DADA Response to Basic Income

DADA RESPONSE TO BASIC INCOME FOR ARTISTS, April 11, 2022

A. Based on current information available on the Basic Income for Artists, retention of disability supports for artists with disabilities is not protected or guaranteed.

All disability payments are means tested. There is no indication the basic income includes an exception to this. Because of the precarity squared of having a disability and working in the arts, disabled artists need to know if the scheme is a) safe for us and b) worth the time and energy it would take to engage. Because having a disability in a non-disabled world, already takes up so much time and energy, we have to budget our time and energy differently to non-disabled people.

So, we need to know if we will be better off.

It is not safe if we lose supports. It is not safe or worth our time and energy if it enters disabled artists into 3 years of scrutiny by Dept of Social Protection which involves:

constant auditing;
repeatedly re-proving our disabilities, as is currently the procedure;
the double administrative load of constantly preparing paperwork for Revenue and Social Protection, for which there is no administrative support;
if all that then results in shifting reductions in disability payments;

This would make the Scheme unsafe and not worth the time and energy as it enters a disabled artist into 3 years of increased uncertainty around meeting the costs and impacts of our disabilities even as the cost of living and making work increases.

B. The BIA does not address existing anomalies in the system which will still trigger loss and reduction of disability supports.

The BIA Scheme says it will treat the income as “earnings from self-employment,” however, there are particular Social Protection regulations/legislations that despite this categorisation, will still cause an immediate loss or reduction of supports. They are:

There is no exclusion for Arts council awards, commissions, bursaries etc still being considered means which makes them subject to a means assessment that euro for euro reduces Disability Allowance / Blind Pension. A New Work award can result in the immediate loss of all the core disability payment.

This means that an artist then has to work for free as they have to use their award to pay for their disability.

There is no exclusion in the BIA for an artist who is cohabiting. Cohabiting /having a partner triggers the loss or reduction of supports as the Blind Pension or Disability Allowance is means tested against a partners income. This makes it incumbent on partners to pay for our disabilities which puts a disabled person in a very dependent and vulnerable position.

There is no exception/correction to the savings disregard. Recipients of DA are allowed to have up to 50,000E where Blind Pension recipients are permitted 20,000E before their Blind Pension is reduced.

Why are blind and visually impaired artists cut from their supports at a lower savings? The BIA does not address this

Blind Pension is taxable, Disability Allowance is not. This means that for the same income, blind and visually impaired artists will be liable for tax where DA recipients will not.

Again, why the penalising of blind and visually impaired artists. The BIA does not address this.

How does this Scheme work for those on Partial Capacity/Invalidity Pension?

Means testing and disregards need to be removed from core disability payments like BP and DA so that these payments become secure supports to level the playing field with non-disabled people. There needs to be an acknowledgement that having a disability means we start life and work with a minus. The INDECON Cost of Disability Report proved that this cost, this minus, is in the range of 9-12,000E a year. We start with minus 10,000E approx in disability costs that we need to meet first in order to be able to work and contribute.

When we win an Arts Council award, but then lose our disability supports, then we have to use the Arts Council award to pay for our disability, not our art, which means we’re working for free or, in debt. And since you cannot make art for free, this makes it impossible for us to practice.

Similarly, if the BIA does not ensure and guarantee retention of supports, then disabled artists are forced to use the BIA to pay for their disability. This means we are not being paid the same rate for our work as our non-disabled peers. This devalues our work and also leaves us with less financial resources to create that work.

C. Other non-means tested Payments

The cost and impact of disability is a constant in the same way that the cost of raising children is a constant and yet the State does not means test the children's’ allowance.

Widows pension is not means tested in recognition that becoming a widow, incurs additional cost.

Surely, the justification for the security of payments for children's’ allowance and widow’s pension, equally exists for securing the core disability payment to meet the constant cost of disability.

When we acknowledge how free non-disabled artists are to thrive, and compare it to the restrictions on disabled artists by restrictive Social Protection supports;

when we, further, acknowledge the amazing advantage this BIA will give non-disabled artists; and again, compare that to continued restrictions on disabled artists as indicated in this document; …

and, finally,

when we then consider what it will continue to be like for disabled artists who are not on the scheme,

a roaring, screaming, glaring injustice and discrimination becomes loud and clear.

A roaring, screaming, glaring injustice and discrimination that must be addressed by this Government.

By Emilie Conway, DADA Disabled Artists and Disabled Academics

Note: I have compiled this statement based on my best understanding of information from the Department of Social Protection and Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media as on gov.ie and the living experiences of disabled artists engaging with the Dept of Social Protection. If there are corrections to be made, I welcome them. However notwithstanding corrections, it is worth adding, that the system is extremely complex, the guidelines are not clear for disabled people to make informed decisions about their lives and consequences of working freelance, especially, and people’s experiences point to a system rife with inconsistencies and anomalies that ultimately result in: “it depends on who you talk to.” This is true for any disabled person who tries grow and build a career in the arts, or, in fact, most other sectors.

This lack of clarity and transparency could be attributed to the predominance of non-disabled people and ableist thinking conditioning creation of regulations and legislation, with a lack of representation and insufficient engagement with disabled people.