American Shared Prosperity Compact vs. Economic Dignity for All Agenda¶
Comparative Analysis¶
Published February 2026¶
Based on Rev 5.4 of the American Shared Prosperity Compact
Shared Goals, Different Approaches¶
The American Shared Prosperity Compact (ASPC) and Representative Rashida Tlaib's Economic Dignity for All Agenda (EDAA) share a fundamental conviction: the richest nation in history should not tolerate mass economic precarity. Both frameworks pursue direct cash transfers as the primary mechanism for establishing economic security. Both eliminate the earned income requirements that exclude the poorest Americans from current safety net programs. Both represent serious policy proposals rather than aspirational wish lists.
The frameworks differ in structure, scope, and funding architecture. These differences have significant implications for who benefits, how much they receive, and whether the programs can sustain themselves politically and fiscally over time.
This analysis presents the structural comparison and lets the design choices speak for themselves.
Framework Overview¶
ASPC (American Shared Prosperity Compact -- Rev 5.3)¶
The ASPC is a three-act modular framework:
| Act | Function | Annual Cost |
|---|---|---|
| American Payment Network Act (APNA) | Fee-free payment infrastructure | Minimal (infrastructure) |
| American Prosperity and Stability Act (APSA) | Adult stability payments | ~$1.12 trillion |
| Secure Our Children Act (SOCA) | Child benefits + birth support | ~$257 billion |
| Total | ~$1.38 trillion |
EDAA (Economic Dignity for All Agenda)¶
The EDAA is a three-bill package introduced November 2025:
| Bill | Function | Annual Cost |
|---|---|---|
| BOOST Act | Adult universal payment | ~$500 billion |
| End Child Poverty Act (ECPA) | Child benefits | ~$178 billion |
| Baby Bonus Act | Birth payment | ~$7 billion |
| Total | ~$685 billion |
Structural Coverage Comparison¶
Adult Benefit Coverage¶
This is the most significant structural difference between the programs.
| Age Group | Population | ASPC (APSA) | EDAA (BOOST) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18-year-olds | ~4.3 million | Covered | Excluded |
| Adults 19-67 | ~203.5 million | Covered | Covered |
| Adults 68+ | ~47.7 million | Covered | Excluded |
| Total Adults | ~255.5 million | 100% | ~80% |
EDAA's BOOST Act excludes approximately 52 million adults -- everyone under 19 and everyone 68 and older. Among those excluded:
- ~5.0 million adults currently in poverty
- ~1.9 million adults currently in deep poverty
- All seniors regardless of economic circumstances
ASPC covers all adults age 18 and older with no upper age limit. Under Rev 4.6, approximately 90% of adults receive payments (those below the 10x FPL clean exit threshold).
Child Benefit Coverage¶
Both programs provide universal child benefits without earned income requirements:
| Program | Coverage | Benefit Structure |
|---|---|---|
| ASPC (SOCA) | All children under 18 | Age-differentiated: $3,600/year (0-5), $3,000/year (6-17) |
| EDAA (ECPA) | All children under 19 | Flat: ~$5,496/year (all ages) |
EDAA provides higher per-child benefits. SOCA provides higher early childhood benefits reflecting developmental cost research.
Benefit Structure Comparison¶
Adult Benefits¶
| Income Level | ASPC (APSA Rev 4.6) | EDAA (BOOST) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| $0 | $7,530 | $3,000 | +$4,530 (+151%) |
| $15,000 | $7,171 | $3,000 | +$4,171 (+139%) |
| $30,000 | $6,755 | $3,000 | +$3,755 (+125%) |
| $50,000 | $6,088 | $3,000 | +$3,088 (+103%) |
| $75,000 | $4,955 | $3,000 | +$1,955 (+65%) |
| $100,000 | $3,057 | $3,000 | +$57 (+2%) |
| $120,000 | $2,400 | $3,000 | -$600 (-20%) |
| $150,000 | $2,400 | $3,000 | -$600 (-20%) |
| $150,600+ | $0 | $3,000 | -$3,000 (-100%) |
Design Philosophy Difference:
ASPC front-loads benefits to those with the lowest incomes, tapering gradually using a concave formula that protects middle-income households from steep phase-out rates. The maximum benefit ($7,530) is anchored at 50% of the Federal Poverty Level -- the deep poverty threshold. The $200/month baseline payment ensures broad participation across income levels.
EDAA provides a flat benefit to all covered adults regardless of income, with the funding mechanism (2.5% AGI surtax) creating an effective phase-out at higher incomes.
Key Rev 4.6 Changes: The ASPC baseline increased from $150/mo to $200/mo, and coverage expanded from 84% to 90% of adults (clean exit at 10x FPL instead of 8x FPL). This means ASPC now provides higher benefits at all income levels up to ~$100,000.
