insurance) Ethical?

[themortalgod]

So I was having an interesting discussion recently and thought I'd post here to see how everyone feels.

My position is that since EI (Employment Insurance) is a mandatory payment in Canada that the government requires that you pay on every paycheque so that they can transfer that money from you (the employed) to others (the unemployed) that it is no different than a tax to subsidize a form of welfare other than the name that makes it sound like private insurance.

Their position is that it is quite different than a tax since it is insurance and if you believe that it is unethical to accept an EI payout then you should also consider payouts from any private insurance entity (such as home insurance) equally unethical.

I believe they are very different as with a private insurance company I am entering into a free exchange with a private entity on a negotiable, mutually beneficial agreement where as with employment insurance I am being forced into a payment (effectively as gunpoint as non payment could result in arrest) at a set rate that I have no control over. 

 

Other than in name I fail to see any difference between "employment insurance" to cover unemployment and a taxation to subsidize wellfare. 

Thoughts?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

It's totally ethical. They made you pay it, so taking some of it back is just getting some of your own money back.

 

The real problem I've found with collecting on EI is that they make you feel totally dirty for taking it. If Canada is anything like the US, you gotta report to them weekly, which they will constantly screw up and threaten you to pay back what they gave you, and get in your face about any small amount of money you might make somewhere else.

 

Conclusion: Don't feel bad about taking it, but get ready to get out of it as soon as possible to not let them make you feel dirty about it.

[Tyler H]

If someone steals your bike, you can "steal" it back. If someone forcibly "sells" you something, by the form of the interaction it is known that what they provide to you is not as valuable as what they take.

 

There is no way to know the dollar value of what's been stolen from you in forced transactions or even the level to which you've been robbed by the massive retardation of the society you could have been living in if it weren't for the state, so as long as you honestly feel you're not taking more than you've been stolen from... Morally? I think you're good.

 

Now Stef makes good arguments as to how not being dependent on the state will make you stronger and I tend to agree. Take the money and try not to use it unless you're base needs are in serious danger of going unmet. This way you won't starve, and if you can make it along without the money you're better for it and you can use the money for a charity of your choosing instead of letting it go to line some crony's pocket.

[themortalgod]

Ah, but by that argument, if you were at one point a taxpayer you can feel totally justified in being on wellfare?

 

I do agree with not being dependent on the state though, its currently a very 'what if" scenario, I'm currently employed and have been consistently paying into EI for over a decade since I graduated college and never had even consider tapping into it, but I find that these sort of moral dilemma are better examined at times when you aren't facing any dire need that may clout judgement.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Ah, but by that argument, if you were at one point a taxpayer you can feel totally justified in being on wellfare?

 

I do agree with not being dependent on the state though, its currently a very 'what if" scenario, I'm currently employed and have been consistently paying into EI for over a decade since I graduated college and never had even consider tapping into it, but I find that these sort of moral dilemma are better examined at times when you aren't facing any dire need that may clout judgement.

 

Absolutely yes on the welfare question. However, if you were previously a taxpayer, you can probably make a hell of a lot more money working than being on welfare.

 

It's kind of the same with EI. It's really not enough money to live on, and the amount of hell they put you through to take it makes it really a pain in the ass. I would be less concerned with the moral question and more concerned about your productivity. If you have a plan to use EI until your next career move, great. If you just plan on getting on EI and floating, you're probably doing yourself more harm than good.

[Songbirdo]

Wasn't that Ayn Rand's justification for why she collected Social Security? Because she's just taking back the money she put into the system? The issue with her reasoning was that she wasn't taking from the Social Security payments she put into the system, but the newly extracted funds from the current tax livestock. Social Security is a pyramid scheme of pure cash flow; there is no investment of the money you paid into it. No personal bank account with your name on it. The money you put into the system is evaporated immediately when it is paid out to the elderly on the receiving end. 

 

In the stealing a bike back example: If the person took your bike, salvaged it for scrap, went out and used that money to help buy a new bike, would you be justified in stealing that new bike? 

 

Is Employment Insurance a similar system? If so, you wouldn't really be taking back your taxes but instead taking them from the current tax base like Social Security. You could argue if you claimed Employment Insurance during the same year you paid taxes it would be taking that money back.

 

Subsequent years get fuzzy on the details.

 

 

[Tyler H]

Ah, but by that argument, if you were at one point a taxpayer you can feel totally justified in being on wellfare?

 

I do agree with not being dependent on the state though, its currently a very 'what if" scenario, I'm currently employed and have been consistently paying into EI for over a decade since I graduated college and never had even consider tapping into it, but I find that these sort of moral dilemma are better examined at times when you aren't facing any dire need that may clout judgement.

 

Absolutely yes on the welfare question. However, if you were previously a taxpayer, you can probably make a hell of a lot more money working than being on welfare.

 

It's kind of the same with EI. It's really not enough money to live on, and the amount of hell they put you through to take it makes it really a pain in the ass. I would be less concerned with the moral question and more concerned about your productivity. If you have a plan to use EI until your next career move, great. If you just plan on getting on EI and floating, you're probably doing yourself more harm than good.

 

 

Yeah I agree this justifies welfare (for those who have paid in) and see no moral issue with that conclusion.  

 

 

 

Wasn't that Ayn Rand's justification for why she collected Social Security? Because she's just taking back the money she put into the system? The issue with her reasoning was that she wasn't taking from the Social Security payments she put into the system, but the newly extracted funds from the current tax livestock. Social Security is a pyramid scheme of pure cash flow; there is no investment of the money you paid into it. No personal bank account with your name on it. The money you put into the system is evaporated immediately when it is paid out to the elderly on the receiving end. 

 

In the stealing a bike back example: If the person took your bike, salvaged it for scrap, went out and used that money to help buy a new bike, would you be justified in stealing that new bike? 

 

Is Employment Insurance a similar system? If so, you wouldn't really be taking back your taxes but instead taking them from the current tax base like Social Security. You could argue if you claimed Employment Insurance during the same year you paid taxes it would be taking that money back.

 

Subsequent years get fuzzy on the details.

 

 

 

Yes, I think that's a fair point.  The people ordering the money stolen from you in the first place are not the ones paying out now when you are collecting, and I wouldn't suggest taking more than you put in (although I think an argument can be made in regards to the opportunity cost you've incurred due to a coercive society).  However, anyone who supports taxation is still supporting the initiation of force against you for any other money you make and is fine with stealing from everyone else in the present as well.  Anyone who supports the use of force against me (or anyone for that matter) to steal my money is someone I have no qualms collecting at their expense welfare, SSI, or any other program.  If I ever find myself in that position I'll be happy to refund the fraction of a cent to every an-cap who didn't support taxation, and happier still the more I have to reimburse.