Income support policy in Canada and the UK: different, but much the same

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 673-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Malacrida
Keyword(s):  
Income Support ◽  
Support Policy ◽  
The Uk

Poverty and Sources of Income Support Among Older People With Disabilities and Out of Work: Comparison of Canada and the United Kingdom

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
WEN-HAO CHEN ◽  
LEE BENTLEY ◽  
MARGARET WHITEHEAD ◽  
ASHLEY MCALLISTER ◽  
BENJAMIN BARR
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Income Support ◽  
Disabled People ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Poverty Risk ◽  
Public Transfers ◽  
Low Educated ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Government Transfers

Abstract The debate about extending working lives in response to population ageing often overlooks the lack of employment opportunity for older adults with disabilities. Without work, their living standards depend heavily on government transfers. This study contributes to the literature on health inequalities by analysing the sources of income and poverty outcomes for people aged 50 to 64 in two liberal democratic countries yet with contrasting disability benefit contexts – Canada and the United Kingdom. This choice of countries offers the opportunity to assess whether the design of benefit systems has led the most disadvantaged groups to fare differently between countries. Overall, disabled older persons without work faced a markedly higher risk of poverty in Canada than in the UK. Public transfers played a much greater role in the UK, accounting for two-thirds of household income among low-educated groups, compared with one-third in Canada. The average benefit amount received was similar in both countries, but the coverage of disabled people was much lower in Canada than in the UK, leading to a high poverty risk among disabled people out of work. Our findings highlight the importance of income support systems in preventing the widening of the poverty-disability gap at older ages.

Does tax policy fit in the portfolio of COVID-19 responses?

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerrie Sadiq ◽  
Richard Krever
Keyword(s):  
Tax Policy ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
Income Support ◽  
Policy Reforms ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Tax Regimes ◽  
The Uk

Purpose Tax policymakers are currently navigating a path through a delicate dialectic of macro- and micro-level policy responses to the economic dislocation of the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this paper is to examine initial tax measures that are aimed at helping taxpayers needing liquidity, solvency and income support. Design/methodology/approach This study undertakes a review of key tax policy responses of six jurisdictions across the globe that have similar tax regimes and virus mitigation strategies (albeit with different outcomes). Key initiatives implemented from February to April 2020 by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa and the UK are examined. Findings This study indicates that tax concessions are a crude and mostly ineffective way of assisting individuals and enterprises in difficulty. In the longer term, if the crisis prompts desirable reforms such as extending the recognition of tax losses, the income tax system will emerge fairer and more efficient. Practical implications An investigation of the short-term reforms announced relating to asset write-offs, tax deferral, tax losses and goods and services tax/value-added tax rates in light of the liquidity, income support and stimulus objectives shows that in some cases the policies may have been misguided. The findings can be used by policymakers as the basis for designing better targeted alternative non-tax responses. Originality/value Jurisdictional responses to tax policy reforms during a modern period of significant economic dislocation have yet to be documented in the literature. Specifically, this paper highlights the limitations of tax policy initiatives as a response to financial hardship.

scholarly journals Effects of restrictions to Income Support on health of lone mothers in the UK: a natural experiment study

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. e333-e340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi ◽  
Oarabile R Molaodi ◽  
Marcia Gibson ◽  
Ruth Dundas ◽  
Peter Craig
Keyword(s):  
Natural Experiment ◽  
Income Support ◽  
Experiment Study ◽  
Lone Mothers ◽  
The Uk

Measuring the Macroeconomic Effects of Reducing Benefit Dependency

2003 ◽  
Vol 186 ◽  
pp. 85-97
Author(s):  
Ray Barrell ◽  
Simon Kirby ◽  
Rebecca Riley ◽  
Desirée van Welsum
Keyword(s):  
Model Simulation ◽  
Income Support ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
The Public ◽  
Lone Parents ◽  
Macroeconomic Impact ◽  
Macroeconomic Effects ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Social Security Benefits ◽  
The Impact

We construct a framework for evaluating the macroeconomic impact on the UK economy of policies that are aimed at reducing the number of people receiving social security benefits by helping them into employment. By means of model simulation we evaluate the gains to the economy in terms of output, employment and improvements to the public finances of a policy that reduces the number of people claiming disability benefits or lone parents on Income Support by 5 per cent. These gains can be regarded as significant and have to be offset against the costs of the policy. We conclude that it is possible to evaluate the impact of policies to enable benefit claimants to find work using a macroeconomic model, and that such an evaluation should be included in each assessment of policy change.

Distrusting doctors’ evidence: a qualitative study of disability income support policy makers

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley McAllister ◽  
Stephen R. Leeder
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Income Support ◽  
Snowball Sampling ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Certainty ◽  
Support Policy ◽  
Disability Income

Objective The aim of the present study was to describe how policy makers (bureaucrats and politicians) in Australia and Ontario (Canada) perceive evidence provided by doctors to substantiate applications for disability income support (DIS) by their patients with mental illnesses. Because many mental illnesses (e.g. depression) lack diagnostic tests, their existence and effects are more difficult to demonstrate than most somatic illnesses. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 45 informants, all influential in the design of the assessment of DIS programs. The informants were subcategorised into advocates, legal representatives, doctors (general practitioners (GPs) and specialists (e.g. psychiatrists)), policy insiders and researchers. Informants were found through snowball sampling. Following the principles of grounded theory, data collection and analysis occurred in tandem. Results Informants expressed some scepticism about doctors’ evidence. Informants perceived that doctors could, due to lack of diagnostic certainty, ‘write these things [evidence] however [they] want to’. Psychiatrists, perceived as having more time and skills, were considered as providing more trustworthy evidence than GPs. Conclusion Doctors, providing evidence to support applications, play an important role in determining disability. However, policy makers perceive doctors’ evidence about mental illnesses as less trustworthy than evidence about somatic illnesses. This affects decisions by government adjudicators. What is known about the topic? Doctors (GPs and psychiatrists) are often asked to provide evidence to substantiate a DIS application for those with mental illnesses. We know little about the perception of this evidence by the policy makers who consider these applications. What does this paper add? Policy makers distrust doctors’ evidence in relation to mental illnesses. This is partly because many mental illnesses lack diagnostic proof, in contrast with evidence for somatic conditions, where the disability is often visible and proven through diagnostic tests. Furthermore, GPs’ evidence is considered less trustworthy than that of psychiatrists. What are the implications for practitioners? Although doctors’ evidence is often required, the utility of their evidence is limited by policy makers’ perceptions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document