How this site works
Every amount on this site is a starting figure someone published, plus a short stack of adjustments for your situation. Each line tells you which of those two it is.
This page is the whole model — the labels, the rounding, every figure we cite, and the date we will check each one again. Read it and you can rebuild any answer on the site with a pen.
Nobody publishes a formula for what to put in a wedding card. Every other page on the subject deals with that by asserting a range and never saying where it came from, which quietly blends two very different things: figures a real publication measured, and somebody’s opinion. We keep them apart, on every line, in public.
A named publication backs this exact figure. The line says which publication, and the methodology section of the tool links it. If a source publishes a range and we land inside it, that is still sourced — the figure is one they put their name to.
Our reasoning, and nothing more. No study measured it. The line says so in plain words, and the tool’s methodology gives the exact number so you know which figure to disagree with.
There is no third label, and there are no unlabelled lines. A line that fits neither does not ship. That sounds like a small rule and it is the whole product: admitting that an adjustment is our opinion is the credibility signal, and hiding one behind an implied study is the only thing that could destroy this site.
The tag describes the figure, not the data behind it. Where we apply a real published index to a question nobody has actually studied — adjusting a gift for how expensive your state is, say — the index is cited and the line is still tagged house judgment, because the inference is ours however good the data underneath it. A sourced input does not launder a house inference into a sourced line.
This is not a mock-up. It is a live result from the wedding gift calculator, computed on this page by the same code the tool runs, so it cannot drift from what the tool would tell you.
Worked example
A close friend's wedding, and you're in the wedding party. The outfit is bought, the flights are booked — and there's still the gift.
The usual for a close friend is $200. You’re in the wedding party, but you’re paying to get there — and we think that fairly comes off the top. Give $180.
| Why that much | Amount |
|---|---|
| Baseline for a close friendSourcedThe Knot puts this tier at $150–$250 and recommends $200. | $200 |
| You’re in the wedding partyHouse judgmentThe Knot measures the wedding party giving more than other guests. $25 is our read of how much more — and you have already paid for the dress or the suit. | +$25 |
| Getting there is on youHouse judgment8% of the $1,200 you’re spending to be there, capped at $50. This is not "cover your plate" — Emily Post rejects that idea and so do we. It is that showing up already cost you something. | −$50 |
Four things are always true of that card. The plain sentence comes first, above the arithmetic. The breakdown is visible by default and never behind a “show details” toggle. Every line carries one of the two labels. And the number at the top is an amount you could actually hand someone — $100 + $50 + $20 + $10 — not a range.
Every other site in this category stops at a range. We stop at a number you can hand over, which needs one step no formula gives you for free: rounding to an increment people really give in. Below $50 a five is the smallest unit anyone thinks in; from there to $200 it is a ten; past $200 people round to quarters of a hundred.
Those bands are house judgment — nobody publishes a rounding convention for gifts. They come from how US cash denominations work, and they are stated here rather than buried so you can see the model’s last step.
| The model produces | You are told to give | Which is |
|---|---|---|
| $43 | $45 | 2×$20 + $5 |
| $47 | $45 | 2×$20 + $5 |
| $188 | $190 | $100 + $50 + 2×$20 |
| $213 | $225 | 2×$100 + $20 + $5 |
The method is version 1.0 — the shape an answer takes, described above. Each tool then has its own model version, covering the actual figures it uses. They are versioned separately because they move for different reasons: a model changes when a publication reprints a number, the method changes when we change our mind about how an answer should be built.
| Tool | Shape of its answer | Model | Reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wedding gift | One cited baseline, then signed adjustments. | v1.0 | August 2026 |
| Holiday tipping | One row per person. No single baseline. | v1.0 | August 2026 |
| Wedding vendor tips | One row per vendor. The contract decides the row’s shape. | v1.0 | August 2026 |
| Baby shower gift | One cited band, then signed adjustments. | v1.0 | August 2026 |
| Teacher gift | One row per role, then a published limit cuts the total. | v1.0 | August 2026 |
| Group gift share | One row per contributor, weighted by closeness. | v1.0 | August 2026 |
| Mover tips | One cited per-mover rate, then signed adjustments, × the crew. | v1.0 | August 2026 |
| Hotel tipping | One row per person, each counting a different unit. | v1.0 | August 2026 |
| Gift reciprocity | Your own figure, carried forward on the CPI, then signed adjustments. | v1.0 | August 2026 |
This is the file the site actually keeps, published rather than summarised. Only sourced figures appear here — house-judgment factors have no source to drift from, so they are reviewed when we change our minds, which is a version bump.
The last line of each card is the part we have not seen anyone else publish: not just where a number came from, but what would make it wrong, and when we expect to notice.
75 / 100 / 150 / 175 / 200 / 250
The Knot's recommended wedding gift amount by relationship to the couple: distant relative $75, coworker/acquaintance $100, extended family $150, good friend $175, close friend $200, best friend or immediate family $250
What would change it. The Knot revises this page when a new Guest Study lands, typically alongside the Real Weddings Study each winter/early spring. The recommended figures and the ranges can move independently — check both.
$150
The Knot Guest Study's average wedding gift across all guests, quoted as context in the methodology section and FAQ
What would change it. Same publication cycle as the tiers above. This figure is quoted, not computed with, so drift here is a copy fix rather than a math fix.
$130 (most guests $100–$150)
Zola's average wedding gift spend, quoted as a second published average for context
What would change it. Zola publishes a First Look Report for the coming year each autumn (the 2026 edition landed late 2025). When the next one ships, the report URL changes with the year — update both the figure and the link.
high 110 (CA 110.7, HI 110.0, NJ 108.8); low 87 (AR 86.9, MS 87.0, IA 87.8); 2024 data
BEA Regional Price Parities (all items) by state — the high and low bands used to adjust a gift for where the wedding is. US average is 100 by construction.
What would change it. BEA releases Real Personal Income and RPPs by state each winter, roughly a 14-month lag on the reference year — expect the 2025 figures around February 2027. The band values here are the rounded top and bottom of the state table, so a new release can change both the numbers and which states are named.
18 roles — see fact text for each range or ceiling
The Emily Post Institute's published holiday tipping amounts by role. Dollar ranges: day care staff $25-70 each, doorman $15-80 (at least $15 each where there are several), superintendent $20-80, garage attendant $10-30, trash/recycling collector $10-30 each, yard or garden worker $20-50 each, newspaper delivery $10-30. Pegged to what you already pay: live-in nanny or au pair up to one week's pay, regular babysitter up to one evening's pay, housekeeper up to one week's pay, dog walker up to one week's pay, pet groomer up to one session, pool cleaner up to one cleaning split among the crew, barber up to one haircut, salon staff up to one visit divided among staff, personal trainer up to one session. Package deliverer: a small gift in the $20 range, cash usually prohibited.
What would change it. Emily Post revises this guide ahead of each holiday season. Both the dollar ranges and the list of roles can change; a role appearing or disappearing matters as much as a figure moving, because each role is a ledger row. The `published` string on each role is quoted verbatim on the tool page, so a wording change is also a copy fix. [Cadence was 'seasonal' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: nextReview is set inside the season it revises in.]
$20 per occasion / $50 per customer per calendar year / no cash ever
USPS policy on gifts to letter carriers from customers: a gift worth $20 or less per occasion, no more than $50 worth from any one customer in a calendar year, and cash and cash equivalents (checks, money orders, gift cards exchangeable for cash) may never be accepted in any amount.
What would change it. These limits derive from the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (the $20/$50 thresholds are the government-wide de minimis rule), so a change would come from OGE rulemaking rather than from USPS. The verbatim quotes appear on the tool page — re-read the bulletin, not a summary of it.
