American Prosperity and Stability Act¶

Constituency Impact Analysis¶

Published February 2026¶

Based on Rev 4.8 of the American Prosperity and Stability Act

Impact Overview¶

The American Prosperity and Stability Act affects virtually every American adult, every state government, and most businesses operating in the domestic economy. The distribution of impacts is deliberately progressive: lower-income households receive substantial net benefits, middle-income households roughly break even, and higher-income households are net contributors to shared prosperity.

Key numbers at full implementation:

241 million adults (90%) receive monthly payments
27 million adults (10%) above the clean exit threshold are net contributors
~$55,000-$60,000 is the crossover income where APC burden equals APSP benefit
50 state governments receive shares of $312 billion annually
Bottom 40% of earners are unambiguous net recipients
Middle 20% roughly break even
Top 40% are net contributors

The Act creates both concentrated benefits (clear winners who will mobilize in support) and diffuse contributions (costs spread broadly across consumption). This asymmetry favors political durability: beneficiaries have strong incentive to defend the program while contributors bear modest per-transaction costs.

Beneficiaries¶

Low-Income Adults (Income Below ~$55,000)¶

Who they are: Approximately 107 million adults comprising the bottom 40% of earners -- including service workers, retail employees, home health aides, childcare workers, agricultural laborers, and those working part-time or multiple jobs.

What they receive: Substantial net benefits after accounting for APC costs. An adult earning $30,000 receives approximately $5,600 annually in APSP while paying roughly $2,800 in APC through consumption, yielding a net gain of ~$2,800 per year. At $15,000 income, net annual benefit exceeds $4,500.

Magnitude: Transformative. For a family with two low-income adults, combined net benefits of $5,000+ annually represents meaningful improvement in housing stability, food security, and emergency capacity.

When benefit materializes: Under rapid deployment, benefits accrue from Day 1 and are delivered as quickly as administrative infrastructure permits -- tax filers with direct deposit within 90 days; others within 120-180 days. Benefits begin at 40% scale during Bridge Period, reaching full value by Year 5.

Political organization: Diffuse. Low-income workers are not well-organized as a lobbying force, but their sheer numbers (107+ million) create significant electoral weight. Labor unions representing service workers may mobilize in support.

Non-Working and Irregular-Income Adults¶

Who they are: Caregivers (estimated 53 million providing unpaid care), students, adults between jobs, those with disabilities not qualifying for SSDI, and gig workers with volatile income.

What they receive: The APSP provides income during periods of zero or minimal earnings. A non-working spouse caring for children or elderly parents receives $628/month at full implementation -- recognition that caregiving is economically valuable work. Gig workers benefit from stability that smooths income volatility.

Magnitude: Significant for household financial planning. Caregiving adults gain economic independence and bargaining power within households.

Political organization: Caregiving advocates (AARP, family policy organizations) are well-organized and may become active supporters.

Who they are: Approximately 70 million adults receiving Social Security Retirement or SSDI benefits.

What they receive: APSP based on their total AGI, including their Social Security or SSDI benefits. An individual receiving $18,000 in Social Security benefits receives an additional ~$7,000/year in APSP, for total support of $25,000 -- a 39% increase in income.

Magnitude: Transformative for seniors and disabled adults on fixed incomes. The APSP significantly enhances retirement and disability security.

When benefit materializes: SSA beneficiaries are priority populations for rapid deployment (90-day enrollment target) due to existing administrative infrastructure.

Political organization: Highly organized. AARP, disability advocacy organizations, and seniors' groups represent powerful voices. Social Security recipients have strong history of political mobilization.

SSI and TANF Recipients¶

Who they are: Approximately 8 million SSI recipients (elderly and disabled with limited income) and approximately 2 million TANF families.

What they receive: Full APSP benefits with permanent disregard -- APSP is not counted as income for SSI or TANF eligibility. This prevents the cliff effects that would otherwise cause these recipients to lose more in existing benefits than they gain in APSP.

Magnitude: Critical protection for the most vulnerable populations. Without the disregard, SSI recipients would lose dollar-for-dollar in SSI, potentially becoming net losers. With the disregard, they receive full APSP as a net addition to existing support.

Political organization: Disability advocates (Arc, National Disability Rights Network) and anti-poverty organizations will likely support strongly. This provision directly addresses concerns about harm to vulnerable populations.

State Governments (All 50 States)¶

Who they are: Every state government, regardless of current tax structure or fiscal condition.

