And not just because it would make us all feel warm and fuzzy. There are good, hard-headed economic arguments for increasing our disability spend which is currently below many OECD countries.
PAUL Prendergast is the father of a 26-year-old daughter who - he states proudly - enjoys an "active social life, attendance of a drama group and a dance group and 10-pin bowling".
But Mr Prendergast's daughter also has Down syndrome and, like many ageing parents of a disabled child, he worries about his daughter's future. He fears she will end up in an aged care facility when he and his wife die.
"This thought fills us with dread as our daughter's quality of life would evaporate should she be housed far from her friends and activities," he wrote in a submission to the Productivity Commission's 2010 inquiry into disability care.
Trevor and Trish Browning's daughter died at just 13. In their submission, they describe the "constant battle to get assistance" for their daughter who suffered Rhett syndrome.
"We had to fight for every aid and facility" they wrote. "We saw so many people just give up in despair as they did not have the stamina or time to take on the myriad Government departments and agencies that purport to provide services."
These are just two of the heartbreaking stories contained in the more than 1000 public submissions to the Commission's inquiry. They detail the "emotional and financial roller coaster", the "humiliation and isolation" and "unrelenting and huge" stresses of living with a disability in this country.
Truth is, disability could happen to any one of us, at any time.
All of us face the very real possibility of having a child with a disability or suffering from a catastrophic injury ourselves.
So all Australians have an interest in providing better services and care for the sick and the disabled.
And not just because it would make us all feel warm and fuzzy. There are good, hard-headed economic arguments for increasing our disability spend which is currently below many OECD countries.
Australia has the seventh lowest employment rate for people with disabilities in the OECD.
Better support for disabled people wanting to enter the workforce could lift gross domestic product by a full percentage point by 2050, or $32 billion in today's prices, according to the Productivity Commission. Not only would these new workers pay income tax, they would require less income support.
There would be other benefits, too, from improving the wellbeing of people with disabilities and their carers, efficiency gains through better provision of services and reduced strain on hospital budgets from caring for disabled people.
"The bottom line is that benefits of the NDIS would significantly exceed the additional costs of the scheme," the Commission found.
Which leaves us with the thorny question of just who is going to pay?
In outlining the extra $6.5 billion a year needed to bring disability care funding up to acceptable levels, the Productivity Commission did not stipulate how this should be funded. But it did stress the funding would need to be secure and stable into the future.
Raising the GST was one option canvassed. A Medicare-style levy was the other and it appears the Government is readying to do just that in the May Budget.
The Government currently raises $9.6 billion a year through the Medicare levy which is a 1.5 per cent tax on all taxpayers earning more than around $24,000. Boosting this levy by 0.5 percentage points would raise an extra $3.2 billion a year. A person earning $50,000 would pay about $250 more a year.
Alternatively, the Government could impose a separate 1 per cent "disability care and support premium" which would raise around $6.4 billion a year - enough to fund the NDIS in its entirety.
There are several advantages to such a levy, particularly if badged as an insurance premium. According to the Commission: "There is some value in using the word `premium' instead of tax or levy because it would make it clear that every taxpayer is getting a service - namely an insurance product, that provides him or her with disability supports if they are required."
But let's not sugar coat it.
Any new levy would essentially be an increase to all personal income tax rates.
Such a hike would go some way to taking back some of the unsustainable tax cuts handed out by the Howard and Rudd governments which were funded by a once-in-a-century mining boom which has just run out of puff.
The downside of a levy is that it would add more complexity to the already complex tax system. But given the unpopularity of raising personal income tax rates, such chicanery may be necessary.
There is also a risk that a disabilities levy would make people less inclined to make separate charitable donations to disability care. But the certainty of funding would be worth it.
If set too low, the levy could also risk giving the false impression that it fully funds the cost of the scheme. Indeed, the Medicare levy doesn't come close to funding all Medicare linked services.
The bottom line is that the money for disability care must come from somewhere. And that somewhere is us.
The Government must make every effort to cut wasteful spending and remove unfair tax concessions. But it's clear that taxes must rise too to meet the Budget challenge.
So how about it? Are you willing to chip in a little extra to support those suffering the most in our community, like the Prendergasts and the Brownings?
Are you willing to pay a little insurance for the fact that it could be you, or someone you love, one day? I am.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/we-all-need-look-after-the-disabled/story-e6freuy9-12266325529...
