Means-Tested Disability Benefits

From what I understand of the Albertan welfare system, many disability benefits are cut once you start earning money from other sources. I can't speak for the rest of Canada or even my home Australia as I have never been involved there. However, I'm not sure if this should be considered a "fair go" for disabled citizens.

As I understand it, the idea of "social security" is that we guarantee all citizens a minimum level of living. The premise is that all individuals deserve a decent life, though circumstances may make it difficult or impossible for them to achieve it on their own. In some cases these circumstances are transient (eg. unemployment, pregnancy, illness) while other times they are permanent (eg. disability). In either case, society feels that we should offset the individual's circumstance by providing them with some kind of benefits.

Now it makes sense that an individual's "unemployment benefits" would be cut if they become employed. The individual's circumstances have changed, and the benefits are no longer appropriate.

But what should happen when a person overcomes their circumstances. That is, when their circumstances do not change, but the person pushes themselves to improve their own life? For example, should a new mother have her maternity benefits cut because she pushed herself to grow vegetables? Should we cut her maternity benefits as they are not necessary to feed her child? Or should we maintain her benefits, and applaud the improved life she can now offer her child?

Should benefits be means-tested? Or should they be based purely on how circumstances have impacted that individual?

The following describes how the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) benefit is cut when a disabled person overcomes their circumstances to enter the workforce at a low-paying job:

Currently, an individual’s employment income is only partially exempt from AISH adjustment. For example, single adults can keep the first $200 they earn each month, plus 25% of any amount over $200. This means an individual who works 20 hours/week for $10.00/hour would only be able to retain $366.67 of the $866.67 he/she would earn [per month]. When the cost (transportation, clothing, and/or childcare for example) and energy involved in joining the work force are considered, the motivation for seeking and obtaining employment is negligible.

-- Alberta Committee of Citizens with Disabilities Response to Low-Income Programs Review

Imagine a severely handicapped man who cleans tables at McDonalds. He has overcome his disability to find work in a fast-food restaurant. While this is simplistic work for most of us, it has presumably taken great effort on his part to achieve this. He will earn only a basic wage despite it taking all of his energy.

His disability has not changed, and society would pay him full benefits if he stayed at home. So should we applaud his effort to overcome his disability, or should we cut his benefits?

P.S. The AISH cut-off rates have increased significantly. In the above example, the individual would now keep around $633.37. However, once an individual goes over $1500/month in earnings, their benefits will be cut dollar for dollar. A person on AISH benefits would see no improvement in their life if they moved from a $1500/month job to a $2000/month job, because their AISH benefits would be cut exactly $500.

P.P.S. This blogpost is really more about how we think of social security and whether it is fair, not demanding changes to AISH.