What they receive: 20% of APC revenue (~$312 billion annually at full implementation), distributed by pure population share. Each state receives a percentage of total state revenue equal to its percentage of national population -- approximately $931 per resident.

Magnitude: Substantial for state fiscal stability. States gain access to stable, predictable federal revenue sharing with complete transparency about allocation. The pure population formula means every state knows exactly what it will receive.

Autonomy: States retain full discretion over how their share is used -- education, infrastructure, tax reduction, reserves, or any other priority. No federal mandates, earmarks, or program requirements attached.

Accountability: States must publish annual reports detailing allocation by functional category using standardized Treasury format. This transparency creates voter accountability at the state level -- citizens can see how their state's choices compare to other states.

When benefit materializes: Revenue sharing begins in Year 1 and scales with APC rate.

Political organization: Highly organized. The National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, and individual state lobbying offices in Washington represent powerful voices. Governors of both parties have strong incentive to support stable revenue with state-level democratic control over allocation.

Cross-partisan appeal: The framework appeals to state's rights conservatives (federal resources without federal control), progressive federalists (transparent democratic deliberation), and fiscal conservatives (no new federal bureaucracy evaluating state choices).

Workers Seeking Improved Conditions¶

Who they are: Adults in low-wage, precarious, or exploitative employment who currently accept poor conditions out of financial necessity.

What they receive: The APSP provides financial cushion that enables workers to refuse unacceptable conditions, negotiate better terms, or seek alternative employment without risking immediate financial collapse.

Magnitude: Systemic. The APSP functions as an automatic floor under labor market bargaining, improving conditions industry-wide even for workers who don't directly use the exit option.

Political organization: Labor unions benefit indirectly from improved bargaining environment and may actively support.

Middle-Income Adults (Income $55,000-$100,000)¶

Who they are: Approximately 67 million adults comprising roughly the middle 25% of earners -- including teachers, nurses, skilled tradespeople, mid-level professionals, and two-income households.

What they receive: The $200/month baseline payment covers or nearly covers their APC contribution burden, leaving them roughly break-even. They neither gain substantially nor lose substantially.

Magnitude: Neutral financially, but significant politically. The baseline payment ensures middle-income adults feel invested in the program's success. They receive visible monthly payments and know the floor exists if their circumstances change.

Political significance: Critical for coalition durability. Middle-income households are the median voter. Their break-even status neutralizes opposition while the visible baseline payment creates positive identification with the program.

Upper-Middle Income Adults (Income $100,000-$150,600)¶

Who they are: Approximately 27 million adults in the "baseline-only zone" -- professionals, dual-income households, and successful small business owners.

What they receive: These adults receive APSP payments in the form of the flat $200/month ($2,400/year) baseline regardless of where in this range their income falls. They are still net contributors overall, but have direct stake in the program.

Magnitude: Modest financial impact, but significant political impact. These voters receive checks, transforming them from pure payers to participant-contributors.

Political significance: The coverage expansion to 90% specifically targets this group. Their inclusion creates structural political armor for the program.

Contributors¶

High-Income Adults (Income Above $150,600)¶

Who they are: Approximately 27 million adults (10% of adult population) with income above the clean exit threshold.

What they experience: Net contributors to shared prosperity. They pay APC on consumption but receive no APSP payment. An adult earning $200,000 might pay ~$15,000 in annual APC while receiving $0 in APSP.

Magnitude: Noticeable but not crushing. At 12%, the APC burden on high earners is substantial but below most European VAT rates. High-income households also benefit indirectly from stable consumer demand and reduced social friction.

State benefit: Even high-income adults benefit from the ~$931/person invested in their state through the state revenue share. This provides a factual response to "I get nothing": "Your $931 goes to your state treasury every year."

Political organization: Well-organized through business groups, professional associations, and donor networks. However, outright opposition risks attacking a program that benefits 90% of voters.

Businesses¶

Who they are: All businesses selling goods and services for domestic use.

What they experience: APC collection and remittance responsibility. The APC is collected at the value-added stage using accounting methods familiar to international businesses.

Compliance burden: Moderate. Businesses already collect state sales taxes and manage similar accounting for export transactions. The APC adds complexity but uses familiar mechanisms.

Benefits: Stable consumer demand reduces business cycle volatility. Healthier, less financially stressed workers are more productive. Predictable economic environment enables rational investment planning.

Political organization: Business lobbying groups (Chamber of Commerce, industry associations) may oppose initially. However, opposition faces the challenge of arguing against stable consumer demand.