20 vendors — see fact text for each range or percentage
The Knot's published tip per wedding vendor. Dollar ranges: officiant $50-100 (plus a $100-500 donation to the religious institution), ceremony musicians $15-50 each, maitre d' $200-300, cake baker $50-200, photo booth attendant $50-100, day-of coordinator $50-150, delivery and setup crew $10-50 per person, alterations $20-30, photographer $50-200 per team member, videographer $50-200 per team member, DJ $50-150, band $15-50 per member, florist $50-200, valet $1-5 per car split between attendants. Percentages: catering and bar staff 15-20% of the food and drink fee split among waitstaff and bartenders, wedding planner 15-20% of the total fee, hair 15-25% of the bill, makeup 15-25% of the bill, transport 15-20% of the total bill. Also: "tips are unnecessary if gratuities are already listed on your contract or invoice."
What would change it. The Knot revises this guide periodically and the vendor list moves as much as the figures — a vendor appearing or disappearing matters as much as a dollar change, because each vendor is a ledger row and a checkbox. The `published` string on each vendor is quoted verbatim on the tool page, so a wording change is also a copy fix. Check ahead of spring wedding season.
voluntary + customer-determined = tip; required or business-set = service charge
The IRS test separating a tip from a service charge: "A payment is a tip only if the customer voluntarily decides to pay it and determines the amount." The IRS names "required gratuities included in a contract or invoice" and "automatic charges added to a bill (for example, a mandatory 18% charge for large parties)" as service charges rather than tips — meaning they are the business's revenue and reach staff only if the business distributes them.
What would change it. A change would come from new IRS rulemaking or a superseding revenue ruling, not from the page being refreshed. The page's wording is quoted verbatim on the tool page and in its FAQ, so re-read the page itself rather than a summary of it. Note also that state wage law can be stricter than the federal test (New York's Hospitality Industry Wage Order bars calling a service charge a gratuity) — the tool does not model state law and says so.
coworker ~$30; typical $50–$100; sibling/best friend "into the hundreds"
U.S. News & World Report, citing etiquette experts, on baby shower gift spending: about $30 for a coworker or acquaintance, most guests landing between $50 and $100, and gifts for a sibling or best friend running "into the hundreds". These are bands, not per-relationship point recommendations — the top tier has no published figure, which is why lib/baby-shower.js tags that one baseline as house judgment rather than sourced.
What would change it. U.S. News refreshes its personal-finance explainers without changing the URL, so re-read the page rather than trusting the figures to be stable. The three bands are quoted verbatim on the tool page and in its FAQ, so a wording change is also a copy fix. Note the page has repeatedly resisted automated fetching — verify it in a browser.
qualitative — sprinkle is a real, lighter category; group pooling is endorsed
The Emily Post Institute: a shower for a second or later baby is often called a "Sprinkle" rather than a shower, because the family welcoming the child likely already has many of the items needed, and is usually limited to immediate family and very close friends. Separately, that a group pooling for a larger item such as a stroller or a car seat is normal, and that registry information belongs on a separate enclosure rather than the invitation.
What would change it. Emily Post reorganises emilypost.com/advice periodically and article URLs move. Check that both links still resolve; a 404 here breaks a cited source on a live tool page.
78/50 · 62/50 · 59/50 · 33/20 · 40/50; 84% class gifts; n=320
Park Slope Parents' 2024 Holiday Tips Survey, amounts given to school staff, reported as average and most-common (mode): preschool/daycare head teacher $78 avg / $50 mode; preschool/daycare secondary teacher $62 / $50; K-12 teacher $59 / $50; special services teacher $33 / $20; bus drivers $40 avg / $50 mode. Also: 84% of parents give to K-12 teachers through a joint class gift, 16% individually. 320 responses collected 2-10 December 2024, from Brooklyn families.
What would change it. A new edition appears at a new URL containing the year, so the link changes with the figures. Both the average and the mode move, and they can move in opposite directions (the 2024 bus driver mode of $50 sits above its $40 average). The model reads the smaller and larger of the pair as a band, so a role whose two figures cross does not break it — but a role appearing or disappearing changes the ledger rows. Scope caveat is permanent and stated on the tool page: Brooklyn respondents, convenience sample. [Cadence was 'seasonal' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: nextReview is set inside the season it revises in.]
$150 aggregate class gift per school year (anonymous); under $50 individual
Massachusetts limits on gifts to public school employees. 930 CMR 5.08(14): a public school department employee may accept "a gift, or several gifts during the school year, from public school students and/or their parents and guardians, with an aggregated value of up to $150, if the gift is identified only as being from the class, and the identity of givers and amounts given are not identified to the recipient." The $150 is aggregated across the whole school year, not per occasion, and the anonymity condition is part of the exemption. Separately, 930 CMR 5.08(1) turns on the statutory threshold that a public employee may not accept a gift worth $50 or more given because of their official position, which caps an individual family gift under $50.
What would change it. The State Ethics Commission amending 930 CMR 5.00, or raising the $150 aggregate. Rhode Island raised its comparable public-employee limits effective 1 January 2026, so this class of figure does move. A second state publishing teacher-specific figures is the other change worth acting on — it would add a preset to CAP_POLICIES.
$10 per person per ordinary occasion, non-cash; no figure but "nominal" on special infrequent occasions
Federal limits on a group gift to your own boss. 5 CFR 2635.302 prohibits an employee from giving a gift to an official superior, or soliciting a contribution from another employee towards a gift to either employee's official superior. 5 CFR 2635.304 sets the exceptions: (a) on an occasional basis, including occasions when gifts are traditionally given, "items, other than cash, with an aggregate market value of $10 or less per occasion"; (b) on infrequently occurring occasions of personal significance (marriage, illness, bereavement) or when the relationship ends by retirement, resignation or transfer, "a gift appropriate to the occasion", with no dollar figure; (c) an employee may solicit voluntary contributions "of nominal amounts" for such a gift, and those asked must be told they are free to contribute less or nothing at all. The $10 is per contributor per occasion — a group gift does not pool the allowance — and cash is excluded outright.
What would change it. OGE amending 5 CFR 2635 subpart C — the $10 is the figure to watch, since it is the only number the tool caps on and it has not moved in decades. Watch also for an agency-supplemental pattern worth surfacing as a preset, and for a state ethics commission publishing a comparable per-person figure for state employees, which would add a rule option the way Massachusetts did on the teacher tool.
local $5–$10 per mover per hour (the narrower band both support); long distance $50–$100 per mover per day
Published per-mover tipping figures for a moving crew. Move.org: “$5 to $10 per hour for each worker”, and that you tip “each worker rather than giving the moving team supervisor a lump sum gratuity”. NerdWallet: “typically $4 to $15 per mover per hour” for a local move, “typically between $20 and $50 or more per mover per day”, and “typically $50 to $100 per day per mover” for a long-distance move. Both also quote a percentage-of-the-bill method (10–20%) which this tool deliberately does not use.
What would change it. Both publishers refresh these pages in place without changing the URL, so re-read the pages rather than trusting the figures to be stable. The model uses the NARROWER of the two hourly bands ($5–$10) so that every figure it produces is one both publications support — if either band moves, recompute the overlap rather than copying one source's new numbers. A publisher dropping the per-mover framing for a percentage-of-bill framing would be the change that matters most, because the per-mover premise is the whole tool.
flight charge, long carry, piano carrying and packing are accessorial services billed by the carrier; an agent is a local company acting for a national one
Federal definitions for interstate household-goods moves, 49 CFR Part 375 Appendix A. “Accessorial (Additional) Services: Services such as packing, unpacking, appliance servicing, or piano carrying, that you request to be performed or are necessary because of landlord requirements or other special circumstances.” “Flight Charge: An additional charge for carrying items up or down flights of stairs.” “Agent: A local moving company authorized to act on behalf of a larger national company.” “Line-Haul Charges: The charges for the transportation portion of your move.” A long carry is a charge for carrying articles excessive distances between the mover's vehicle and the residence, billed in addition to the line-haul charges. Together these establish that the stair, long-carry and piano charges on a moving quote are services billed by the carrier — which, under the IRS test already registered as irs-tips-vs-service-charges, makes none of them a tip.
