TeX 53.2%
Python 46.6%
1\begin{table}[htbp]2\centering3\footnotesize4\caption{Welfare of entering households across stationary equilibria (consumption-equivalent variation, \%)}5\label{tab:welfare}6\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%7\begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}8\toprule9Scenario & Q1 & Q2 & Q3 & Q4 & Q5 & marginal & low $z_1$ & high $z_1$ & all \\10\midrule11$\theta = 0.05$ & 0.55 & 0.54 & 0.43 & 0.26 & \ensuremath{-}0.08 & 0.30 & 0.54 & 0.20 & 0.34 \\12$\theta = 0.10$ & 0.41 & 0.40 & 0.33 & 0.19 & \ensuremath{-}0.05 & 0.24 & 0.41 & 0.14 & 0.26 \\13$\theta = 0.30$ & \ensuremath{-}0.20 & \ensuremath{-}0.21 & \ensuremath{-}0.22 & \ensuremath{-}0.07 & 0.21 & \ensuremath{-}0.13 & \ensuremath{-}0.23 & 0.08 & \ensuremath{-}0.10 \\14$\theta = 0.40$ & \ensuremath{-}0.39 & \ensuremath{-}0.40 & \ensuremath{-}0.44 & \ensuremath{-}0.25 & 0.32 & \ensuremath{-}0.33 & \ensuremath{-}0.44 & 0.07 & \ensuremath{-}0.23 \\15DSTI cap $\psi = 0.30$ & \ensuremath{-}0.01 & 0.00 & 0.01 & \ensuremath{-}0.02 & 0.09 & \ensuremath{-}0.08 & \ensuremath{-}0.08 & 0.21 & 0.02 \\16DSTI cap $\psi = 0.50$ & \ensuremath{-}0.01 & \ensuremath{-}0.02 & \ensuremath{-}0.05 & \ensuremath{-}0.06 & \ensuremath{-}0.12 & \ensuremath{-}0.01 & 0.03 & \ensuremath{-}0.16 & \ensuremath{-}0.05 \\17Bequests off ($\nu = 0$)$^{\ddagger}$ & 8.87 & 9.09 & 10.11 & 12.08 & 15.53 & 12.82 & 4.41 & 20.16 & 11.14 \\18Transfer tax 20\% (rebated) & 10.85 & 9.64 & 7.20 & 5.64 & 4.02 & 5.74 & 16.92 & 2.58 & 7.47 \\19Transfer tax 50\% (rebated) & 15.39 & 13.79 & 10.68 & 8.52 & 5.89 & 8.58 & 24.44 & 2.87 & 10.85 \\20$\varepsilon = 0.05$ & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\21$\varepsilon = 2$ & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\22No segmentation & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\23Real rate 1\% & 0.68 & 0.51 & \ensuremath{-}0.03 & \ensuremath{-}0.68 & \ensuremath{-}2.25 & \ensuremath{-}0.86 & \ensuremath{-}0.31 & \ensuremath{-}1.18 & \ensuremath{-}0.35 \\24Real rate 3\% & 0.42 & 0.62 & 1.25 & 2.23 & 4.46 & 2.32 & 1.46 & 3.06 & 1.80 \\25Trend inflation 4\% & \ensuremath{-}0.11 & \ensuremath{-}0.11 & \ensuremath{-}0.08 & \ensuremath{-}0.01 & 0.23 & \ensuremath{-}0.08 & \ensuremath{-}0.16 & 0.21 & \ensuremath{-}0.01 \\26Deposit return $+2$ pp & 5.23 & 5.69 & 7.34 & 9.97 & 15.40 & 10.27 & 7.76 & 11.92 & 8.73 \\27Ownership premium $\chi = 0.05$$^{\ddagger}$ & 0.81 & 0.82 & 0.86 & 0.95 & 1.08 & 0.94 & 0.77 & 1.09 & 0.91 \\28Transaction costs low & \ensuremath{-}0.22 & \ensuremath{-}0.22 & \ensuremath{-}0.21 & \ensuremath{-}0.14 & \ensuremath{-}0.17 & \ensuremath{-}0.14 & \ensuremath{-}0.29 & \ensuremath{-}0.08 & \ensuremath{-}0.19 \\29Transaction costs high & \ensuremath{-}0.07 & \ensuremath{-}0.08 & \ensuremath{-}0.11 & \ensuremath{-}0.16 & \ensuremath{-}0.10 & \ensuremath{-}0.18 & \ensuremath{-}0.03 & \ensuremath{-}0.12 & \ensuremath{-}0.10 \\30\bottomrule31\end{tabular}}32\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}\footnotesize\vspace{2pt}33$\lambda^{CE}$ such that scaling non-housing consumption by $1+\lambda^{CE}$ in every period of the baseline makes an age-1 household with state $(z_1, a_1)$ as well off as in the alternative stationary equilibrium: $V^{alt}_1 = (1+\lambda^{CE})^{(1-\alpha)(1-\gamma)} U^{base} + \Phi^{base}$, where $U^{base}$ (discounted flow utility) and $\Phi^{base}$ (warm glow) come from cohort simulations under baseline policies. Columns: quintiles of the transfer received at entry (averaged over $z_1$ with stationary weights), households within $\pm10\%$ of the age-1 ownership threshold (``marginal''), lowest and highest $z_1$, all. Comparisons are between stationary equilibria, not along transitions. $^{\ddagger}$ = the scenario changes a preference parameter, so the number compares value functions under different utilities and is not a welfare statement. Source: results/data/welfare/welfare\_all.csv.34\end{minipage}35\end{table}36