Political Landscape Analysis¶

Perception Gaps to Address¶

"Only Poor People Benefit"¶

Perception: Some may view the APSP as a welfare program that helps only the poor.

Reality: 90% of American adults receive payments. The $200/month baseline ensures middle-class participation. Even adults above the clean exit threshold benefit from ~$931/year invested in their state.

Addressing the gap: Emphasize "9 in 10 Americans receive payments" messaging. Lead with baseline universality, not just maximum benefit.

"People Will Stop Working"¶

Perception: Critics may argue APSP discourages work by providing income without employment.

Reality: The smooth, gradual taper ensures additional earnings always improve household finances -- no benefit cliffs, no work disincentives. Evidence from cash transfer programs globally shows minimal labor supply reduction; when effects occur, they reflect improved job matching (holding out for better positions) rather than workforce exit. The APSP amount ($628/month maximum) supplements work income rather than replacing it.

Addressing the gap: Emphasize "platform for prosperity" framing -- APSP enables better work, not less work. Highlight benefits to worker bargaining power, career transitions, and entrepreneurship.

"Prices Will Skyrocket"¶

Perception: The APC will dramatically increase consumer prices, harming everyone.

Reality: At 12%, the APC does increase prices -- but the APSP is specifically designed to offset this for the bottom 60% of earners. International experience with VAT-style taxes shows orderly price adjustment, not "skyrocketing." Housing, education, healthcare, and certain financial services are exempt, limiting impact on major household expenses.

Addressing the gap: Acknowledge honest trade-off: "Yes, some prices rise. That's why you receive a stability payment -- to more than cover the increase if you're in the bottom 60%, and to roughly cover it if you're in the middle."

Geographic and Political Distribution¶

Rural vs. Urban¶

Rural areas: Lower average incomes mean higher rates of net recipiency. Rural communities where median income falls below $50,000 will be predominantly net beneficiaries. Stable income supports local businesses and reduces out-migration pressure.

Urban areas: Mixed distribution. Urban areas contain both very high earners (net contributors) and very low earners (substantial net recipients). Urban poor benefit significantly; urban professionals bear net contributions.

Political implication: The Act has potential for cross-partisan rural support despite progressive structure. Rural Republican constituencies are net beneficiaries.

State-Level Variation¶

All states: Receive population-proportional share of ~$312 billion annually. Pure population formula ensures complete transparency and eliminates lobbying over formula weights.

Large-population states (California, Texas, Florida, New York): Receive largest absolute shares due to population. Democratic accountability framework means these substantial allocations become genuine electoral issues.

Small-population states (Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota): Receive smaller absolute shares but proportionally equal per-capita resources (~$931/person). No penalty for small population.

Fiscally stressed states (Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut): Stable federal revenue sharing reduces pressure on struggling state budgets. Transparency requirements ensure funds are allocated through public democratic process.

States with varied tax structures: All states benefit equally on per-capita basis regardless of current tax structure. States may choose to use their share to reduce regressive taxes, fund services, or build reserves -- the decision is theirs to make and defend to voters.

Partisan Coalition Implications¶

Democratic base: Low-income workers, urban poor, caregivers, and labor unions are traditional Democratic constituencies who benefit substantially.

Republican/swing constituencies: Rural communities, small business owners, and working-class families outside metropolitan areas are net beneficiaries despite not being traditional progressive constituencies. State governments in Republican-led states benefit equally from revenue sharing.

Expanded coalition: Upper-middle income professionals ($100,000-$150,000) receive payments under the expanded clean exit threshold. This brings suburban swing voters into the recipient coalition.

Potential opposition: High-income suburban professionals above $150,600, business lobbying groups, and anti-tax organizations. However, opposition faces greater political headwind with 90% coverage.

Addressing Concerns¶

For Middle-Income Skeptics¶

Response framework: "You're not being asked to fund benefits for others. The $200 baseline payment covers your contribution. You're breaking even -- and gaining the security of knowing that income floor exists if your circumstances change."

Supporting evidence: Crossover point data showing break-even at $55-60k, not at poverty level.

Response framework: "Your Social Security benefit stays exactly the same. You also receive an additional stability payment. For most seniors, this means thousands of extra dollars per year. Counting Social Security in AGI is standard federal practice -- it doesn't reduce your benefit, it just determines your additional support."

Supporting evidence: Specific examples showing net gain for typical Social Security recipients.

