From: Alex Hesse-Siegert <alex@positive-solutions.org>
Subject: Legislative Proposals-Disability Work Incentives
Social Security Work Incentives Where's the Incentive ?
As a Disability Benefits Counselor I spend much of my time educating individuals regarding the rules and regulations that govern their attempts to earn income. I find it harder to answer this question when it is asked by a client, "Why should I bother?". The truth as I know it, is that the disabled who seek to gain independence through a return to work face a myriad of barriers. These barriers are created by those who are charged with and speak of eliminating the injustice, yet continue to legislate "incentives" that reward dependence. These "incentives" easily deteriorate when subject to multiple government programs with layers of incompatible rules that entangle and entrap. Perhaps the appropriate question is not the one posed by the client, but the one yet to be posed to the Congress, Where's the incentive?
Currently there is a plan to increase the Substantial Gainful Activity Level (SGA). (The gross monthly earned income amount used to determine whether a person keeps their benefit check during the 36 month extended period of eligibility(EPE).) The $200 increase shifts the current level of $500 to $700 per month. This adjustment, the first in almost ten years, fails to provide parity or incremental increases such as the ones which created the current $1,110 SGA level afforded those who are blind. Where's the incentive?
I was talking with a respected colleague who works for the Social Security Administration, in her excitement she stated, "This will allow our clients to earn up to $200 more without losing their benefit checks." My response was, "Yes, but what will it do to assist those who want to become independent and break through this raised glass ceiling of poverty?" She was silent. I shared the following example:
A client, we will call him Bill is by Social Security's own figures receiving the average benefit check amount, $733 per month. If Bill who is in the EPE earns the SGA amount of $700 he will lose $33 off the top (The difference between the proposed SGA and the his SSDI benefit check amount.) His $700 earned income is subject to taxes. His pay is monthly and he claims no exemptions the tax amount is approximately $127, combined this equals an approximate a loss of $160. Bill's income is also subject to a state L&I; tax, bringing his residual income to less than $40. Luckily for Bill, our state does not levy a state income tax. Bill also has increased costs due to his employment for incidentals such as; work clothes, laundry, and transportation. If that is not enough, Bill and many of those like him rely on a combination of other subsidized programs to survive. These programs may include: food stamps, housing, child care, and state funded medical assistance. Each program uses earned income as criteria for enrollment, which may translate to a possible loss of program support for Bill and these individuals.
My questions for you are these: If you were Bill, wouldn't you question the value of work and why you should bother?. . .Would you still believe in the American Work Ethic? How do you answer the question: Where's the incentive? The disabled clearly lose more buying power by attempting to work. The rules and regulations have become barriers to independence.
As we discuss Social Security reforms, Congress is considering enacting more laws that fail to address the full issues, such as "The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, (S.331). This Bill while introducing some needed provisions, is at best a half-measure that puts its emphasis on the creation and funding of "Employment Networks." The proposed funding is a percentage of the projected $3,500,000,000 trust fund savings created by returning the disabled to work. What it does not do is invest a similar percentage in an individual's earning potential through the use of a realistic SGA level, thus enabling a smooth transition to work. Further, the bill fails to prevent disincentives in other programs created by employment.
As we call for fiscal responsibility we too must call for State and Federal partnerships committed to clearing the path to independence for the disabled. The Federal government does not have the complete authority to remove these barriers; success mandates a unified set of regulations. Please encourage your Congressional Delegate to ionvestigate and include such provisions.
Alex Hesse-Siegert, Director
Positive Solutions
206-322-8181
