MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414045103 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2016-039

Distributional Impacts of Canada's Tax-Free Savings Accounts

2017· article· en· W2414045103 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ashraf Al Zaman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Survey data collectionDemographic economicsEconomicsSavings accountPublic economicsRevenueBusinessFinanceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2009, Canadians have had the opportunity to contribute to tax-free savings accounts (TFSAs). This study provides insight into the attributes of TFSA participants. I use data from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for general participation trends and the 2012 Survey of Financial Security (SFS) to examine the socio-economic characteristics of participants and their contributions. Examining data from the CRA, I find that the majority of tax-filing Canadians did not participate in the TFSA program by 2013, with age and income level affecting participation and contribution decisions. Evidence from the SFS data corroborates that obtained from the CRA data. I find that households with children or households headed by individuals with less than postsecondary education are less likely to participate. In addition, I find that households with higher net worth are more likely to participate and contribute more. Consequently, I conclude that TFSAs are likely to have an economically significant distributional impact, making them less attractive on distributional grounds.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207