Child Benefits¶
| Benefit | ASPC (SOCA) | EDAA (ECPA) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child 0-5 (annual) | $3,600 | $5,496 | -$1,896 |
| Child 6-17 (annual) | $3,000 | $5,496 | -$2,496 |
| Birth Support | $2,000 | $2,000 | $0 |
EDAA provides higher per-child amounts. Both programs eliminate the earnings requirement that currently excludes the poorest children from Child Tax Credit benefits.
Deep Poverty Impact¶
The deep poverty threshold is 50% of the Federal Poverty Level -- approximately $7,530 for a single adult. This is the line below which poverty becomes most severe and harmful.
The Arithmetic at Zero Income¶
| Program | Benefit at $0 Income | Deep Poverty Threshold | Gap to Escape |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASPC (APSA) | $7,530 | $7,530 | $0 |
| EDAA (BOOST) | $3,000 | $7,530 | $4,530 |
ASPC's maximum adult benefit exactly matches the deep poverty threshold -- by design. An adult with zero income receiving APSP reaches the deep poverty line on the benefit alone.
EDAA's $3,000 benefit leaves a $4,530 gap. An adult needs $4,530 in other income before EDAA can push them above the deep poverty threshold.
Coverage-Adjusted Deep Poverty Reduction¶
Among adults currently in deep poverty (~10.4 million):
ASPC: Covers 100% of adults in deep poverty. The benefit formula lifts all recipients above the deep poverty threshold regardless of starting income.
EDAA: Covers approximately 80% of adults in deep poverty (excludes 18-year-olds and seniors 68+). Among those covered, only adults with income above ~$4,530 can be lifted above the deep poverty threshold.
Senior Impact¶
EDAA provides $0 to adults age 68 and older. ASPC provides full APSP benefits based on income regardless of age.
Illustrative Examples¶
| Scenario | Income | ASPC Benefit | EDAA Benefit | ASPC Total | Poverty Line | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senior, $0 income | $0 | $7,530 | $0 | $7,530 | $15,060 | ASPC: Above deep poverty; EDAA: Nothing |
| Senior, $12k SS | $12,000 | $4,276 | $0 | $16,276 | $15,060 | ASPC: Escapes poverty; EDAA: Nothing |
| Senior, $18k SS | $18,000 | $3,426 | $0 | $21,426 | $15,060 | ASPC: Escapes poverty; EDAA: Nothing |
| Senior couple, $24k SS | $24,000 | $6,596 (x2) | $0 | $37,192 | $20,440 | ASPC: Escapes poverty; EDAA: Nothing |
Every senior currently in poverty or near-poverty receives substantial ASPC support. Every senior receives nothing from EDAA.
Funding Architecture Comparison¶
Revenue Sources¶
| Source | Mechanism | Annual Revenue |
|---|---|---|
| ASPC (APC) | 12% on domestic consumption | ~$1.56 trillion |
| ASPC (CSC) | 1.50% AGI + 3.00% kicker | ~$270 billion |
| ASPC Total | ~$1.83 trillion | |
| EDAA (BOOST) | 2.5% AGI surtax | ~$280 billion |
| EDAA (ECPA) | (Not specified in bill) | $0 |
| EDAA (Baby Bonus) | (Not specified in bill) | $0 |
| EDAA Total | ~$280 billion |
Fiscal Position¶
| Metric | ASPC | EDAA |
|---|---|---|
| Total specified funding | ~$1.83 trillion | ~$280 billion |
| Total program cost | ~$1.38 trillion | ~$685 billion |
| Annual fiscal position | +$143 billion surplus | -$405 billion deficit |
| Self-sustaining | Yes | No |
ASPC is fully funded with ~$143 billion annual surplus (federal APSA surplus ~$130B plus SOCA surplus ~$13B). This surplus funds bridge loan repayment, stability buffer contributions, and provides fiscal cushion.
EDAA has a ~$405 billion annual funding gap. The BOOST Act's 2.5% AGI surtax generates approximately $280 billion. The End Child Poverty Act and Baby Bonus Act have no specified funding sources, creating a combined unfunded obligation of ~$185 billion plus the ~$220 billion gap in BOOST funding.
Poverty Impact Estimates¶
Methodology Note¶
EDAA's poverty estimates (42% overall, 67% child poverty, 47% deep poverty) derive from PolicyEngine's professional household-level microsimulation using detailed microdata.
ASPC's estimates presented here use bracket-based income modeling against Census population data. This approach applies program benefit formulas to income distribution brackets and accounts for EDAA's structural coverage gap (ages 18 and 68+).
A direct comparison at equivalent confidence would require running ASPC through identical household-level microsimulation methodology -- a resource beyond the scope of this analysis. The estimates presented here should be understood as best-effort analysis using publicly available data. Further refinement would require expert microsimulation modeling to reconcile the two frameworks with high confidence.
