MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387898939 · doi:10.1111/caje.12690

Family‐level responses to the introduction of Tax‐Free Savings Accounts

2023· article· en· W4387898939 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Adam Lavecchia

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcMaster University
KeywordsTaxable incomeSavings accountEconomicsDeductibleAsset (computer security)Monetary economicsDemographic economicsCapital (architecture)Tax deductionLabour economicsTax reformActuarial scienceState income taxPublic economicsFinanceAccountingGross income

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents evidence on the effect of the introduction of Canadian Tax‐Free Savings Accounts (TFSAs) on the savings of families with children. Contributions to TFSAs are not tax‐deductible but capital income earned in the account accrues tax‐free and withdrawals are not taxed. Using a difference‐in‐differences instrumental variables research design that exploits the sharp change in a family's cumulative TFSA contribution room that arises when a child turns 18 years old, I find that a $1 increase in family‐level TFSA balances lowers taxable financial asset holdings by approximately $0.25 to $0.45 and has no statistically significant effect on holdings in traditional tax‐deferred accounts. My results suggest that having an additional adult family member eligible to open a TFSA increases the TFSA contributions and account balances of both adult children and their parents.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.063 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économiqueSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207