For Business Opposition¶

Response framework: "The APC funds stable consumer demand that benefits your bottom line. Your customers will have reliable income to spend at your business. Compliance uses standard accounting methods already used by businesses operating internationally. At 12%, we're below most European VAT rates."

Mitigation: Simplified compliance for small businesses, phase-in period, clear guidance materials.

For Anti-Tax Advocates¶

Response framework: "This isn't a tax increase -- it's a restructuring. The APC replaces the current system where lower-income households bear disproportionate burden while receiving inadequate support. Higher earners contribute more, but benefit from stable consumer demand, healthier communities, and a functioning democracy."

Supporting evidence: Make-whole data showing progressive distribution despite consumption-based funding.

For "Welfare Expansion" Critics¶

Response framework: "90% of American adults receive payments. This isn't welfare -- it's economic infrastructure, like Social Security. Your neighbors receive it. Your employees receive it. Working families receive it. It's nationwide stability, not targeted charity."

Supporting evidence: Coverage statistics and Social Security analogy.

Summary: Political Landscape¶

Strong supporters (organized, motivated):

State governments (all 50)
Labor unions
Caregiving advocates (AARP, family organizations)
Disability advocates
Anti-poverty organizations
Rural economic development advocates

Likely supporters (benefit but less organized):

Low-income workers (107+ million)
Social Security and SSDI recipients (70+ million)
SSI and TANF recipients (~10 million)
Caregivers and non-working adults
Small businesses in lower-income communities
Workers seeking improved conditions
Upper-middle income professionals in baseline-only zone (27+ million)

Persuadable (break-even or mixed incentives):

Middle-income households
Small business owners
Rural conservatives

Likely opposition (organized, funded):

Business lobby groups (Chamber of Commerce)
Anti-tax advocacy organizations
Some high-income donor networks

Key insight: The Act's broad coverage (90% recipients) creates a massive constituency with direct stake in program success. This is the same political logic that has protected Social Security for 90 years. Opposition faces the challenge of arguing against a program that benefits nine in ten voters and all state governments.

Revision History¶

Revision 4.8 (Current) - Renamed file from APSA-Rev-4-7-Constituency-Impact-Analysis.md to constituency-impact-analysis.md per APAI Document Production Standards Rev 1.6 Section 1.1 - Updated reference line to APSA Rev 4.8 - No changes to policy substance, benefit amounts, coverage figures, or constituency analysis

Revision 4.7 - Aligned document structure to APAI Document Production Standards Rev 1.5 - Updated header from legislative-text format to supporting document format (Published date, reference line) - Moved Revision History from top of document to end per Section 1.3 - Removed "Prepared by" block from header; attribution moved to standard footer - Applied self-reference conventions per Section 1.7 (reduced repeated use of "APSA" in body prose) - No changes to policy substance, benefit amounts, coverage figures, or constituency analysis

Revision 4.6 - Updated to reflect APSA Rev 4.6 statutory changes - Revised coverage from ~84% to ~90% of adult population; clean exit updated from 8x FPL to 10x FPL - Revised eligible adult count from ~226 million to ~241 million - Revised contributor count from ~43 million (16%) to ~27 million (10%) - Revised baseline payment references from $150/mo to $200/mo - Revised APC rate references from 13.25% to 12% - Revised state share from ~$344B to ~$312B; per-capita from ~$1,036 to ~$931 - Updated Political Landscape summary to reflect broader coverage and expanded coalition

Revision 4.5 - Updated to reflect APSA Rev 4.5 statutory changes - Revised State Governments section: State share updated from 26% to 20% (~$448B to ~$344B); distribution formula updated to pure population share; removed sales tax replacement framing; added transparency and democratic accountability emphasis - Updated State-Level Variation section: Removed sales tax replacement framing; added transparency/accountability framing applicable to all states - Updated key numbers in Impact Overview

Revision 4.4 - Removed all Contributor Report references from messaging guidance - Rationale: Individual APC contributions cannot be accurately attributed; Contributor Report removed from APSA

Revision 4.3 - Updated to reflect APSA Rev 4.0-4.3 changes - Added Bridge Period impact analysis (bridge taxes on high earners) - Updated timing of benefit materialization (rapid deployment framework) - Added SSI/TANF recipient protection analysis - Updated Social Security/SSDI recipient analysis (AGI treatment) - Incorporated AEPA consolidation

📄 Download this document (opens on GitHub -- click the ⬇ download button)

Prepared by Albert Ramos for The American Policy Architecture Institute