MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4406135957 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v9i1.42593

The Disability Tax Credit: Why it Fails and How to Fix It Authors

2016· article· en· W4406135957 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Wayne Simpson, Harvey Stevens

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Policy and Governance
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Manitoba
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEconomicsTax creditLaw and economicsBusinessPublic economics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

When the government establishes a social program whose primary purpose is to help provide support to low-income people with disabilities, its success should be measured on how well it achieves that purpose. Unfortunately, there are reasons to seriously question the usefulness of Canada’s disability tax credit since it is helping so very few of the people it is intended to support. In fact, the credit is helping only a small number of Canadians with disability who qualify for it, and least of all those in the poorest families who receive an average of only $29 annually. The reason is not hard to see: Designing the support as a tax credit means that only those Canadians with disability who earn enough income to have them owing taxes can take advantage of it. Yet it is an unfortunate reality that people with disability are often at low incomes precisely because their disability leaves them unable to work in full-time, wellpaid jobs. Thus, the very people who need this support most are the ones least able to take advantage of it. In other words, the neediest disabled Canadians are receiving the least benefit. Far from being a successful policy, the results of the disability tax credit can only be described as disappointing. There is an uncomplicated way to begin rectifying this: By making the disability tax credit refundable. Along the same lines as a guaranteed minimum income, or negative income tax, those low-income Canadians with disabilities who qualify for the credit but lack sufficient income to benefit from the credit could simply be made eligible for a refund of the amount they cannot claim. Simply doing that, turning this non-refundable credit into a refundable credit, would increase the average benefit for Canada’s poorest families with a disabled person from $29 to $511, increasing their total income by a meaningful 4.1 per cent. Just as importantly, where a meagre 0.2 per cent of these families now get any benefit at all from the credit, a refundable credit would now see a majority, 56.4 per cent, receiving benefits. We estimate that this would mean added costs to the federal program of a modest $72 million, or a 17 per cent increase. A similar reform at the provincial level would cost an additional $31 million. An even more effective option for ensuring better outcomes for this policy, however, would be to both make the tax credit refundable and enhance it to triple its value. This would ensure that virtually every family with a disabled person below the low income cut-off, would benefit from the credit and this enhancement would raise their incomes a far more consequential 27 per cent. The costs of this enhanced refundable disability tax credit would be, of course, notably higher, estimated at $516 million federally and $240 million provincially, but it would actually achieve the outcomes that this policy ostensibly intends. The current program may be cheaper, but the value it delivers is trifling and the money, therefore, is arguably heavily wasted. For years there have been calls to make this tax credit work better through refundability. We now have evidence that an enhanced refundable disability tax credit would make the significant difference in the lives of low income Canadians with disabilities that the policy was designed to do, but has so far largely failed to do.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,019
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,773
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,451

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0190,100
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,011
Communication savante0,0140,014
Science ouverte0,0040,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0180,034
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0190,007

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,049
Tête enseignante GPT0,337
Écart entre enseignants0,288 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsMême sujetCanadian Policy and GovernanceTravaux en français237 207