When we talk about these income support initiatives, we have to be very careful about doing more damage than good. For example, there are social assistance programs in this country that have clawback rates, when combined with taxation, that are above 100%. In other words, a person loses money by going to work.
The working income tax benefit, for example, has a clawback rate of 15%. For a disabled person earning minimum wage, the working income tax benefit actually increases their marginal effective tax rate. When their income gets over $20,000, the clawback of 15% of that benefit actually increases the share of their earned income that they lose as a result of earning that next dollar.
The same could happen if you “means test” a basic income. If you have a basic income, you have to ask yourself, are we are going to give it to millionaires and billionaires? No? Okay, are we going to give it to people who earn over $100,000? No? Okay, how about over $50,000? No? Okay, how about over $25,000? If we say $25,000, and when someone gets to that level of earned income and they start experiencing a clawback, they are actually punished on each extra dollar they earn, not to mention the fact that such a benefit would require higher income taxes. As they start to get into a middle-class tax bracket, they are actually paying more to fund a benefit for which they no longer qualify.
The disability tax credit, for example, was designed to help disabled people with the cost of working, because there are extra costs for working that are associated with being disabled. Making it refundable would remove that additional benefit.
I want to see if, particularly Mr. Speer, or Mr. Gladstone, who works in the field of getting jobs for disabled people, can talk particularly about some of those perverse incentives that can result from good intentions.