policyengine-us 1.465.0__py3-none-any.whl → 1.471.0__py3-none-any.whl

policyengine_us/tests/policy/baseline/gov/ssa/revenue/tob_revenue_oasdi.yaml

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Unit tests for tob_revenue_oasdi
 # Tests OASDI trust fund revenue allocation from SS benefit taxation
-# OASDI receives revenue proportional to tier 1's share of total taxable SS
+# Uses double-branching methodology per 42 U.S.C. 401 note
 
 - name: No SS benefits - zero OASDI revenue
   period: 2024
@@ -36,12 +36,12 @@
       household:
         members: [person1]
   output:
-    # No taxable SS → no TOB revenue → no OASDI share
+    # Combined income below threshold - no taxable SS
     tob_revenue_oasdi: 0
 
 - name: Tier 1 only - all revenue to OASDI
   period: 2024
-  absolute_error_margin: 50
+  absolute_error_margin: 10
   input:
     people:
       person1:
@@ -56,14 +56,13 @@
       household:
         members: [person1]
   output:
-    # In tier 1 only: tier1 = $2,500, tier2 = $0
-    # All taxable SS is tier 1 → 100% to OASDI
-    # Total TOB revenue all goes to OASDI
-    taxable_social_security_tier_1: 2_500
-    taxable_social_security_tier_2: 0
-    # tob_revenue_oasdi = tob_revenue_total (100% share)
+    # Taxable SS = $2,500 (in tier 1 only)
+    # Since taxable SS <= 50% of gross, all goes to OASDI
+    tax_unit_taxable_social_security: 2_500
+    tob_revenue_oasdi: 250
+    tob_revenue_medicare_hi: 0
 
-- name: In tier 2 - proportional split
+- name: High income single - branching allocation
   period: 2024
   absolute_error_margin: 100
   input:
@@ -80,7 +79,51 @@
       household:
         members: [person1]
   output:
-    # Tier 1 = $4,500, Tier 2 = $21,000, Total = $25,500
-    # OASDI share = 4,500 / 25,500 = 17.6%
-    # Total TOB ~$4,240 → OASDI = $4,240 * 0.176 = ~$748
-    tob_revenue_oasdi: 748
+    # Using branching: OASDI gets marginal tax on first 50% of gross
+    tax_unit_taxable_social_security: 25_500
+    tob_revenue_total: 4_240
+    tob_revenue_oasdi: 1_930
+    tob_revenue_medicare_hi: 2_310
+
+- name: Very high income - branching allocation
+  period: 2024
+  absolute_error_margin: 100
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 67
+        social_security: 30_000
+        employment_income: 100_000
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1]
+        filing_status: SINGLE
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1]
+  output:
+    # Higher marginal rates affect the split
+    tax_unit_taxable_social_security: 25_500
+    tob_revenue_total: 5_778
+    tob_revenue_oasdi: 3_300
+    tob_revenue_medicare_hi: 2_478
+
+- name: Zero taxable SS - zero revenue
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 67
+        social_security: 15_000
+        employment_income: 5_000
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1]
+        filing_status: SINGLE
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1]
+  output:
+    tax_unit_taxable_social_security: 0
+    tob_revenue_oasdi: 0
+    tob_revenue_medicare_hi: 0

