Alternative Measures of Income Poverty and the Anti-Poverty Effects of Taxes and Transfers
June 2005
Working Paper Number:
CES-05-08
Abstract
The Census Bureau prepared a number of alternative income-based measures of poverty to illustrate the distributional impacts of several alternatives to the official measure. The paper examines five income variants for two different units of analysis (families and households) for two different assumptions about inflation (the historical Consumer Price Index and a 'Research Series' alternative that uses current methods) for two different sets of thresholds (official and a formula-based alternative base on three parameters). The poverty rate effects are analyzed for the total population, the distributional effects are analyzed using poverty shares, and the anti-poverty effects of taxes and transfers are analyzed using a percentage reduction in poverty rates. Suggestions for future research are included.
Document Tags and Keywords
Keywords
Keywords are automatically generated using KeyBERT, a powerful and innovative
keyword extraction tool that utilizes BERT embeddings to ensure high-quality and contextually relevant
keywords.
By analyzing the content of working papers, KeyBERT identifies terms and phrases that capture the essence of the
text, highlighting the most significant topics and trends. This approach not only enhances searchability but
provides connections that go beyond potentially domain-specific author-defined keywords.
:
expenditure,
revenue,
inflation,
salary,
budget,
tax,
welfare,
poverty,
distribution,
family
Tags
Tags are automatically generated using a pretrained language model from spaCy, which excels at
several tasks, including entity tagging.
The model is able to label words and phrases by part-of-speech,
including "organizations." By filtering for frequent words and phrases labeled as "organizations", papers are
identified to contain references to specific institutions, datasets, and other organizations.
:
Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Office of Management and Budget,
Bureau of Economic Analysis,
University of Maryland,
Urban Institute,
Current Population Survey,
Social Security,
Earned Income Tax Credit,
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,
National Academy of Sciences,
Social and Economic Supplement
Similar Working Papers
Similarity between working papers are determined by an unsupervised neural
network model
know as Doc2Vec.
Doc2Vec is a model that represents entire documents as fixed-length vectors, allowing for the
capture of semantic meaning in a way that relates to the context of words within the document. The model learns to
associate a unique vector with each document while simultaneously learning word vectors, enabling tasks such as
document classification, clustering, and similarity detection by preserving the order and structure of words. The
document vectors are compared using cosine similarity/distance to determine the most similar working papers.
Papers identified with 🔥 are in the top 20% of similarity.
The 10 most similar working papers to the working paper 'Alternative Measures of Income Poverty and the Anti-Poverty Effects of Taxes and Transfers' are listed below in order of similarity.
-
Working PaperMeasuring Poverty in the United States: History and Current Issues🔥
April 2006
Working Paper Number:
CES-06-11
Formal measurement of poverty in the United States is now about 40 years old. This paper first briefly describes the origins and basis of the official poverty thresholds adopted by the federal government in the late 1960s. Then, it discusses in some detail some of the more current issues that observers suggest must be addressed if changes are to be made. The final sections discuss recent efforts to propose alternates to the current official approach.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperRecent Trends in Top Income Shares in the USA: Reconciling Estimates from March CPS and IRS Tax Return Data
September 2009
Working Paper Number:
CES-09-26
Although the vast majority of US research on trends in the inequality of family income is based on public-use March Current Population Survey (CPS) data, a new wave of research based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax return data reports substantially higher levels of inequality and faster growing trends. We show that these apparently inconsistent estimates can largely be reconciled once one uses internal CPS data (which better captures the top of the income distribution than public-use CPS data) and defines the income distribution in the same way. Using internal CPS data for 1967'2006, we closely match the IRS data-based estimates of top income shares reported by Piketty and Saez (2003), with the exception of the share of the top 1 percent of the distribution during 1993'2000. Our results imply that, if inequality has increased substantially since 1993, the increase is confined to income changes for those in the top 1 percent of the distribution.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperUsing Linked Survey and Administrative Data to Better Measure Income: Implications for Poverty, Program Effectiveness and Holes in the Safety Net
October 2015
Working Paper Number:
CES-15-35
