There is also an issue with disability benefits where they are structured with disincentives to work. The motivation to not pay disability to people who can work is understandable, but for people who can work some but whose disability hinders their ability to get a full-time job or one that's not highly paid, it's a disaster.
This is a point that's not fundamentally liberal or conservative. Both sides should be interested in improving programs that have gratuitous barriers to work.
Totally agree, it should be obvious no matter your politics that the way disability benefits are currently structured incentivize people to not work, and serve as a de facto welfare system.
The problem is that it's going the be impossible to get an agreement on the solution. Conservatives would take this as an opportunity to slash disability benefits and walk away. Liberals would look toward new government programs.
Uh... the above-mentioned Earned Income Tax Credit solution is very popular in conservative circles. What conservative publications are you reading that advocate a slash-and-walk policy?
The problem I see with using EITC in this way is that it masks the cost of labor for any company paying minimum wage. A huge hole in arguments against raising the minimum wage is that few seem to address the fact that many workers are already receiving additional pay in the form of benefits. The benefits are more expensive and less flexible than an equivalent pay raise, because new bureaucratic infrastructure inevitably has to be created to manage the new benefit. Is that really more efficient than just paying higher wages?
A big problem is that if people leave disability, they'll lose their Medicaid health insurance, and low-paying part-time jobs won't replace that. This is another example of America being penny-wise, pound-foolish when it comes to healthcare costs.
If we consider the difficulty in obtaining disability benefits and the difficulty in keeping them, we should also consider why someone would go through the hassle. I don't think that the benefits are all that much (I could be wrong).
What if we, as a society, could make it easier to obtain and sustain a good-paying job? Would people be still willing to go the route of disability? Maybe there are few jobs that many people can get. Or, maybe the 'costs' associated with working are too high. There's considerable social stigma for being 'disabled'' - why would someone take on that stigma?
I'm guessing that people are making a rational cost / benefit analysis.
It depends on which program and what you consider a lot. There are three main disibility programs: SSI, SSDI as the dependant of a retired worker, and SSDI as a disabled worker.
Everyone is eligible for SSI but pays the least (maximum $733 / month federal, some states add a small amount). Someone on SSI whose parent has enough qualifying working quarters can switch to SSDI at 1/2 of the benefit the retiree would be eligible for at full retirement age. This currently tops out at around $1400 / month. Finally, if you yourself have worked enough qualifying quarters (6-20 depending on age) and become disabled you may be eligible for primary SSDI. These top out at around $2600 / month, but average much less. An additional benefit of SSDI, is that after two years a recipient becomes eligible for Medicare.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/07/aid...
This is a point that's not fundamentally liberal or conservative. Both sides should be interested in improving programs that have gratuitous barriers to work.