policyengine_us/tests/policy/baseline/gov/ssa/revenue/tob_tier_split.yaml

@@ -1,21 +1,9 @@
-# Test that TOB revenue split matches Trustees Report projections
-# Per 2025 Trustees Report (via CBPP):
-#   - OASDI (tier 1): ~59% of total TOB revenue ($60.8B / $103.4B)
-#   - Medicare HI (tier 2): ~41% of total TOB revenue ($42.6B / $103.4B)
+# Test that TOB revenue split uses double-branching methodology
+# Per 42 U.S.C. 401 note (Section 121(e) of PL 98-21):
+#   - OASDI receives tax on "first 50%" of gross SS benefits
+#   - Medicare HI receives tax on remaining portion (1993 amendments)
 #
-# The statutory allocation is:
-#   - Tier 1 (first 50% of benefits taxable): Revenue to OASDI
-#   - Tier 2 (additional 35%, up to 85% taxable): Revenue to Medicare HI
-#
-# For a single retiree with $30K SS and $50K wages:
-#   - Combined income = $50K + $15K (half SS) = $65K
-#   - Above adjusted base ($34K), so 85% of SS taxable = $25,500
-#   - Tier 1 should be ~59% of taxable ($15,045)
-#   - Tier 2 should be ~41% of taxable ($10,455)
-#
-# BUG: Current implementation has tier_2 with only `subtracts` and no `adds`,
-# which computes: 0 - total - tier1 = NEGATIVE (wrong!)
-# Should be: adds=["tax_unit_taxable_social_security"], subtracts=["tier_1"]
+# The split depends on marginal tax rates, so varies by income level
 
 - name: TOB tier split - single retiree in tier 2
   period: 2024
@@ -34,16 +22,13 @@
       household:
         members: [person1]
   output:
-    # Total taxable SS should be 85% of $30K = $25,500
+    # Total taxable SS = 85% of $30K = $25,500
     tax_unit_taxable_social_security: 25_500
-    # Tier 1 (OASDI portion) - statutory bracket amount for single filer in tier 2
-    # = min(0.5 * $30K, 0.5 * ($34K - $25K)) = min($15K, $4.5K) = $4,500
+    # IRC 86 tier calculations (for taxable income)
     taxable_social_security_tier_1: 4_500
-    # Tier 2 (Medicare HI portion) = total - tier1 = $25,500 - $4,500 = $21,000
-    # This is where the bug manifests - with only subtracts, it computes negative!
     taxable_social_security_tier_2: 21_000
 
-- name: TOB revenue split follows tier proportions
+- name: TOB revenue split using branching methodology
   period: 2024
   absolute_error_margin: 100
   input:
@@ -60,16 +45,14 @@
       household:
         members: [person1]
   output:
-    # With tiers at ~18% tier1 / ~82% tier2 for this individual case,
-    # the TOB revenue should split proportionally.
-    # Total TOB revenue ~$4,240 (from existing test)
-    # OASDI share: $4,240 * (4,500 / 25,500) = $748
-    # Medicare HI share: $4,240 * (21,000 / 25,500) = $3,492
-    tob_revenue_total: 4240
-    tob_revenue_oasdi: 748
-    tob_revenue_medicare_hi: 3492
+    # Using double-branching per 42 U.S.C. 401 note
+    # OASDI = tax(with 50% cap) - tax(with 0% SS)
+    # HI = tax(with full SS) - tax(with 50% cap)
+    tob_revenue_total: 4_240
+    tob_revenue_oasdi: 1_930
+    tob_revenue_medicare_hi: 2_310
 
-- name: Verify tier2 is positive (regression test for subtracts bug)
+- name: Verify tier2 is positive (regression test)
   period: 2024
   input:
     people:
@@ -85,6 +68,5 @@
       household:
         members: [person1]
   output:
-    # Tier 2 MUST be positive (total - tier1)
-    # If buggy subtracts computes 0 - total - tier1, this will be negative and fail
-    taxable_social_security_tier_2: 12_500  # Approximate, will fail if negative
+    # Tier 2 must be positive
+    taxable_social_security_tier_2: 12_500

policyengine_us/tests/policy/baseline/gov/states/il/isbe/eligibility/il_isbe_income_eligible.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+- name: Case 1, income well below 400% FPL.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    state_code: IL
+    employment_income: 20_000
+  output:
+    il_isbe_income_eligible: true
+
+- name: Case 2, income above 400% FPL.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    state_code: IL
+    employment_income: 150_000
+  output:
+    il_isbe_income_eligible: false

policyengine_us/tests/policy/baseline/gov/states/il/isbe/eligibility/il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,310 @@
+# Edge case tests for il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth
+# Tests if parent was under age 20 when their oldest child was born
+# Formula: has_children & (head_age - oldest_child_age < 20)
+# Threshold: teen_parent_age_threshold = 20
+
+- name: Case 1, parent was teen at birth.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 35
+        is_tax_unit_head: true
+      person2:
+        age: 17
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+        state_code: IL
+    spm_units:
+      spm_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+  output:
+    # Parent age 35, oldest child age 17
+    # Age at first birth: 35 - 17 = 18
+    # 18 < 20 = TRUE (was teen parent)
+    il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth: true
+
+- name: Case 2, parent was NOT teen at birth.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 45
+        is_tax_unit_head: true
+      person2:
+        age: 17
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+        state_code: IL
+    spm_units:
+      spm_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+  output:
+    # Parent age 45, oldest child age 17
+    # Age at first birth: 45 - 17 = 28
+    # 28 < 20 = FALSE (was not teen parent)
+    il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth: false
+
+- name: Case 3, boundary exactly 19 at birth should be TRUE.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 36
+        is_tax_unit_head: true
+      person2:
+        age: 17
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+        state_code: IL
+    spm_units:
+      spm_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+  output:
+    # Parent age 36, oldest child age 17
+    # Age at first birth: 36 - 17 = 19
+    # 19 < 20 = TRUE (was teen parent)
+    il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth: true
+
+- name: Case 4, boundary exactly 20 at birth should be FALSE.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 37
+        is_tax_unit_head: true
+      person2:
+        age: 17
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+        state_code: IL
+    spm_units:
+      spm_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+  output:
+    # Parent age 37, oldest child age 17
+    # Age at first birth: 37 - 17 = 20
+    # 20 < 20 = FALSE (20 is NOT less than 20)
+    il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth: false
+
+- name: Case 5, no children in household.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 30
+        is_tax_unit_head: true
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1]
+        state_code: IL
+    spm_units:
+      spm_unit:
+        members: [person1]
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1]
+  output:
+    # No children (is_child requires age < 18)
+    # has_children = FALSE
+    # Result: FALSE regardless of age
+    il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth: false
+
+- name: Case 6, multiple children uses oldest child age.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 35
+        is_tax_unit_head: true
+      person2:
+        age: 5
+      person3:
+        age: 17
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1, person2, person3]
+        state_code: IL
+    spm_units:
+      spm_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2, person3]
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2, person3]
+  output:
+    # Parent age 35, children ages 5 and 17
+    # Oldest child is 17 (rank 0 with -age ordering)
+    # Age at first birth: 35 - 17 = 18
+    # 18 < 20 = TRUE
+    il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth: true
+
+- name: Case 7, all adults no children under 18.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 40
+        is_tax_unit_head: true
+      person2:
+        age: 18
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+        state_code: IL
+    spm_units:
+      spm_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+  output:
+    # Person2 is 18, is_child requires age < 18
+    # No qualifying children
+    # has_children = FALSE
+    il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth: false
+
+- name: Case 8, newborn with parent exactly 20 at birth.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 20
+        is_tax_unit_head: true
+      person2:
+        age: 0
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+        state_code: IL
+    spm_units:
+      spm_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+  output:
+    # Parent age 20, child age 0
+    # Age at first birth: 20 - 0 = 20
+    # 20 < 20 = FALSE (exactly at threshold)
+    il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth: false
+
+- name: Case 9, young parent with young child was teen.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 21
+        is_tax_unit_head: true
+      person2:
+        age: 2
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+        state_code: IL
+    spm_units:
+      spm_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+  output:
+    # Parent age 21, child age 2
+    # Age at first birth: 21 - 2 = 19
+    # 19 < 20 = TRUE
+    il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth: true
+
+- name: Case 10, newborn with parent exactly 19 at birth.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 19
+        is_tax_unit_head: true
+      person2:
+        age: 0
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+        state_code: IL
+    spm_units:
+      spm_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+  output:
+    # Parent age 19, child age 0
+    # Age at first birth: 19 - 0 = 19
+    # 19 < 20 = TRUE
+    il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth: true
+
+- name: Case 11, three children uses oldest.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 40
+        is_tax_unit_head: true
+      person2:
+        age: 3
+      person3:
+        age: 10
+      person4:
+        age: 16
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1, person2, person3, person4]
+        state_code: IL
+    spm_units:
+      spm_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2, person3, person4]
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2, person3, person4]
+  output:
+    # Parent age 40, children ages 3, 10, 16
+    # Oldest child is 16
+    # Age at first birth: 40 - 16 = 24
+    # 24 < 20 = FALSE
+    il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth: false
+
+- name: Case 12, boundary 21 at birth should be FALSE.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    people:
+      person1:
+        age: 38
+        is_tax_unit_head: true
+      person2:
+        age: 17
+    households:
+      household:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+        state_code: IL
+    spm_units:
+      spm_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+    tax_units:
+      tax_unit:
+        members: [person1, person2]
+  output:
+    # Parent age 38, oldest child age 17
+    # Age at first birth: 38 - 17 = 21
+    # 21 < 20 = FALSE
+    il_isbe_was_teen_parent_at_first_birth: false

policyengine_us/tests/policy/baseline/gov/states/il/isbe/pfae/eligibility/il_pfae_age_eligible_child.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+- name: Case 1, eligible child age 3.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    age: 3
+    state_code: IL
+  output:
+    il_pfae_age_eligible_child: true
+
+- name: Case 2, eligible child age 4.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    age: 4
+    state_code: IL
+  output:
+    il_pfae_age_eligible_child: true
+
+- name: Case 3, eligible child age 5.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    age: 5
+    state_code: IL
+  output:
+    il_pfae_age_eligible_child: true
+
+- name: Case 4, ineligible child age 2 too young.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    age: 2
+    state_code: IL
+  output:
+    il_pfae_age_eligible_child: false
+
+- name: Case 5, ineligible child age 6 too old.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    age: 6
+    state_code: IL
+  output:
+    il_pfae_age_eligible_child: false

policyengine_us/tests/policy/baseline/gov/states/il/isbe/pfae/eligibility/il_pfae_basic_eligible.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+- name: Case 1, age and income eligible.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    state_code: IL
+    age: 4
+    employment_income: 20_000
+  output:
+    il_pfae_basic_eligible: true
+
+- name: Case 2, age eligible but income too high.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    state_code: IL
+    age: 4
+    employment_income: 150_000
+  output:
+    il_pfae_basic_eligible: false
+
+- name: Case 3, income eligible but age too old.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    state_code: IL
+    age: 7
+    employment_income: 20_000
+  output:
+    il_pfae_basic_eligible: false

policyengine_us/tests/policy/baseline/gov/states/il/isbe/pfae/eligibility/il_pfae_eligible.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+- name: Case 1, eligible with highest priority factor (IEP).
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    state_code: IL
+    age: 4
+    has_individualized_education_program: true
+    employment_income: 20_000
+  output:
+    il_pfae_eligible: true
+
+- name: Case 2, eligible with highest priority factor (foster care).
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    state_code: IL
+    age: 3
+    is_in_foster_care: true
+    employment_income: 15_000
+  output:
+    il_pfae_eligible: true
+
+- name: Case 3, eligible with two secondary priority factors.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    state_code: IL
+    age: 4
+    parent_has_less_than_high_school_education: true
+    employment_income: 10_000
+  output:
+    # low_income (25pt) + low_education (25pt) = 2 factors
+    il_pfae_eligible: true
+
+- name: Case 4, ineligible age too old.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    state_code: IL
+    age: 6
+    has_individualized_education_program: true
+  output:
+    il_pfae_eligible: false
+
+- name: Case 5, ineligible income too high.
+  period: 2024
+  input:
+    state_code: IL
+    age: 4
+    has_individualized_education_program: true
+    employment_income: 150_000
+  output:
+    il_pfae_eligible: false