We examine the consequences of underreporting of transfer programs in household survey data for several prototypical analyses of low-income populations. We focus on the Current Population Survey (CPS), the source of official poverty and inequality statistics, but provide evidence that our qualitative conclusions are likely to apply to other surveys. We link administrative data for food stamps, TANF, General Assistance, and subsidized housing from New York State to the CPS at the individual level. Program receipt in the CPS is missed for over one-third of housing assistance recipients, 40 percent of food stamp recipients and 60 percent of TANF and General Assistance recipients. Dollars of benefits are also undercounted for reporting recipients, particularly for TANF, General Assistance and housing assistance. We find that the survey data sharply understate the income of poor households, as conjectured in past work by one of the authors. Underreporting in the survey data also greatly understates the effects of anti-poverty programs and changes our understanding of program targeting, often making it seem that welfare programs are less targeted to both the very poorest and middle income households than they are. Using the combined data rather than survey data alone, the poverty reducing effect of all programs together is nearly doubled while the effect of housing assistance is tripled. We also re-examine the coverage of the safety net, specifically the share of people without work or program receipt. Using the administrative measures of program receipt rather than the survey ones often reduces the share of single mothers falling through the safety net by one-half or more.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperThe Antipoverty Impact of the EITC: New Estimates from Survey and Administrative Tax Records
April 2019
Working Paper Number:
CES-19-14R
We reassess the antipoverty effects of the EITC using unique data linking the CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement to IRS data for the same individuals spanning years 2005-2016. We compare EITC benefits from standard simulators to administrative EITC payments and find that significantly more actual EITC payments flow to childless tax units than predicted, and to those whose family income places them above official poverty thresholds. However, actual EITC payments appear to be target efficient at the tax unit level. In 2016, about 3.1 million persons were lifted out of poverty by the EITC, substantially less than prior estimates.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperPoverty Estimates for Places in the United States
September 2005
Working Paper Number:
CES-05-12
This paper first describes some historical poverty trends, overall and for demographic groups and broad locations within the U.S. from an ongoing household survey, and then presents some specific information on poverty for localities by size, from the most recent decennial census (2000). Rural poverty exceeded urban poverty in 1969 and 1979, but urban poverty in 1999 was higher than rural poverty. Non-metropolitan area poverty exceeded metropolitan area poverty in each of the four censuses, but within each of those areas, rural poverty is now less than urban poverty. Within metropolitan areas, poverty is highest for those in central cities. For urbanized areas (50,000 or more population), the poverty rate is lower as the area gets larger, with the exception of the very largest-sized areas. This higher poverty for the largest places is accounted for entirely by the higher poverty rate for the central city or cities in those urban agglomerations, as the poverty rates for the parts of the urbanized areas not in the central place continue to fall as the area itself gets larger. Some of the critical relationships affecting the poverty rate of places appear to be the location of certain types of people - female householders, non-citizens, people of color, and college graduates.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperEarnings Through the Stages: Using Tax Data to Test for Sources of Error in CPS ASEC Earnings and Inequality Measures
September 2024
Working Paper Number:
CES-24-52
In this paper, I explore the impact of generalized coverage error, item non-response bias, and measurement error on measures of earnings and earnings inequality in the CPS ASEC. I match addresses selected for the CPS ASEC to administrative data from 1040 tax returns. I then compare earnings statistics in the tax data for wage and salary earnings in samples corresponding to seven stages of the CPS ASEC survey production process. I also compare the statistics using the actual survey responses. The statistics I examine include mean earnings, the Gini coefficient, percentile earnings shares, and shares of the survey weight for a range of percentiles. I examine how the accuracy of the statistics calculated using the survey data is affected by including imputed responses for both those who did not respond to the full CPS ASEC and those who did not respond to the earnings question. I find that generalized coverage error and item nonresponse bias are dominated by measurement error, and that an important aspect of measurement error is households reporting no wage and salary earnings in the CPS ASEC when there are such earnings in the tax data. I find that the CPS ASEC sample misses earnings at the high end of the distribution from the initial selection stage and that the final survey weights exacerbate this.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperEstimating Trends in U.S. Income Inequality Using the Current Population Survey: The Importance of Controlling for Censoring
August 2008
Working Paper Number:
CES-08-25
