1. I assumed all households consisted of two adults and the rest children. In your non-married households, you assumed one adult and the rest children. For a two-memeber non-married household, the difference in allowance assuming one adult is $2872 versus $4282 if there were two adults. That resulted in about $11 Billion difference in just that one line item for 2-member non-married households alone. The 3-member adds another $8 billion difference. The truth is somewhere in between, as a non-married household could consist of one adults or two adults. In total that contributed about $27 billion to our differences.
2. I woud using allowance numbers for 2005, that put my figures at 2.8% higher than yours.
3. I was using the latest population numbers, that put my numbers 5.34% higher. 297.911 million vs. 282.805 million.
So if we add the 27 billion to your number and add the 2.8% and 5.34% for current numbers, we get $524 billion. That makes a lot more sense. My number assumed a lot about family size, and I expected it to be off a few percent, but not 20 percent. Your numbers are more percise, but for older data. You still assumed too few adults for the non-married households, so your number is a little low. So splitting that difference puts the current number aroudn $510 Billion.
Pigdog's only legitimate point is the population number does include some non-citizens which the census puts at 18 million, with about 9 million being illegal. If we assume this non-citicen population is made up similar to the overall population, the average allowance is $1700 per person times 18 million, that subtracts about $30 Billion. The current 2005 number for the family consumption allowance is right aroudn $480 Billion. Pigdog can't refute any of this, but will post garbage anyways.
My number should not have been that far off of yours. I found three things that account for that.I hadn't considered that "Non-married Family Households" might have two adults. My number is also low in that it maxs out at 7 people per household. You could use my estimate as a "minimum." Your's is probably more accurate (and it doesn't even include fraud!).
At least your number is going in the right direction ... lower. You'll soon be down to my estimate (note the term "estimate" since that's all all of this is - even the Census Bureau stuff) of $369 billion. Since some of you started out loudly yelling that the prebate amounted to $600 billion, that's a 20% improvement already - and I haven't even begun to show your errors.
Since you say I "can't refute any of this" let's take a look at your newly-lowered number of $480 billion. The bill specifies spouses as part of the household makeup so that a non-married (e.g., non-spouse) household does not qualify fully for all persons in it. That kicks the snot out of your fake number exercise right there. Similar comment for the non-family households. IOW your numbers are extremely bogus.
In addition your $480 B assumes 9 million illegal aliens. More definitive studies using better (and multiple) methodologies show 20 million. That (using your own horseback assessments - which BTW I haven't said I agree with) reduces your 480 by about another 20. After subtracting the requisite correction for non-qualifying persons in the non-married and non-family households, you'd easily get down below $400 B ... and quite possibly below the $#369 B estimate I gave.
Keep in mind that the family-households (76,217,000) certainly include some number of non-qualifiers as well in the form of either illegal aliens or other non-citizens and you're probably realistically even below $350 B. Of coure I've never accused you of being realistic - since this entier "prebate" off-topic excursion shows you certainly aren't.
If you want to say $369 B, I won't greatly object but as you've typically tried to go the other direction (until this latest "open kimono" exercise), but I'm not holding my breath. That would amount a lowering of your hyperventillation of the "size" of the prebate by almost 40%.
Yep, 18 million is what I used.