The point is that the in theory, workers receive above living wage, even though the company pays below, because they also get paid by the government. (I'm argui

The point is that the in theory, workers receive above living wage, even though the company pays below, because they also get paid by the government. (I'm arguing for the theory; in the US it's not true, but also in the US even minimum wage is below living). However, tax breaks sound better. I worry that requiring companies to hire disabled workers, instead of just making it profitable to do so, would cause more workers to be abused. Every method has some abuse from bad actors, but a requirement specifically influences companies who wouldn't hire disabled workers even if they could assign zero tasks to them and financially benefit.