What would change it. FMCSA amending 49 CFR 375, or revising the consumer handbook the appendix reproduces. The definitions are quoted verbatim on the tool page and in its FAQ, so a wording change is also a copy fix. The “agent” definition is load-bearing in a way that is easy to miss: it is the entire basis for the tool splitting a long-distance move into two crews.
6 hotel roles - see fact text for each band
The Emily Post Institute's General Tipping Guide, hotel rows. Doorman: $1-$4 for carrying luggage, $1-$2 for hailing a cab (add an extra $1 if it's raining), $1-$4 beyond the call of duty. Bellhop: $2 first bag, $1 per additional bag, $2-$3 for each additional service such as room delivery. Housekeeper: $2-$5 per day, left daily with a note marked "Housekeeping - Thank you". Concierge: no obligation for answering questions; $5-$10 for tickets or restaurant reservations; $15 for hard-to-get tickets or reservations (or 10-20% of the ticket price). Valet: $2-$5, tipped when the car is returned.
What would change it. Emily Post revises this guide occasionally and without announcement. Both the bands and the list of roles matter, because each role is a ledger row and a form checkbox. The `published` string on each role is quoted verbatim on the tool page, so a wording change is also a copy fix. The bellhop row is exact dollars rather than a range — if that becomes a range, the tool gains a judgment position it does not currently have, and the page's claim that the line contains no judgment of ours stops being true.
luxury housekeeping $10-$20 a night; shuttle $1-$2 a person; tip housekeeping daily
AAA Club Alliance's hotel tipping figures: housekeeping "at least $5 per night", and "at luxury hotels, $10 to $20 per night is more common"; bell staff "$1 to $5 per bag"; valets "$2 to $5 when your car is dropped off and returned"; shuttle drivers "$1 to $2 per person". On timing: "For housekeeping, it's best to tip each day rather than waiting until check-out."
What would change it. The highest structural risk on this tool. It is a club article rather than a standing reference, so it can be rewritten or moved without notice. If the luxury band disappears, the luxury housekeeping line loses its source entirely and the hotel-class control must fall back to positioning inside Emily Post's band instead of switching publications — a model change, not a figure change. Check the URL resolves as well as what it says.
§464.2(c) disclosure of nature/purpose/amount of excluded mandatory fees; §464.3 no misrepresentation
16 CFR Part 464, the FTC's Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, effective 12 May 2025, covering short-term lodging and live-event tickets. §464.2(c) requires disclosure, before the consumer consents to pay, of "the nature, purpose, and amount of any fee or charge imposed on the transaction that has been excluded from total price and the identity of the good or service for which the fee or charge is imposed". §464.3 makes it an unfair and deceptive practice to misrepresent "the nature, purpose, amount, or refundability of any fee or charge".
What would change it. Watch for an FTC amendment or a court order affecting Part 464. The tool quotes §464.2(c) and §464.3 verbatim on the page and in the ledger's why-line, so any change to the wording is a copy fix as well as a citation fix. Re-read the CFR text itself, never a summary of it.
1990 130.7 … 2024 313.689, 2025 321.943; current period July 2026 = 333.918
BLS Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. city average, all items, not seasonally adjusted — series CUUR0000SA0. Annual averages 1990–2025 plus the most recent published month, used to carry a past gift forward to today's money. Note: the 2025 annual average is an eleven-month one, because October 2025 was never collected during that year's lapse in appropriations.
What would change it. BLS publishes a new CPI-U month around the middle of each month; the annual average for a completed year lands with the January release. Refresh CPI_CURRENT monthly and append the new annual average each January, both from the public API (v1, no key: POST seriesid CUUR0000SA0 with annualaverage true). Prior-year annual averages are final and do not revise, so only the tail of the table ever moves.
15-20% for hair, nails and spa; split among those who served you; pre-tax base
The Emily Post Institute's General Tipping Guide, salon and spa rows, verbatim. Hair salon: "15-20%, ask to be split among those who served you." Manicurist: "15-20%." Facial, waxing, massage: "15-20%." Separately, from Finer Points of Tipping: "It is acceptable to tip on the pre-tax amount of the bill." The guide publishes no figure for a barber, a shampoo assistant, a salon owner or a tattoo artist — the tool treats a barber as a hair-salon row and tags the other three as house judgment rather than inventing a source.
What would change it. Emily Post revises this guide occasionally and without announcement. The hair-salon row's second clause — "ask to be split among those who served you" — is load-bearing structure, not decoration: it is the published basis for the entire per-person split, and the tool's methodology quotes it verbatim. If that clause disappears, the split loses its source and becomes house judgment end to end, which is a model change and a page rewrite rather than a figure edit. Watch also for a barber, assistant or owner row appearing: each would convert a currently-judgment line to sourced.
compulsory charge imposed by the establishment = not a tip; becomes employer gross receipts
29 CFR 531.55(a): "A compulsory charge for service, such as 15 percent of the amount of the bill, imposed on a customer by an employer's establishment, is not a tip" and may not be counted as tips received under the FLSA. 531.55(b): service charges and similar sums "which become part of the employer's gross receipts are not tips for the purposes of the Act." Used for the salon service fee / product charge / environmental fee line, which renders at $0 and does not reduce the tip.
What would change it. A change would come from DOL rulemaking on 29 CFR Part 531, not from the page being refreshed. The text is quoted verbatim on the tool page, in its FAQ and on a ledger line, so re-read the regulation itself rather than a summary. Note that state wage law can be stricter than the federal rule and the tool does not model state law and says so.
employer may not keep employee tips; managers and supervisors may not share in them
29 U.S.C. 203(m)(2)(B): "An employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes, including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees' tips, regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip credit." Used for the employment line on the salon ledger. The structural consequence the tool draws — that the protection runs to employees and therefore does not cover a stylist renting a chair — is labelled house judgment, because whether a given person is an employee or an independent contractor is a fact-specific IRS test the tool cannot apply.
What would change it. A change would require an act of Congress, so the statutory quote is low risk. The higher risk is the inference built on it: if DOL or a court clarifies how the provision applies to booth renters and independent contractors in personal-care settings, the renter line's house-judgment reasoning may need rewriting or may become sourced. Quoted verbatim on the tool page and in its FAQ.
college/trade $100–$500; high school $100+ with no ceiling; no cash under high school; an announcement is not an invoice
U.S. News & World Report on graduation gift amounts, and the shape of what it publishes. College and trade school: "Ideally, an appropriate monetary gift for graduates should range between $100 and $500" (Eshed Doni, GiftCrowd) — a closed band. High school: "Giving $100 or more (depending on your budget and relationship) is common, but there are no specific rules" — a floor with no ceiling, which is why lib/graduation-gift.js tags a high-school baseline sourced only at exactly $100. Elementary and middle school: etiquette expert Nick Leighton "does not recommend cash gifts for kids and young teenagers" — an age-appropriate item instead. Announcements: they are too often read as invoices, and "gifts should always be given willingly and not coerced." Nothing is published for graduate school.
What would change it. Two different kinds of drift. A figure moving is an ordinary edit. The high-school row acquiring a ceiling is a model change: it would convert the half-open band to a closed one and flip every high-school baseline above $100 from house judgment to sourced. Watch equally for the NRF figures quoted inside this article being updated to a newer survey year. The quotes are reproduced verbatim on the tool page and in its FAQ, so a wording change is also a copy fix. Note the page has repeatedly resisted automated fetching — verify it in a browser (same as usnews-baby-shower-bands).