Estimated Adult Poverty Impact¶
| Metric | ASPC | EDAA | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adult deep poverty reduction | ~100% | ~18% | ASPC benefit meets threshold; EDAA benefit + coverage gaps |
| Adult overall poverty reduction | ~59% | ~19% | Higher ASPC benefits lift more above poverty line |
| Senior poverty impact | Substantial | None | EDAA excludes all adults 68+ |
Estimated Child Poverty Impact¶
Both programs should achieve substantial child poverty reduction (60-70%) because both eliminate the earnings requirement that currently excludes the poorest children. EDAA's higher per-child benefit may provide modest additional reduction. The 2021 expanded CTC achieved ~46% child poverty reduction with comparable benefit levels; both SOCA and ECPA should exceed this because they are fully refundable without earnings requirements.
High-Confidence Structural Claims¶
Regardless of modeling methodology, the following structural claims are provable from program design:
- ASPC covers 52 million more adults than EDAA (ages 18 and 68+)
- At zero income, ASPC provides $4,530 more than EDAA (151% more)
- ASPC benefit alone meets the deep poverty threshold; EDAA falls $4,530 short
- EDAA provides $0 to seniors; ASPC provides ~$3,000-7,530 depending on income
- ASPC is self-funding (~$143B annual surplus); EDAA has ~$405B annual funding gap
- ASPC covers 90% of adults; EDAA covers 80% of adults (and within that 80%, all receive payments regardless of income)
Program Interaction and Integration¶
Existing Program Coordination¶
| Program | ASPC Treatment | EDAA Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Social Security | SS income counts for APSP calculation; recipients receive APSP based on total AGI | SS recipients 68+ excluded from BOOST |
| SSI | APSP permanently disregarded (prevents cliff effects) | Not specified in legislative text |
| TANF | APSP permanently disregarded | Not specified in legislative text |
| SNAP/Medicaid/Section 8 | APSP counted as income (gradual adjustment programs) | Income disregard for means-tested programs |
ASPC explicitly addresses legacy program interactions in the legislative text. EDAA's program interaction rules are less fully specified.
Administrative Infrastructure¶
| Function | ASPC | EDAA |
|---|---|---|
| Primary administrator | Treasury/IRS | Social Security Administration |
| Payment infrastructure | APNA Network Accounts (when operational); IRS fallback | Existing SSA systems |
| Enrollment mechanism | Integrated filing; Simple Form for non-filers | SSA application process |
| Non-filer access | One-page Simple Form; SSA field office assistance | SSA portal |
EDAA leverages existing SSA infrastructure for faster potential deployment. ASPC builds new infrastructure (APNA) that creates long-term platform benefits but requires more implementation time.
Political and Design Philosophy¶
EDAA Approach¶
EDAA prioritizes immediate benefit delivery through existing infrastructure. The flat $250/month adult benefit is simple to explain. SSA administration reaches people who don't file taxes. The "Economic Dignity" framing emphasizes moral clarity.
Design trade-offs: The age restriction (19-67) excludes seniors and young adults. The funding gaps require future legislative action. The flat benefit structure provides less support to those in deepest need.
ASPC Approach¶
ASPC prioritizes comprehensive coverage, sustainable funding, and infrastructure investment. The income-adjusted benefit structure concentrates resources on those furthest from economic security. The dedicated funding streams create self-sustaining architecture.
Design trade-offs: Higher complexity. Longer implementation timeline. Requires building new infrastructure (APNA) for full benefit realization.
Rev 4.6 Improvements: The recalibrated parameters improve the ASPC position -- the 12% APC rate is now below most European VAT rates, while 90% coverage creates stronger political durability than the previous 84%.
Terminology and Framing¶
| Concept | ASPC Terminology | EDAA Terminology |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption tax | American Prosperity Contribution | (Not applicable) |
| Adult benefit | American Prosperity Stability Payment | BOOST |
| Coverage scope | "Nationwide" | "Universal" |
| Political analogy | Social Security; Alaska Permanent Fund | Economic dignity |
ASPC extensively rebrands policy mechanisms to avoid political poison pills. "American Prosperity Contribution" sounds different from "VAT" even when mechanically similar. "Nationwide" replaces "universal" to avoid European welfare state connotations.
EDAA uses direct language ("End Child Poverty Act") that resonates with its target coalition but may trigger opposition from fiscal conservatives.
