Paying People Not to Work
Let’s say a disabled beneficiary goes back to work part-time, and earns $13 an hour for 15 hours a week. His total monthly earnings would be $845. Because that amount falls below $1,000, he would be able to keep a total of $1,845 a month. But if he upped his hours to 20 hours a week, he would then be earning $1,127 a month, which would put him over the threshold for collecting benefits. After the nine-month trial period, he would be stripped of benefits and thus would have only $1,127 in earnings. So by working five more hours a week, he loses $718 a month.
More on the “cash cliff” in disability benefits.
More idiocy inside the Beltway.
Ken, why do you assume they are idiots? Maybe it’s all intentional.
I’m sure you’re right. i think we are paying people not to work.
Although Congress screwed up the details, the concept seems sound to me: the more money people make, the less they should expect in government welfare.
Not all disabilities are permanent. In addition, some conditions that are disabilities for one profession are not disabilities in other professions. Depending on the disability, people can often get training to enter a new profession that is possible with their disability. However, people who go on disability mostly never go back into the workforce even though many would welcome the chance. A primary reason is their fear of losing benefits.
Chile has the best disability system in the world, and I think the NCPA has published on it. Why not junk a system that isn’t working and adopt one that will work?