$119.54 average per giver (2025); $7.2bn total and 39% buying (2026)
National Retail Federation graduation spending survey, conducted by Prosper Insights & Analytics. 2025: 36% of respondents planned to buy a gift for a high school or college graduate, expected average spend $119.54, and 51% planned to give cash with 35% favouring gift cards (these figures reach us via U.S. News, which quotes the survey). 2026, from NRF's own page: 39% plan to buy a graduation gift and total spending is expected to reach a record $7.2 billion, with cash again the top gift; the survey was fielded to 7,914 consumers aged 18+ from 30 April to 6 May 2026, margin of error ±1.1 points. The average is per gift-giver for the whole season, not per graduate — that distinction is what the tool's several-graduates line is built on.
What would change it. NRF's landing page carries the total and the participation share; the per-person average lives only in the data centre's interactive charts, which do not render to an automated fetch — the $119.54 here is NRF's 2025 figure as quoted by U.S. News, and a newer average should be taken from NRF directly and its year updated alongside it. The average is quoted on the tool page, in its FAQ and inside one judgment line's reasoning, so a change is a copy fix in three places. Nothing in the model multiplies by it.
student assets 20%, no protection allowance; parent assets 12% after an allowance
2026-2027 Federal Student Aid Handbook, Application and Verification Guide chapter 3, on the Student Aid Index: "the student's net worth is multiplied by the conversion rate of 20% to get the student's contribution from assets." There is no asset protection allowance for a dependent student's own assets; the allowance is subtracted from parents' assets only, whose discretionary net worth is then multiplied by a conversion rate of 12%. Consequence the tool draws: cash or a gift card held in a graduate's own name on the day they file raises their SAI by about a fifth of it, while the same money in a 529 owned by a parent is assessed at the parent rate after the allowance and one owned by a grandparent is not reported on the FAFSA at all.
What would change it. The conversion rates are set by the need-analysis formula in the Higher Education Act as amended by the FAFSA Simplification Act, so a change would come from Congress or from the annually-published EFC/SAI formula guide rather than from the page being edited. Two other things to re-check on the same pass: that the URL still resolves for the current award year, and that non-parent-owned 529 distributions are still outside reportable income — that treatment is what makes the tool's advice to give elsewhere correct, and it was itself a change (from the 2024-25 year) rather than a permanent feature.
10–15% of the bill; $2–$5 per pizza
The Emily Post Institute's General Tipping Guide, Home Delivery row, in full: "10-15% of the bill, $2-5 for pizza delivery depending on the size of the order and difficulty of delivery." The row prices the same situation two ways — a percentage of a restaurant bill, and dollars per pizza — and names order size and difficulty of delivery as what both vary on without putting a figure on either. The tool starts at the floor of each band and every dollar above it is tagged house judgment.
What would change it. Emily Post revises this guide occasionally and without announcement. The sentence is quoted verbatim on the tool page, in its FAQ and on a ledger line, so a wording change is a copy fix as well as a figure fix. Watch particularly for a grocery-delivery row appearing: that would flip the grocery path's baseline line from house judgment to sourced, and the page's claim that nobody publishes the figure would stop being true.
delivery / service / small-order fees = the platform's; 100% of tips = the courier's; base pay $2-10+ per offer
DoorDash's own consumer fee page: the delivery fee is "a fixed fee per order that varies by merchant", the service fee is "a variable fee that helps cover the cost of facilitating your delivery", the small order fee is charged "to enable us to make small transactions worthwhile to fulfill" — all to DoorDash — and of the one line that is not, "Every dollar you tip goes to your Dasher. Dashers receive 100% of customer tips." The Dasher pay page adds that base pay "will range from $2-10+" per offer, higher for offers that take longer, travel further or are "less popular with Dashers", and that "100% of tips received by DoorDash will go to the Dasher(s) associated with fulfilling the order, on top of base pay and promotions."
What would change it. A fee being renamed, added or reallocated, or the 100%-of-tips language weakening, would change the ledger's $0 fee line rather than a dollar figure. DoorDash has changed its pay model publicly before (2019). The general federal rule in flsa-compulsory-service-charge is the backstop: it holds whatever a platform's help page says, which is why the tool cites both.
$22.13/hour before tips, since 1 April 2026
New York City sets a minimum pay rate for app-based restaurant and grocery delivery workers, administered by the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection under NYC Admin. Code § 20-1522 and 6 RCNY § 7-810. The rate rose to $22.13 an hour on 1 April 2026 (from $21.44). Customer tips are not counted toward the rate — they are paid on top of it. No other US jurisdiction has an equivalent floor for app-based delivery work.
What would change it. An April rate adjustment moves the figure. The load-bearing claim on the ledger line is the structural half — tips paid on top rather than counted toward the rate — which is set by the rule and would take rulemaking or litigation to change, so a stale cent does not make the line wrong. Watch also for a second city adopting an equivalent floor: the tool and the page both assert that NYC is currently the only one.
sit-down 15–20% pre-tax / buffet 10% pre-tax / bartender $1–2 a drink or 15–20% / takeout none, 10% for extra service
The Emily Post Institute's General Tipping Guide, restaurant rows, quoted verbatim: Wait Service (Sit Down) "15-20%, pre-tax"; Wait Service (Buffet) "10%, pre-tax"; Bartender "$1-2 per drink or 15-20% of the tab"; Take Out "No obligation; 10% for extra service (curb delivery) or a large, complicated order".
What would change it. The two words carrying this tool are "pre-tax", and they appear in the sit-down and buffet rows only. If Emily Post drops or reworks them the tool's central claim goes with them, and the $0 ledger line that prices the difference stops being sourced — that is a rebuild, not a figure edit. Watch also for the Bartender row losing its per-drink half, which is what makes the larger-of-two rule a published choice rather than ours. All four rows are quoted verbatim on the tool page, in its FAQ and on ledger lines, so any wording change is a copy fix as well.
at least the cost of the flower arrangement; cash ordinarily not sent to the family
The Emily Post Institute, on donations in lieu of flowers, gives an instruction rather than a figure: "Consider giving at least what you would have spent on a flower arrangement." The same page settles the cash question: "Ordinarily, cash isn’t sent to the family in place of flowers or a charitable contribution, but exceptions can be made." Both sentences are quoted verbatim on the tool page and on ledger lines; the second is what makes the cash-to-the-family line a permanent /usr/bin/bash rather than our opinion.
What would change it. The whole tool rests on the flower-equivalent instruction. If Emily Post replaces it with a dollar figure, line 0 stops being a price-guide lookup and becomes a published baseline — a rebuild, and a better one. If the cash sentence goes, the /usr/bin/bash cash line loses its source and would have to be retagged house judgment or dropped. Both are quoted verbatim, so any rewording is a copy fix too.
no flowers; give the flower money to charity; round to multiples of 18; bring food
Chabad.org, on flowers: "Placing flowers on a grave is not a Jewish tradition," and on what to do instead: "If you want to honor your grandmother, take the money you would have spent on flowers and give it to charity in her memory" — the same flower-equivalent rule the Emily Post page gives, arrived at independently. On amounts: "many Jews typically give charity (and gifts) in multiples of 18 (e.g. 18, 36, 54, 72 etc.)", chai (חי) being the Hebrew word for life with the numerical value 18. On a shiva call: "It is common for friends to provide food for the mourners (and their guests)... you can just bring kosher take-out", and "you are not expected to bring anything".
What would change it. A custom traced to the 1700s does not drift, so this is a link-rot and wording check rather than a figure check: confirm all three URLs still resolve and the quoted sentences are unchanged. The chai rounding is the only place on the site where a source overrides our own giveable step, so losing the citation would mean reverting the tool to the site default.
plant 40–90 / basket 75–150 / wreath 100–250 / standing spray 150–300 / casket spray 200–500
Published funeral-flower price ranges from three guides, reduced to the overlap each figure all counted guides support: living plant $40–$90, sympathy basket $75–$150, wreath $100–$250 (2 guides — Funeral.com gives a single ~$270 benchmark above the overlap), standing spray $150–$300, casket spray $200–$500 (2 guides — Funeral.com does not price it).
