Bill Overview
Title: People’s Prosperity Act
Description: t This bill allows individual taxpayers a 2022 refundable rebate amount equal to $1,000 ($2,000 for joint returns). The rebate amount is reduced if taxpayer modified adjusted gross income exceeds a certain threshold. To be eligible for the rebate, taxpayers must provide a Social Security account number on their tax returns. Rebate amounts are exempt from certain reductions or offsets, including garnishments.
Sponsors: Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20]
Target Audience
Population: individual taxpayers worldwide who file tax returns
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill targets individual taxpayers who file returns for the year 2022.
- The rebate is applicable to individuals or couples filing jointly, implying it covers adults aged 18 and above who earn an income and file taxes.
- Eligibility requires a Social Security number, indicating it targets residents and citizens with legal tax obligations.
- The bill's conditions exclude certain groups of individuals such as those without taxable income, non-filers, and undocumented individuals who don't possess Social Security numbers.
Reasoning
- The policy provides direct financial benefits to a large segment of the population, specifically taxpayers who filed returns in 2022.
- In modeling the impact across different demographics, we must consider the diversity in individual financial situations and life stages, which affect the relevance and impact of the rebate.
- We need to include people from various demographic backgrounds (age, location, occupation) to cover the spectrum of potential impacts from the policy, both those directly benefitted and those for whom the impact might be indirect or minimal.
- Since the budget is set at $150 billion per year and over 10 years, this limits the scale of distribution, affecting an estimated 150 million people, which reflects a broad but not universal reach.
- Not everyone in the target group may receive the rebate if their adjusted gross income exceeds the threshold, thus affecting fewer people.
- In answering this simulation, assumptions about tax filing status and income levels are key in determining the potential impact.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this rebate could really help with monthly savings.
- It would ease some of my student loan burden, allowing a bit more flexibility in spending.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A policy like this could provide temporary relief, but more structural changes are needed for small businesses.
- $2,000 is significant, but it will only cover part of my year's insurance premiums.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Freelance Artist (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every bit helps in managing the high cost of living here.
- A rebate could mean one less month of worrying about rent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Rural Iowa)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a retiree, this rebate is slightly helpful, but long-term solutions for healthcare costs would be more beneficial.
- It might help cover some unexpected medical expenses this year.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Part-Time Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The rebate is crucial especially at the start of my career, when savings are low.
- It gives me some breathing room to get back on my feet after college.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The rebate doesn't change much. I'm more concerned about inflation affecting my fixed income.
- Might help cover extra costs with big family gatherings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An extra $1,000 would be a big help towards making a down payment on a home.
- It provides some breathing room for emergency expenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The rebate would help slightly with daily expenses but long-term change is needed in my income.
- Could pay off some debt but not enough to stop working double shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Tech Startup Employee (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Helpful for managing early career expenses here, though my income is above the rebate threshold.
- Can mitigate some minor moving expenses but not game-changing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Teacher (Baton Rouge, LA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This rebate can contribute to my kids' education savings.
- It's a welcome short-term boost but not a substitute for salary increases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000000 (Low: $130000000000, High: $170000000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The immediate fiscal impact on the federal budget due to high upfront costs.
- Potential for economic stimulus through increased consumer spending.
- Distributional effects emphasizing benefits for those in the low-to-moderate income brackets because of means testing.