{"action":"closed","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/open-source-economics/taxdata/issues/143","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/open-source-economics/taxdata","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/open-source-economics/taxdata/issues/143/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/open-source-economics/taxdata/issues/143/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/open-source-economics/taxdata/issues/143/events","html_url":"https://github.com/open-source-economics/taxdata/issues/143","id":286049610,"number":143,"title":"Why is expanded income negative for the bottom decile?","user":{"login":"martinholmer","id":12170745,"avatar_url":"https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/12170745?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/martinholmer","html_url":"https://github.com/martinholmer","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martinholmer/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martinholmer/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martinholmer/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martinholmer/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martinholmer/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martinholmer/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martinholmer/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martinholmer/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/martinholmer/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"id":234479059,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/open-source-economics/taxdata/labels/question","name":"question","color":"cc317c","default":true}],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":4,"created_at":"2018-01-04T16:58:56Z","updated_at":"2018-02-16T02:41:09Z","closed_at":"2018-02-16T02:41:09Z","author_association":"CONTRIBUTOR","body":"A Tax-Calculator user recently discovered that in the expanded-income-decile distribution table the bottom decile has negative aggregate expanded income, and that this is true for both the IRS `puf.csv` and the `cps.csv` input data.  The user pointed out how this plays havoc with the expanded-income-decile difference table and graph.  See the full discussion in [Tax-Calculator issue 1806](https://github.com/open-source-economics/Tax-Calculator/issues/1806).\r\n\r\nIt's clear that the discussion in 1806 is short of facts.  We, or at least I, don't have a clear understanding about why aggregate expanded income is negative for the bottom decile.  Below are a few questions that we need answers to in order to know how to resolve the problem in 1806.\r\n\r\n1. I imagine there are a number of poor people in the bottom decile who show up as having zero expanded income because neither input file currently includes benefits (such as SSI, food stamps, etc.).  What fraction (using sample weights) of the bottom decile has zero expanded income?\r\n\r\n2. I imagine (based largely on some @codykallen comments) that there are a number of people in the bottom decile who are not poor in the conventional sense, but have negative expanded income because they report large business losses.  What fraction of the bottom decile has negative expanded income?  Which input variables cause the negative expanded income for those people?  What would this subgroup's aggregate expanded income be if one or more of the negative income variables were set to zero?\r\n\r\n3. I imagine that there are people in the bottom decile who have small positive values for expanded income.  What fraction of the bottom decile has positive expanded income?  What is the aggregate expanded income of this subgroup?\r\n\r\nThanks for doing these tabulations and helping us figure out the best way to resolve [issue 1806](https://github.com/open-source-economics/Tax-Calculator/issues/1806)."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"martinholmer"}}