Household Impact Examples¶
| Household | Pre-Benefit Income | ASPC Total | EDAA Total | Poverty Threshold | ASPC Escapes | EDAA Escapes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single adult, $0 income | $0 | $7,530 | $3,000 | $15,060 | No | No |
| Single adult, $0 income, age 70 | $0 | $7,530 | $0 | $15,060 | No | No |
| Single parent, 1 young child, $0 income | $0 | $11,130 | $8,496 | $19,720 | No | No |
| Single parent, 2 children, $15k income | $15,000 | $28,771 | $28,992 | $23,480 | Yes | Yes |
| Married couple, 2 young children, $25k income | $25,000 | $47,110 | $41,992 | $30,000 | Yes | Yes |
| Senior, $12k Social Security | $12,000 | $16,276 | $12,000 | $15,060 | Yes | No |
Summary: Key Differences¶
| Dimension | ASPC (Rev 5.3) | EDAA |
|---|---|---|
| Adult coverage | All adults 18+ | Ages 19-67 only |
| Adults receiving payments | ~90% (241M) | ~80% (204M) |
| Adults excluded | ~10% (above 10x FPL) | ~20% + age exclusions |
| Maximum adult benefit | $7,530 (at $0 income) | $3,000 (flat) |
| Baseline adult benefit | $2,400/year ($200/mo) | $3,000/year (flat) |
| Benefit at deep poverty | Exactly meets threshold | Falls $4,530 short |
| Senior support | Full APSP based on income | $0 |
| Child benefit per year | $3,000-3,600 | $5,496 |
| Total annual cost | ~$1.38 trillion | ~$685 billion |
| Specified funding | ~$1.83 trillion | ~$280 billion |
| Annual fiscal position | +$143 billion surplus | -$405 billion deficit |
| Self-sustaining | Yes | No |
| APC/tax rate | 12% (below European VATs) | 2.5% AGI surtax |
| Infrastructure investment | APNA payment network | Uses existing SSA |
| Program interactions | Explicitly addressed | Partially specified |
Conclusion¶
ASPC and EDAA represent fundamentally different approaches to economic security.
EDAA asks: How do we provide a benefit floor for working-age Americans quickly?
ASPC asks: How do we ensure no American -- at any age -- lives in financial survival mode, sustainably?
These are different questions with different answers. The choice between them involves judgments about scope (should seniors be included?), adequacy (is $3,000 enough at zero income?), sustainability (must programs pay for themselves?), and timeline (how quickly must benefits begin?).
The structural differences documented in this analysis provide the foundation for those judgments. ASPC covers more people, provides higher benefits to those in deepest need, includes seniors, and funds itself. EDAA costs less, deploys faster through existing infrastructure, and provides higher per-child benefits.
Neither framework is objectively superior. But they are not equivalent. Readers can weigh the trade-offs and draw their own conclusions.
Technical Appendix: APSP Benefit Formula¶
The American Prosperity Stability Payment uses the following formula from APSA Rev 4.6 Appendix B:
Constants:
| Symbol | Definition | Value (2024 FPL) |
|---|---|---|
| P | Federal Poverty Level | $15,060 |
| T | Clean exit threshold | 10 x P = $150,600 |
| S | Stability payment exit | 7 x P = $105,420 |
| Baseline | Baseline payment | $2,400/year |
| B_max | Maximum benefit | 0.5 x P = $7,530 |
| Stability_max | Max stability payment | B_max - Baseline = $5,130 |
| k | Taper parameter | 5 |
Formula:
For individual with AGI = I:
If I >= T:
APSP = $0
Else if I >= S:
APSP = Baseline
[Flat $2,400/year -- no taper]
Else:
APSP = Baseline + Stability_max x ln(1 + k x (1 - I/S)) / ln(1 + k)
The logarithmic (concave) taper on the stability payment concentrates phase-out at lower incomes where each dollar has higher marginal utility, protecting middle-income recipients from steep marginal rates. The baseline remains flat at $200/month for all recipients below the clean exit threshold.
Revision History¶
Revision 1.3 (Current)
- Standardized to APAI Document Production Standards Rev 1.6
- Moved Revision History to end of document; removed "Prepared by" block and "Document Status" line from header
- No changes to analytical content or figures
Revision 1.2
- Updated to reflect ASPC Rev 5.3 / APSA Rev 4.6 changes
- Revised APC rate from 13.25% to 12%
- Revised clean exit threshold from 8x FPL ($120,480) to 10x FPL ($150,600)
- Revised APSA coverage from ~84% to ~90% of adult population
- Revised baseline payment from $1,800 to $2,400
- Updated benefit comparison table with recalculated values
Revision 1.1
- Updated to reflect ASPC Rev 5.2 / APSA Rev 4.5 changes
- Revised federal-state revenue sharing: 74/26 split updated to 80/20
Revision 1.0
- Initial comparative analysis document
- Based on ASPC Rev 5.1 / APSA Rev 4.4 parameters
📄 Download this document (opens on GitHub -- click the ⬇ download button)
Prepared by Albert Ramos for The American Policy Architecture Institute