What would change it. Retail flower prices move with inflation and these guides are re-dated yearly. Re-derive each overlap from all three rather than nudging a number: the guides column on the tool page is a claim about how many of them price the piece, and a guide adding a casket-spray range or dropping a wreath benchmark changes that column even when no dollar figure moves. If any guide disappears, replace it before shipping a figure claiming three.
$250 CWA threshold; contributions to specific individuals not deductible
IRS Publication 526 (Charitable Contributions): under Contributions to Individuals, "You can’t deduct contributions to specific individuals" — so money to a named bereaved family, direct or through a fundraiser set up for them, is a personal gift rather than a charitable contribution. Under Contributions of $250 or More, a single contribution at or above $250 requires a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the organisation; a bank record alone is not sufficient at that size.
What would change it. The $250 substantiation threshold is statutory (IRC §170(f)(8)) and has not moved since 1993, so a change would come from Congress. The contributions-to-individuals rule is equally settled. Re-check on the annual pass that the section headings still carry those names, since both are quoted on the page.
classmate/friend $20–$30 (sweet spot $25); close friend's or relative's child up to $100; own child at least $100
The only outlet publishing dollar figures for a children's birthday gift. A classmate or friend of your child's is $20–$30 with $25 named as the sweet spot; "you can spend up to $100 on the child of a close friend or relative"; "budget for at least $100 when it comes to gifts for your own children." Three different shapes of claim — a closed band, a ceiling with no floor, and a floor with no ceiling — and the tool's provenance tag is computed from the shape. Published February 2023, which is why the model carries the figures forward on CPI-U rather than quoting them flat. The article's "average parent spends approximately $400 on a birthday party" line cites an unnamed survey and is deliberately used nowhere in the arithmetic.
What would change it. Reviewed re-dating or re-costing the piece, or a stronger outlet (a national survey, an etiquette institute) publishing real figures for a children's birthday gift for the first time. Either replaces the bands and moves the scale version; a genuinely current source would also retire the CPI carry line.
guests = age + 1
The Emily Post Institute's guest-list guide for a child's birthday party: "A good guide is one guest for each year of your child's age, plus one" ("the old rule of thumb of inviting 'age plus one' is still a good one"). The only per-year-of-age rule any etiquette authority publishes for a children's birthday, and it counts guests, not dollars — the widely-repeated "$1 per year of age" gift rule has no authority behind it that we can find. Same page: do not hand invitations out at school unless everyone gets one, and thank-you notes are required for any gift not thanked for in person.
What would change it. Emily Post rewriting either children's-party page, or publishing a dollar figure for a children's birthday gift for the first time — the second would be a stronger baseline than Reviewed's and would change line 0. Also watch for the Institute addressing what a guest should do about "no gifts, please", which is currently a house-judgment line for want of a source.
small parts banned under 3; small-parts label ages 3–6; balloon and small-ball/marble labels to age 8
16 CFR Part 1501 bans small parts in toys and articles intended for use by children under three (36 months); intent is read from the manufacturer's stated labelling, the marketing, and common recognition. 16 CFR § 1500.19 sets the required cautionary label texts and their age thresholds: "WARNING — CHOKING HAZARD — Small parts. Not for children under 3 yrs." for toys for ages 3–6; latex balloons must name children under 8; a toy containing a small ball or a marble must warn about "larger children who put objects in their mouths" up to 8. The age on the box is a federal label, not a marketing suggestion.
What would change it. A CPSC rulemaking amending 16 CFR 1500.19 or Part 1501 — an added product category or a moved age threshold. The line is $0 either way, so a change alters the wording rather than any amount.
zero, on every row
The Japan National Tourism Organization's tipping page: "In Japan, it's not common to tip for services such as those provided in bars, cafes, restaurants, taxis, and hotels." One exception is named without a figure — a private guide or interpreter "may accept a tip as a gesture of gratitude", but "tipping is not expected and should be done discreetly, even in these cases." The custom of giving a gratuity is named kokorozuke ("coming from the heart"), and "If you do decide to offer a gratuity, it is customary to put it in an envelope."
What would change it. JNTO attaching an amount to the private-guide exception — that would be the first Japanese figure any authority has published, and would turn the tours row from ¥0 into a sourced amount. Also watch for the page addressing service charges at hotels and ryokan, currently a house-judgment bill state.
restaurants 10–15%; taxis 10–15% or round up; porter £2
VisitBritain's traveller information: "Tipping is not expected in Britain like it is in some other countries. Workers do not have to rely on tips to live and all staff must be paid at least the National Minimum Wage." Restaurants: "an optional service charge is sometimes added to your total bill (this will be noted on your bill). You can choose whether to pay it or not"; if nothing is added, "a standard tip of between 10-15 is well received" (printed without the % sign). Taxis: "customary to round the fare up to the nearest pound", and "a 10-15 percent tip is a nice gesture." Hotels: a porter who takes luggage to your room is tipped "approximately £2".
What would change it. VisitBritain revising the page — most likely to add the % sign to the restaurant figure, or to add a housekeeping or tour-guide figure, either of which would convert a house-judgment row to sourced.
10% of the restaurant bill
Italia.it (ENIT, Italy's official tourism site): "Tipping in Italy is not compulsory and there are no established rules, but it is customary to leave an amount close to 10% of the bill when the customer is satisfied with the service received." That single sentence is the entirety of the page's tipping guidance — it covers the restaurant bill and nothing else, and says nothing about the coperto, hotels, taxis or guides.
What would change it. Italia.it expanding the paragraph. Any sentence about the coperto would let that €0 line move from house judgment to sourced, which is the single biggest available upgrade to the Italian ledger.
in force 1 October 2024; England, Scotland and Wales
Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 (c. 13), s.2: "An employer must ensure that the total amount of the qualifying tips, gratuities and service charges paid at, or otherwise attributable to, a place of business of the employer is allocated fairly between workers of the employer at that place of business", and an allocated amount "is payable to the worker by the employer". The statutory Code of Practice on fair and transparent distribution of tips came into force 1 October 2024, has tips passed on without deductions, and applies to England, Scotland and Wales — not Northern Ireland.
What would change it. An amending Act, a revised Code, or Northern Ireland legislating its own equivalent — the last would remove a stated scope limitation from the page.
service is in the displayed price by law; the tip is voluntary
The DGCCRF's fiche pratique on the pourboire: displayed prices must be those actually payable by the customer, service included; where service is charged, all price lists and menus must carry the mention "prix service compris" followed by the percentage applied; the absence of any service mention indicates staff on a fixed salary. A tip remains always voluntary and left to the customer's discretion, and no profession may require one.
What would change it. A rewrite of the fiche. The temporary income-tax exemption on pourboires is a fact about the worker's tax return rather than about what a visitor owes, and would not change any amount here.
voluntary; cannot be added to the bill without consent
PROFECO (Mexico's federal consumer-protection agency): "la propina, la Profeco subraya que no se puede exigir, ésta es voluntaria", and it "no puede incluirse en la cuenta sin el consentimiento del comensal" — the tip is voluntary, cannot be demanded, and cannot be included in the bill without the diner's consent. PROFECO publishes no percentage; the 10–15% band used in the tool is house judgment.
What would change it. PROFECO publishing an actual percentage for the first time — that would convert the Mexican meals row from house judgment to sourced, the largest single upgrade available to this tool.
$26.44/hour, $1,004.90/week, casual $33.05/hour, from 1 July 2026
The Fair Work Ombudsman's published national minimum wage: $26.44 an hour, or $1,004.90 a week before tax, from 1 July 2026; a casual employee on the national minimum wage receives at least $33.05 an hour, including the 25% casual loading. Used as the reason tipping is not structural in Australia — hospitality staff sit inside that system on award rates at or above the floor.
What would change it. The Annual Wage Review, every 1 July. All three figures move together and the effective date moves with them. This is the only dated figure in the tool and the only one with a fixed deadline.
$18-$54 (teen alone) / $72-$180 (household)
Your Teen Magazine's two published bar/bat mitzvah gift ranges, keyed to who was invited rather than to closeness: $18-$54 for a teenager attending on their own (a close friend or classmate), $72-$180 when the whole family is invited, "depending on how close you are to the host".
What would change it. Your Teen re-dates this article when it revises it; it was last updated March 2026. If the bands move, both the tier bases and their sourced/judgment tags move with them - and if a second publication ever prints figures for this occasion, the 'one publication is thin' caveat on the page can go.
multiples of 18
The custom of giving gifts and charity in multiples of 18, the numerical value of chai ('life'). Used here as the tool's rounding unit - the only rounding step on the site tagged sourced rather than house judgment.
What would change it. A custom rather than a figure; it does not drift. Re-verify only that the page still exists and still states it. Shared with the sympathy calculator, which rounds Jewish gifts the same way. [Cadence was 'static' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: a settled rule, re-read on its review date.]
$0 - changes the delivery, not the amount
That a gift should not be brought to a bar/bat mitzvah held on Shabbat, and what to do instead: "you do not need to bring the gift with you to the celebration. Indeed, you should not do so if the celebration is on Shabbat. Instead, include a check or gift card with your reply card, or just drop off your gift at a time that works for you." The tool's $0 line.
What would change it. Halachic guidance, not a figure; it does not drift. Re-verify the page and the quotation. If Chabad reworded the instruction the line's why-text needs the new wording, since it is quoted verbatim on the ledger. [Cadence was 'static' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: a settled rule, re-read on its review date.]
$10-$20 a bottle, in 2013 dollars
What to spend on a bottle of wine taken to a dinner party: "We recommend spending between $10-$20 on each bottle", with the position inside that band keyed to the host's effort — closer to $20 for an elaborate meal, closer to $10 for takeout and a film. Published 18 December 2013, which is the fact almost nobody repeating the figure carries with it.
What would change it. A 2013 article. If VinePair republishes or reprices it, the band and the carry base both move and the tool's headline finding changes. Check the byline date as well as the figure.
factor 1.43 (232.957 -> 333.918)
The CPI-U carry that restates VinePair's 2013 band in current dollars: $10-$20 in 2013 is $14-$29 in July 2026. Renders as its own sourced ledger line, separate from the published figure, so the reader can see which dollars are the publication's and which are the index's.
What would change it. CPI_CURRENT in lib/gift-reciprocity.js is the single source for the current index on this site. When it is updated the carry here moves with it automatically; nothing in lib/host-gift.js needs editing.
$44-$60, average $51.50 (May 2026, pre-delivery)
Entry-level bouquet prices across four online florists, May 2026: a four-platform average of $51.50, with the platforms themselves at $44, $49, $53 and $60, before delivery fees. Used as the published band for the flowers line; the tool uses the spread rather than the average because the spread is what any one florist will charge.
What would change it. The report is recorded each May. A new May edition replaces both the band and the average, and the published date on the page is what the ledger prints. Their own caveat travels with it: entry-level bouquets are not a standardized product.
$0 - the whole answer, on two named occasions
Who brings a hosting gift and when: bring a small gift the first time you visit someone's home; dinner guests bring one unless they are close friends who dine together frequently; large formal dinners typically do not call for one; a housewarming gift is lovely but not required. The two exceptions are what let this tool's answer be $0 on a sourced line rather than on our permission. The same page holds the budget line: "your gift should always be within your means. No one has to break their budget for a hosting gift."
What would change it. Etiquette guidance rather than a figure; it does not drift. Re-verify that the page still exists and still states both exceptions - the tool's most distinctive output depends on them, and losing them would mean the $0 answer is no longer sourced. [Cadence was 'static' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: a settled rule, re-read on its review date.]
one night = one bottle or one bouquet; three nights = the ceiling
That an overnight guest owes a gift unconditionally - "House-guests are expected to give a thank-you gift to the host either on arrival, during their stay, or sent afterwards" - that for one night "a good bottle of wine or a nice bouquet of flowers is sufficient", and that "a longer stay may inspire something more" without saying how much more. The instruction is theirs; the 50%-per-further-night is ours. The companion houseguest page supplies the tool's second $0 line: "Generally keep your visit to no more than three nights."
What would change it. Etiquette guidance rather than a figure. Re-verify both pages and the quotations, which are printed verbatim on the ledger. [Cadence was 'static' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: a settled rule, re-read on its review date.]
three published zeroes, 15-20% + $1 minimum, $2-$5, $2 then $1, $0.50-$3, $10-$20
The Emily Post Institute General Tipping Guide rows this tool prices, verbatim: "Tipping jars: No obligation; tip occasionally if your server or barista provides a little something extra"; "Take out: No obligation; 10% for extra service (curb delivery)"; "Host or Maitre d: No obligation for greeting you and showing you to your table. $10-$20 for going above and beyond"; "Taxi driver: 15-20% of the fare, but minimally $1; $2 for the first bag"; "Valet: $2-$5. Tip when the car is returned to you."; "Skycap: $2 first bag, $1 per additional bag"; "Restroom attendant: $0.50-$3, depending on the level of service". The three "no obligation" rows are what let this tool print a sourced $0.
What would change it. The same page already backs lib/bill-split.js, lib/delivery-tip.js, lib/hotel-tipping.js and lib/salon-tip.js - a revision affects all five. The rows that matter most here are the two that say "No obligation": losing that wording would make the tool s headline $0 unsourced, so verify those words specifically rather than only the dollar figures. [Cadence was 'static' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: a settled rule, re-read on its review date.]
92 / 78 / 76 / 70 / 61 / 25 / 12 (%)
Share of US adults who say they always or often tip in each setting: sit-down restaurant 92%, haircut 78%, food delivery 76%, drink at a bar 70%, taxi or rideshare 61%, coffee shop 25%, fast casual restaurant 12%. Survey of 11,945 US adults fielded 7-27 August 2023, published 9 November 2023. The first figure on this site that is a share of people rather than a share of a bill.
What would change it. Pew has not committed to repeating this study. If a later wave lands, the coffee shop (25%) and fast casual (12%) figures are the two the page argues from and both must move together with the field dates printed beside them. Until then the date is the disclosure - the page prints the field window rather than presenting the numbers as current. [Cadence was 'one-off' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: a one-off study; re-read on its review date for a later wave.]
72% / 34% / 33% / 40% oppose vs 24% favour
From the same study: 72% of US adults say tipping is expected in more places today than five years ago; about a third say it is extremely or very easy to know whether to tip (34%) or how much to tip (33%); more oppose (40%) than favour (24%) businesses suggesting tip amounts to customers, with 32% neither.
What would change it. Same study as pew-tipping-prevalence-2023 and the same caveat. The 40/24 split is quoted on the ledger line about the highlighted button, so it appears in a result rather than only in the methodology. [Cadence was 'one-off' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: a one-off study; re-read on its review date for a later wave.]
the amount is determined solely by the customer
29 CFR 531.52(a): "A tip is a sum presented by a customer as a gift or gratuity in recognition of some service performed for the customer... Whether a tip is to be given, and its amount, are matters determined solely by the customer." Used for the $0 ledger line naming the pre-selected button on a payment screen.
What would change it. Federal regulation. Subpart D was last substantially revised by the 2020-2021 tip rules; the definitional sentence in 531.52(a) survived those. Re-verify the quoted wording if a new Wage and Hour rulemaking on tips is finalised. Sibling authorities already cited on this site: 29 CFR 531.55 (salon, delivery) and 29 U.S.C. 203(m)(2)(B) (salon). [Cadence was 'static' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: a settled rule, re-read on its review date.]
$5.84 per tooth / $7.17 for a first tooth
Delta Dental's 2026 Original Tooth Fairy Poll: the average value of one lost tooth nationally, and the separately-published average for a child's first lost tooth
What would change it. Delta Dental publishes a new poll wave every February and the press release supersedes the previous year's. Both national figures move together, and so does the first-tooth premium (FIRST_PREMIUM) that the tool applies to regional averages — recompute it rather than carrying the old ratio forward. The figure is volatile: it has run $6.23 → $5.84 → $5.01 → $5.84 across four waves.
Northeast $6.45 (+41%) / West $5.99 (+5%) / South $5.89 (+3%) / Midwest $5.27 (+52%)
Delta Dental's 2026 Original Tooth Fairy Poll: the average value of one lost tooth by US region, with each region's published year-over-year change
What would change it. Same February publication cycle as the national figures. The year-over-year change on each region is used by the tool's volatility $0 line (VOLATILE_PCT = 25%), so the changePct values must be updated alongside the dollar values or that line will fire on last year's movement. No regional first-tooth figure is published; if one ever is, retire the computed premium in firstToothFigure() and upgrade that line's tag to sourced.
1,000 parents of children aged 6–12, fielded 5–15 January 2026, ±3%; 38% leave extra for a first tooth; 32% of children also received a physical gift (19% in 2025)
Delta Dental's 2026 Original Tooth Fairy Poll methodology and secondary findings, quoted on the page to show how solid the headline is: sample, field dates, margin of error, share of parents leaving extra for a first tooth, and share of children receiving a physical gift
What would change it. Republished with each February wave. The sample size and margin of error are the basis of the tool's sourced $0 volatility line — if a future wave changes its methodology, that line's wording changes with it.
20 primary teeth
The American Dental Association's count of primary (baby) teeth, used for the whole-childhood reckoning and for detecting the twentieth tooth. The ADA prints no shedding timetable — 'they fall out (shed) at various times throughout childhood' — which is why the tool asks how many teeth have gone rather than inferring it from the child's age
What would change it. Human anatomy. This figure does not move; the review is only that the ADA page still exists at that URL and still states it. [Cadence was 'stable' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: a settled rule, re-read on its review date.]
national $26.24 (1 child) / $29.87 (2) / $32.33 (3); by city $18.21 (San Antonio, 1 child) to $29.63 (San Francisco); up 4.9% year on year
UrbanSitter's average babysitter hourly rates, drawn from real bookings on their platform: national figures for one, two and three children, plus a one- and two-child figure for each of 30 US metros. The national one- and two-child figures are the tool's default baseline; the per-city figures swap it.
What would change it. UrbanSitter refreshes the page each January with the previous year's bookings. Both the national figures and the city table move together; the year-on-year percentage on the page is the fastest way to tell whether a refresh has landed. If the three-child national figure ever gains a per-city breakdown, the tool's judgment tag for a third child in a city should be revisited.
20% of assignment hours; 20 hrs/week; not a vocation
The three conditions for the 'casual basis' babysitting exemption from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime provisions: household work not related to the children may not exceed 20% of the hours worked on the assignment; employment is usually casual only where it does not exceed 20 hours a week in the aggregate; and it must not be performed by someone whose vocation is babysitting. Breaching any one produces the tool's sourced $0 line.
What would change it. Regulatory text, unchanged for decades. A DOL rulemaking on domestic service would be the only trigger — the 2013/2015 home care rule is the precedent for one. Review is that the sections still exist and still read as quoted. Note the eCFR blocks automated fetches; Cornell LII is the citable mirror used here. [Cadence was 'stable' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: a settled rule, re-read on its review date.]
$3,000 a year (FICA); 7.65% each side; $1,000 in any calendar quarter (FUTA) at 6% on the first $7,000, less a state credit of up to 5.4%; under-18 excluded
IRS Publication 926 household-employment thresholds for the 2026 tax year: the cash-wage line above which Social Security and Medicare are owed on one household employee, the each-side rate, the quarterly FUTA test and rate, and the exclusion for an employee under 18 unless household work is their principal occupation. The under-18 exclusion drives the tool's second sourced $0 line and switches the whole annual panel off.
What would change it. The FICA cash-wage threshold is indexed and moves most years ($2,800 in 2025 → $3,000 in 2026). The FUTA figures and the under-18 exclusion have been stable. Check when the new tax year's Pub 926 posts, typically December–January; the page title carries the year.
72.5¢/mile 1 Jan – 30 Jun 2026; 76¢/mile 1 Jul – 31 Dec 2026
The IRS standard mileage rate for business use, used to reimburse a babysitter for miles driven in their own car — the one sourced add-on line in that tool. 2026 carried two rates because of an unusual mid-year increase, which is why the effective date is printed with the figure rather than footnoted.
What would change it. Announced each December for the year ahead. 2026 is the exception that proves the rule — a mid-year rise on 1 July — so this one is checked on the monthly cycle rather than only in January, and MILEAGE_FROM must be updated alongside any new figure.
existence theorem — no numeric figure
An envy-free rent division always exists: for n housemates and n rooms with one total rent, there is an assignment of rooms and a set of prices summing to the rent such that every person weakly prefers their own room at its price to every other room at its price. Proved with Sperner's lemma.
What would change it. Nothing can falsify this. The only drift risk is the hosting URL: the Claremont repository record is the stable one, but if it moves, the DOI (10.1080/00029890.1999.12005142) is the fallback. [Cadence was 'none' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: nothing is expected to move it; re-read on its review date.]
method — no numeric figure
Two results the tool implements: (1) an envy-free solution must include a welfare-maximising room assignment — for any other assignment no envy-free prices exist at all — restating Svensson (1983) and Alkan, Demange & Gale (1991); (2) among the envy-free price vectors, the maximin one (maximising the minimum utility subject to envy-freeness) is identified as the fairest, and is the one Spliddit deployed.
What would change it. Later literature could propose a different selection rule from within the envy-free polytope (maximin is a choice among fair points, not the only defensible one). That would be a reason to revisit which point the tool computes — it would not make the current one wrong. [Cadence was 'none' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: nothing is expected to move it; re-read on its review date.]
2014–2022; 30,000+ instances
Spliddit's rent-division application implemented the Gal et al. algorithm, was the most popular of its five applications with more than 30,000 instances solved, and the site operated from 2014 until 2022.
What would change it. Only if Spliddit returns, which would change the page's framing rather than any number. [Cadence was 'none' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: nothing is expected to move it; re-read on its review date.]
$100-$500, keyed to preparation meetings
The Emily Post Institute's published wedding officiant fee, and the axis it is keyed to: "If you have little contact with the officiant beforehand, the cost might be as low as $100; in other situations, especially those in which he or she has met with you several times about the ceremony, the fee can be as high as $500." The band varies with preparation time, the relationship and the house of worship - not with the size of the wedding. They also advise calling the affiliated institution's office to ask what is commonly offered or whether the cost is pre-set.
What would change it. Emily Post refreshes advice pages without notice, and both endpoints are quoted verbatim on the tool page, so a wording change is a copy fix as well as a figure fix. The endpoints are the only two points in the band carrying the sourced tag — if either moves, the tag boundary moves with it.
$260 avg; $240/$300/$460 by location; $200-$300 donation; $10-$100 friend; $30-$100 license
The Knot's officiant cost page: average $260; by location, hometown $240, domestic destination $300, international destination $460. Religious officiant — no fee to officiate, but donations encouraged for building upkeep or ceremony attendants, $200-$300 a common amount. Secular officiant $200-$1,000+. Civil officiant — marriage license fee $30-$100 depending on state, plus a possible ceremony fee. Friend or family officiant $10-$100 to cover ministry classes or state registration.
