Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should we tweak variables to capture structural relationships between them? #35

Open
MaxGhenis opened this issue Jan 7, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@MaxGhenis
Copy link
Collaborator

MaxGhenis commented Jan 7, 2019

We currently avoid synthesizing some invalid relationships like between wages and EITC by calculating variables like EITC via Tax-Calculator rather than synthesis.

We also tweak some variables to work better in synthesis, by modeling e00600 - e00650 and e01500 - e01700 rather than e00600 and e01500, respectively. This ensures that e00600>e00650 and e01500>e01700 as required by Tax-Calculator (see #17).

This issue is to explore whether we should engineer other features to better capture relationships between synthesis, like the latter example. It is motivated by a recent call with Benedetto and Stinson from Census, where they recommended thinking through important structural relationships.

@feenberg
Copy link
Collaborator

feenberg commented Jan 7, 2019 via email

@MaxGhenis
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Interesting, we are indeed synthesizing f6251 (Form 6251, Alternative Minimum Tax) and fded (Form of Deduction Code, itemized/standard/neither), both required by Tax-Calculator (spreadsheet). Does Tax-Calculator need these though, or could they be determined by whatever minimizes tax burden? Seems like this would be a valuable Tax-Calculator feature regardless of our project. @andersonfrailey

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants