/analyze-policy output: Federal standard deduction +$1,000, all statuses (2026-2035) — 10-year run

Filed by the /analyze-policy pipeline as a live end-to-end demo (Pavel-initiated). Updated 2026-07-01 with real 10-year run (policy 97853) after the initial single-year submission surfaced the yr1×N extrapolation problem and a per-year-indexed baseline gotcha (see notes below).

Reform

Increase the federal standard deduction by $1,000 across all five filing statuses, tax years 2026-2035. Values inflate from the 2026 baseline in $1K steps each year (matching baseline inflation indexing).

Filing status	2026 baseline	2026 reform	2035 baseline	2035 reform
JOINT	$32,200	$33,200	$38,750	$39,750
SURVIVING_SPOUSE	$32,200	$33,200	$38,750	$39,750
HEAD_OF_HOUSEHOLD	$24,150	$25,150	$29,050	$30,050
SINGLE	$16,100	$17,100	$19,350	$20,350
SEPARATE	$16,100	$17,100	$19,350	$20,350

Verdict: PASS-WITH-NOTES · Policy ID: 97853 (single-row policy 97852 was superseded — see below) · Baseline: 2 (US current law)

Headline result — 10 years, real per-year runs

Metric	Value
Federal 10yr cost	−$196.10B
State tax revenue 10yr	−$2.36B
Combined 10yr	−$198.46B
Yr-1 (2026) federal	−$17.86B
Yr-10 (2035) federal	−$21.35B (+19.6% growth over window)
Distributional signature	Progressive — Gini −0.026% consistently, top-1% share −0.011 to −0.012pp/yr
Poverty impact (avg across years)	Modest reduction (−0.02% to −0.24% relative all-poverty each year)
Households affected	~42-43%

Per-year cost table

Year	Federal ($B)	State ($B)	Gini Δ %	Top-1% Δ pp	Poverty Δ %
2026	−17.86	−0.35	−0.026	−0.012	−0.025
2027	−17.86	−0.31	−0.027	−0.011	−0.102
2028	−18.27	−0.31	−0.028	−0.011	−0.131
2029	−18.63	−0.23	−0.029	−0.011	−0.241
2030	−19.80	−0.15	−0.026	−0.012	−0.201
2031	−20.08	−0.26	−0.026	−0.012	−0.001
2032	−20.47	−0.20	−0.026	−0.011	−0.135
2033	−20.68	−0.20	−0.026	−0.011	−0.170
2034	−21.10	−0.18	−0.026	−0.011	−0.118
2035	−21.35	−0.17	−0.026	−0.011	−0.079
10yr	−196.10	−2.36

Federal cost rises 19.6% across the window because the fixed +$1K bump captures a growing marginal population of filers as nominal incomes rise. The initial single-year run's naive yr1×10 = $178.6B extrapolation understated the true cost by $17.5B (~10%).

Distributional signature

• Progressive. Gini decreases consistently, top-1% share decreases every year. Top deciles itemize (SALT + mortgage + charity) so few claim the std ded; std ded benefits concentrate in middle-income deciles.
• Non-refundable. Decile 1 gets essentially $0 — no tax liability to offset. Middle-income deciles (5-8) benefit most.
• Wide coverage. ~42-43% of households benefit each year — much broader than SALT/CDCC reforms.

Reform dict (for reproducibility)

Policy 97853 submits per-year values because std ded has per-year inflation-indexed baseline rows (see the pipeline finding below). Structure:

{
  "gov.irs.deductions.standard.amount.JOINT": {
    "2026-01-01.2026-12-31": 33200,
    "2027-01-01.2027-12-31": 34050,
    "2028-01-01.2028-12-31": 34700,
    "...": "...",
    "2035-01-01.2035-12-31": 39750
  },
  "gov.irs.deductions.standard.amount.SINGLE": { /* 2026-2035 per-year */ },
  "gov.irs.deductions.standard.amount.HEAD_OF_HOUSEHOLD": { /* 2026-2035 per-year */ },
  "gov.irs.deductions.standard.amount.SEPARATE": { /* 2026-2035 per-year */ },
  "gov.irs.deductions.standard.amount.SURVIVING_SPOUSE": { /* 2026-2035 per-year */ }
}

Full reform-dict archived in analyses/2026-07-01-us-standard-deduction-plus-1k.md.

Comparison

No external source scored this exact reform shape. Two adjacent-shape mirrors are backlog items (would corroborate the +$1K estimate against real published numbers):

1. OBBBA 2025 std ded bump ($750 single / $1,500 joint) vs TCJA-extension baseline — JCT-scored
2. TCJA std ded near-doubling vs pre-TCJA baseline — JCT ~$700B/decade

Neither was executed in this analysis. The 10-year yr-by-yr headline stands on its own microsim; external corroboration deferred.

Methodology

• API: 10 parallel calls to api.policyengine.org/us/economy/97853/over/2?time_period={2026..2035}
• Wall clock: ~15 min for all 10 to complete under API contention
• Dataset: enhanced_cps (advertised) → backed by populace-us-2024-cd-concept-budget-dbbdcec-512e-b2500-r2-20260627T022640Z
• Model: PE-US 1.745.0
• Static analysis; no behavioral response
• Full archive: analyses/2026-07-01-us-standard-deduction-plus-1k.md

Pipeline findings surfaced by this run

1. Naive yr1×N extrapolation was misleading

Single-year × 10 = $178.6B UNDERSTATED the true 10-year cost of $196.1B by $17.5B / ~10%. Under the updated pipeline (PR #27, merged as f4dad88), single-year archives no longer report a naive extrapolation. Multi-year runs use real per-year API calls.

2. Per-year-indexed baseline gotcha (new)

The original single-row policy 97852 (2026-01-01.2035-12-31: 33200) only overrode the 2026 baseline row. Std ded has per-year inflation-indexed baseline rows (2027=$33,050, 2028=$33,700, ..., 2035=$38,750). The reform-dict semantics: a value at date X overrides the baseline row at date X but does NOT sweep forward through subsequent baseline rows. Result: 2027-2035 fell back to inflation-indexed baseline — reform=baseline — impact=0.

Pipeline fix needed: microsim-runner should validate reform-dict row coverage against baseline row count before submission. When a single reform-dict row covers a date range where the baseline has multiple rows, warn (or auto-expand to per-year values). This is what turned the first 10-year run into 9 zero-impact years, and would be a silent failure without post-hoc inspection.

The corrected policy 97853 submits per-year values (baseline+$1K for each year). This is what should be the default for any reform touching an inflation-indexed parameter family.

Start at the microsim-runner pipeline and trace how reform dictionaries are submitted and how baseline rows are represented. Add validation for reform-dict coverage against the baseline row count, with a warning or expansion when one range spans multiple baseline rows. Done means inflation-indexed reforms cannot silently produce zero-impact years; verify against the standard-deduction example and the archived analysis.