-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 159
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
Summary of parameters by reform #1777
Comments
@MaxGhenis, if my understanding of your issue is correct, we have a way to produce something similar. When working with the Python API, you can use the I'm not sure this is exactly what you're looking for, but it is one way to see the changes in a reform file in more context. |
Thanks for the info @andersonfrailey, I'm looking for a summary across all reforms though, i.e. those listed in https://github.com/open-source-economics/Tax-Calculator/tree/master/taxcalc/reforms For example, this table would reveal that It sounds like the |
@MaxGhenis said:
Sounds like an interesting project, @MaxGhenis. We look forward to your pull request. |
Agreed! |
@MaxGhenis, If you are serious about pursuing this topic, consider developing a pull request that contributes an advanced recipe to the Cookbook of Tested Recipes for Python Programming with Tax-Calculator. |
This spreadsheet is the result of this notebook, which pulls down parameters for each reform. @martinholmer since this is more of a reference than an analysis (it doesn't even use |
@MaxGhenis said:
Probably not. Thanks for sharing your notebook with us. |
@MaxGhenis, Thanks again for this notebook, which generates these results, that you mentioned in issue #1777. |
It would be helpful to have a summary table for each parameter, showing its values across reforms (and current policy).
The schema could be
{parameter, reform, value}
, with a summary like{parameter, first_reform}
(this would require a structured date of introduction for each reform).This could replace manual documentation of some parameters originating in TCJA, as discussed in #1765.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: