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

Model Adjustments #2

Open
1 of 6 tasks
FanWangEcon opened this issue Jun 18, 2020 · 0 comments
Open
1 of 6 tasks

Model Adjustments #2

FanWangEcon opened this issue Jun 18, 2020 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@FanWangEcon
Copy link
Owner

FanWangEcon commented Jun 18, 2020

Tax Issues

  • Should kid count impact tax rate (2020-06-17 09:39)
  • in mana from heaven case, we have two tax rate, a2_2020 to clear 2020 costs of covid checks of SS costs, and a "stationary" a2 for Vss. Now we go from a2_2020 to a2_stationary in 2020 right away, which means a2_stationary will not actually clear gov budget because there will be less savings than we used to clear a2. SO need to adjust transition path. (2020-08-08 08:51)

Aggregation Issues

  • At the moment, the "agent" in the model is the household head. The agent, however, might be married and might have kids. So technically the size of the population is larger. That might be something we need to keep in mind when we calibrate the model since for example total factor productivity, theta, is set such that income per capita is equal to 1. What we count as population in the model is not really correct since we're not accounting for spouses and children. (2020-06-25 14:50)
  • Check if we have to adjust savings to account for population growth Since it's not GE, we might be correct. See Conesa et. al. 2020. (2020-06-28 17:52)

    But just based on the literature I'm used to, it still tends to show up in the resource constraint through multiplication with AP. But I just can't see exactly how it should look like since I'm not used to thinking about non-GE environment. Phi_true already has g_n built in. That's something we need because otherwise there will be way too many old people relative to young people, so the average tax burden (and therefore consumption) will be way too low compared to the data. So that's taken care of when we compute the population by age. But still feel like it should appear in the resource constraint.

Shock Process

  • Right now there are two income shocks before retirement, and only spousal shock matters after retirement. Do we want to have both shocks to disappear after retirement? (2020-07-14 13:14)

Unemployment

  • unemployment for husband and wife are fully correlated, should they be? (2020-08-07 15:49)
@FanWangEcon FanWangEcon added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 18, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants