Update TCJA references to reconciliation version

[MaxGhenis]

The reconciliation TCJA:

1. Raises _DependentCredit_Nonchild_c to $500, not $300 (https://github.com/open-source-economics/Tax-Calculator/blob/master/taxcalc/reforms/TCJA_Reconciliation.json#L131)
2. Does away with _FilerCredit_c

[martinholmer]

@codykallen, Can you review PR #1765?
In that PR @MaxGhenis is suggesting some updates to the "notes" for the _DependentCredit_Nonchild_c and _FilerCredit_c policy parameters that you added in early November as part of #1615 and #1618, respectively.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #1765 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #1765   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage     100%    100%           
======================================
  Files          37      37           
  Lines        3000    3027   +27     
======================================
+ Hits         3000    3027   +27

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
taxcalc/utils.py	100% <0%> (ø)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c6f2d31...752acb6. Read the comment docs.

[MaxGhenis]

Sure, it might make more sense to note either all TCJA changes or none, but thought I'd make the minimal change for the previously noted ones.

…

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 10:42 AM Martin Holmer ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In taxcalc/current_law_policy.json <#1765 (comment)> : > @@ -3679,7 +3679,6 @@ "section_1": "Nonrefundable Credits", "section_2": "Child Tax Credit", "irs_ref": "", - "notes": "The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act sets this at $600 for joint and $300 for others", Thanks @MaxGhenis <https://github.com/maxghenis>. I've been pretty much out of the loop on the details of specifying the iterations of the TCJA reforms, so I think it is best to wait for Cody's review. Thanks for your careful review of our work. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1765 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFy2z7qLnmYkuAGGuwjm4CPGa2vxhwcEks5tBA8pgaJpZM4REZlD> .

[MattHJensen]

The primary value of having these TCJA references in current_law_policy.json -- unless I'm missing something -- is that they give the user a contextual reference for the parameters that don't appear in current law. I don't think it would undermine this objective to remove the dollar amount and only cite the bill ("TCJA") in the notes section. It would also reduce the maintenance load.

[martinholmer]

@MattHJensen said:

The primary value of having these TCJA references in current_law_policy.json -- unless I'm missing something -- is that they give the user a contextual reference for the parameters that don't appear in current law. I don't think it would undermine this objective to remove the dollar amount and only cite the bill ("TCJA") in the notes section. It would also reduce the maintenance load.

@MaxGhenis, These are important points. How about dropping the dollar amounts and rewording the remaining "notes" fields to be something like First introduced in TCJA bills? Saying these parameters are not part of current-law policy is risky because the probability is high that they will be part of current-law policy in a matter of days.

[MaxGhenis]

How about dropping the dollar amounts and rewording the remaining "notes" fields to be something like First introduced in TCJA bills?

Done, for the two that currently reference TCJA.

I also filed #1777 as a longer-term feature request to understand the origin and evolution of each parameter.

[martinholmer]

Thanks @MaxGhenis for the enhancement in pull request #1765.