Using internal and public use March Current Population Survey (CPS) data, we analyze trends in US income inequality (1975'2004). We find that the upward trend in income inequality prior to 1993 significantly slowed thereafter once we control for top coding in the public use data and censoring in the internal data. Because both series do not capture trends at the very top of the income distribution, we use a multiple imputation approach in which values for censored observations are imputed using draws from a Generalized Beta distribution of the Second Kind (GB2) fitted to internal data. Doing so, we find income inequality trends similar to those derived from unadjusted internal data. Our trend results are generally robust to the choice of inequality index, whether Gini coefficient or other commonly-used indices. When we compare our best estimates of the income shares held by the richest tenth with those reported by Piketty and Saez (2003), our trends fairly closely match their trends, except for the top 1 percent of the distribution. Thus, we argue that if United States income inequality has been substantially increasing since 1993, such increases are confined to this very high income group.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperErrors in Survey Reporting and Imputation and Their Effects on Estimates of Food Stamp Program Participation
April 2011
Working Paper Number:
CES-11-14
Benefit receipt in major household surveys is often underreported. This misreporting leads to biased estimates of the economic circumstances of disadvantaged populations, program takeup, and the distributional effects of government programs, and other program effects. We use administrative data on Food Stamp Program (FSP) participation matched to American Community Survey (ACS) and Current Population Survey (CPS) household data. We show that nearly thirty-five percent of true recipient households do not report receipt in the ACS and fifty percent do not report receipt in the CPS. Misreporting, both false negatives and false positives, varies with individual characteristics, leading to complicated biases in FSP analyses. We then directly examine the determinants of program receipt using our combined administrative and survey data. The combined data allow us to examine accurate participation using individual characteristics missing in administrative data. Our results differ from conventional estimates using only survey data, as such estimates understate participation by single parents, non-whites, low income households, and other groups. To evaluate the use of Census Bureau imputed ACS and CPS data, we also examine whether our estimates using survey data alone are closer to those using the accurate combined data when imputed survey observations are excluded. Interestingly, excluding the imputed observations leads to worse ACS estimates, but has less effect on the CPS estimates.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperCapturing More Than Poverty: School Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Data and Household Income
December 2017
Working Paper Number:
carra-2017-09
Educational researchers often use National School Lunch Program (NSLP) data as a proxy for student poverty. Under NSLP policy, students whose household income is less than 130 percent of the poverty line qualify for free lunch and students whose household income is between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty line qualify for reduced-price lunch. Linking school administrative records for all 8th graders in a California public school district to household-level IRS income tax data, we examine how well NSLP data capture student disadvantage. We find both that there is substantial disadvantage in household income not captured by NSLP category data, and that NSLP categories capture disadvantage on test scores above and beyond household income.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperDo Doubled-up Families Minimize Household-level Tax Burden?
September 2014
Working Paper Number:
carra-2014-13
This paper examines a method of tax avoidance not previously studied: the sorting of dependent children among related filers who have 'doubled up' in a household for economic reasons. Using the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) linked with 1040 data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), we examine households with children and at least two adult tax filers to determine whether the household minimizes income tax burden, and thus maximizes refunds, by optimally claiming dependents. We examine specifically the relationship between the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the sorting of dependent children among filers in households. We find the following: The propensity to sort increases as the number of filers who are potentially eligible for the EITC increases; sorting probability increases as the optimal household EITC amount increases; and among households with at least one EITC-eligible filer, the propensity to sort increases as the difference between modeled household EITC amount and the optimal amount increases. We also exploit the 2009 change in EITC benefit for families with three or more children, finding that the propensity to sort to exactly three children increased among EITC-eligible filers after the rule change. The results of this analysis improve our understanding of filing behavior, particularly how households form filing units and pool resources, and have implications for poverty measurement in complex households This presentation was given at the CARRA Seminar, July 16, 2014View Full Paper PDF
