> would you support a X% tax on every single able-bodied person, with the proceeds used to better help all disabled people? No. First, you'd have to figure ou

> would you support a X% tax on every single able-bodied person, with the proceeds used to better help all disabled people? No. First, you'd have to figure out whether someone is able-bodied or not. Do you think the IRS is equipped to handle disability claims? There are all sorts of disabilities that aren't bad enough to qualify someone for permanent disability because they're not _that_ bad, not permanent, or both. Then, once collected, where would the money go? Assuming the fund isn't raided to cover for shortfalls elsewhere — something that happens regularly here in California — the money would get handed out to whomever has the most convincing/numerous lobbyists. This seems like a strictly worse solution than what we have already: people go on partial or permanent disability, get a check cut to them, and then they go out and buy whatever'll make their lives better, not what some person in the capital thinks that people "who have a disability" would want. Nevermind that there's _thousands_ of _different_ ways one can be disabled, all requiring different modifications… There's also a lot of overlap between "good for people with some particular disabilities" and "good for lazy people". Would you be in favor of Procter & Gamble lobbying for and getting federal funds to make Swiffers? I wouldn't, even though I think pre-moistened mopping sheets are great — that's naked corporate welfare! Most of us have seen poorly-designed enterprise software and have figured out that they're poorly designed, in part, because the end users are not the buyers and have little input into the buying process. I'd expect a "have A tax B and give the money to C ostensibly for D's benefit" to suffer from the same sorts of principal-agent* problem. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem