I think the risk here is that the nature of the disability is that they might suddenly be unable to continue working or keep up a reasonable pace of work. Many conditions are cyclical - meaning that you could be productive for a period of time, and then suddenly disabled again.
It might be very difficult to get back on disability benefits after they go above that limit.
This is a common trap with many disability benefit programmes worldwide - they have these inflexible hard numerical limits on earnings that effectively disincentivise people from getting back into work or becoming independent all in the name of fraud prevention. The systems lacks the flexiblity to recongise that people's health and ability to work ebbs and flows.
The moment they earn more than 1200 USD they might no longer be considered disabled by the state. The baked in assumption is that not that we should be providing an accessible offramp to independence and a fallback to support if it goes wrong, but that any demonstration of independence should be met with treating your future claims as fraud.
It might be very difficult to get back on disability benefits after they go above that limit.
This is a common trap with many disability benefit programmes worldwide - they have these inflexible hard numerical limits on earnings that effectively disincentivise people from getting back into work or becoming independent all in the name of fraud prevention. The systems lacks the flexiblity to recongise that people's health and ability to work ebbs and flows.
The moment they earn more than 1200 USD they might no longer be considered disabled by the state. The baked in assumption is that not that we should be providing an accessible offramp to independence and a fallback to support if it goes wrong, but that any demonstration of independence should be met with treating your future claims as fraud.