Ignoring the fact that it's not a tax that goes to the government, the flaw in your argument is assuming that the $1000 Subway now doesn't have to spend ensurin

Ignoring the fact that it's not a tax that goes to the government, the flaw in your argument is assuming that the $1000 Subway now doesn't have to spend ensuring disabled access to a store will somehow end up funding ground-breaking disability research. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. You can attack a problem in multiple ways, it's not mutually exclusive. You can simultaneously fund research into curing disabilities _at the same time_ as ensuring people with disabilities have equal access. Which is what we are doing now. Trying to make the argument that hand-wavey "resources" are being somehow diverted away from disability research because private businesses need to accomodate disabled people sounds rather silly. Almost as silly as arguing that these unthinking groups (shall we call them companies?) would invest any of the money they would save by not ensuring equal access in anything related to disability research. When it comes to some forms of meaningful change at a group level then focusing on the individual is not a great tactic. You can spend an hour individually explaining to every person in a country why smoking is bad for them but that won't have nearly as much impact on smoking rates as banning cigarette adverts.