What would change it. The three location figures are the whole professional-officiant baseline and they swap rather than scale, so a revision changes the answer directly rather than nudging it. The $200-$300 donation is the only sourced figure behind the building envelope.
$100-$300 clergy; $50-$100 per musician or soloist
Funeral Basics' published honorarium ranges: clergy or officiant $100-$300; musicians and soloists $50-$100 per person. Also the distinction that an honorarium is a token for someone who performed a service as a volunteer — a professional booked at a set fee is invoiced instead — and that no honorarium is due to the funeral director, whose services are in the funeral home's own fees.
What would change it. The weakest publisher of the three bands this tool uses — an industry content site rather than an etiquette institute or a survey — and the page says so. If a stronger published figure for clergy at a funeral appears (NFDA, a denominational schedule), replace this rather than supplementing it. The musician band also carries the wedding-musician line by our own carry-across, so it moves two things at once.
income to the minister if paid personally; 15.3% SE tax on 92.35% = 14.13% effective
IRS Publication 517: a minister must "include in your income offerings and fees you receive for marriages, baptisms, funerals, masses, etc., in addition to your salary"; but "if the offering is made to the religious institution, it isn't taxable to you". Ministers are treated as self-employed for these services, so self-employment tax of 15.3% applies to 92.35% of net earnings — an effective 14.13%.
What would change it. A change to the SE rate or the 92.35% base changes the net-to-officiant step and the plain sentence. A change to the institution-versus-person treatment would change which $0 line fires.
clergy honoraria are a cash advance item; a markup must be disclosed
16 CFR 453.1(b) defines a cash advance item and names "clergy honoraria" in its own list of examples, alongside pallbearers, musicians or singers, flowers and gratuities. 16 CFR 453.3(f) makes it a deceptive act to represent that the price charged for a cash advance item is the same as the provider's cost when it is not, or to fail to disclose that it is not, and requires the itemized statement to carry "We charge you for our services in obtaining: (specify cash advance items)" where the provider charges a fee or receives a rebate, commission or trade or volume discount.
What would change it. Only a rulemaking. Watch for the FTC's Funeral Rule review producing amended text, which would change paragraph lettering as well as substance. [Cadence was 'none' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: nothing is expected to move it; re-read on its review date.]
no charge beyond the set offering; poverty is never a bar
Code of Canon Law, c. 848: "For the administration of the sacraments the minister may not ask for anything beyond the offerings which are determined by the competent authority, and he must always ensure that the needy are not deprived of the help of the sacraments by reason of poverty."
What would change it. Only a motu proprio amending Book IV. The likelier maintenance issue is the vatican.va URL, which has moved once already — check the link, not the text. [Cadence was 'none' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: nothing is expected to move it; re-read on its review date.]
no published AGO fee schedules since 2017
In 2017 the FTC settled charges that the American Guild of Organists' rules restrained competition. The complaint covered its incumbent-musician rule — a consumer who wanted someone other than the venue's incumbent musician had to pay both — and its practice of developing and publicising compensation schedules and formulas and instructing chapters and members to produce regionally applicable versions. The consent order requires the Guild to stop restraining members from soliciting work and to stop issuing compensation schedules, guidance or model contract provisions for determining compensation.
What would change it. If another body starts publishing organist fee schedules, the wedding-musician line could acquire a real source and the tag would change. [Cadence was 'none' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: nothing is expected to move it; re-read on its review date.]
varies by state — reasonable compensation to outright prohibition
ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 3.12 permits a judge to accept reasonable compensation for extrajudicial activities, commensurate with the task performed, unless acceptance would appear to undermine independence, integrity or impartiality. States adapt it and some go further: 750 ILCS 5/209 provides that a retired judge shall not receive any compensation from the State, a county or any unit of local government in return for solemnizing a marriage, and that a mayor or president of a city, village or incorporated town "shall not receive any compensation in return for the solemnization of a marriage".
What would change it. A state amending its own code changes the example, not the advice. Only rewrite this if the ABA revises Rule 3.12 or Illinois amends 5/209. [Cadence was 'none' until 2026-09-27; set to 'annual' because the registry standard allows only annual/quarterly/monthly/weekly: nothing is expected to move it; re-read on its review date.]
$35 license / $25 ceremony / $25 one-day officiant license
NYC Office of the City Clerk: $35 for a marriage license, $25 for a ceremony in the City Clerk's office, and $25 for a One-Day Marriage Officiant License, which since April 2023 lets any person 18 or over solemnize one marriage in New York State without being a resident of the city or the state.
What would change it. A fee increase changes the default and the worked example on the page. The one-day officiant license is the newest of the three and the likeliest to be amended.
circuit-court order plus a bond of up to $500
Va. Code § 20-25: on application to the clerk of the circuit court and payment of applicable clerk's fees, the clerk may issue an order authorizing one or more persons to celebrate the rites of marriage in the Commonwealth, and any person so authorized "may be required to, before acting, enter into bond in the penalty of $500, with or without surety, as the clerk may direct". Judges, retired judges, federal judges, current and former General Assembly members and certain other officials are exempt from the authorization and the bond.
What would change it. Virginia's treatment of online ordination has been litigated. A change would make this a weaker example rather than a wrong one, but the bond figure is quoted verbatim and must stay right.
May 2025 estimates (released April 2026). US: employment 860,670; $14.59 / $17.07 / $19.03 per hour. Spot checks: CA 103,430, $17.79 / $20.51 / $23.72; NY 41,740, $17.22 / $20.17 / $27.88; TX 63,110, $12.81 / $14.26 / $16.47
BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics for 37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners: hourly 25th percentile, median and 75th percentile wage, and employment, nationally and for every state. The house-cleaner rate calculator's wage floor.
What would change it. BLS publishes one OEWS release a year, reference date May, released the following spring (May 2025 data in April 2026); the May 2026 estimates are expected spring 2027, and all 52 rows then change together. bls.gov returns 403 to automated fetchers, so sourceUrl will usually be UNVERIFIABLE. secondaryUrl is WageTruth, a sister site that serves the same OEWS release from its own ETL: it fetches, and its hourly percentiles and 'OEWS May <year>' label are a usable cross-check, but it is a mirror, not the primary source, so never ship a change on it alone. Registered 2026-09-27; verified against WageTruth's database for US, CA, NY and TX.
$118 to $238 per visit, about $176 average, from over 90,000 Angi customers (updated March 17, 2026)
Angi's national house-cleaning cost headline: the typical per-visit range and average, from its customer data.
What would change it. Angi re-dates and revises cost articles without a schedule; the 'Updated <date>' line under the byline is the signal. WebFetch gets a 403, but curl with a browser User-Agent loads it (2026-09-27).
Published April 29, 2024; carried from the 2024 CPI-U annual average to the latest CPI-U reading
HomeGuide's house-cleaning price figures, carried forward from their publication year to today on CPI-U.
What would change it. If the byline date moves past April 29, 2024, HomeGuide has republished and the figures in TYPES must be re-read and HOMEGUIDE_YEAR moved to the new year, which also resets the CPI carry. WebFetch gets a 403, but curl with a browser User-Agent loads it (2026-09-27).
A visitor who screenshotted a number and sent it to the person they were deciding with deserves to know if the model moved afterwards. So every change gets a dated entry, including the ones that turned out not to be changes at all.
| Date | Method | What happened |
|---|---|---|
| 21 August 2026 | v1.0 | First published, with the wedding gift calculator. Two provenance labels and no third; the itemised breakdown shown by default rather than behind a toggle; every factor adjustable by the reader; amounts rounded to something you can actually hand over. |
| 21 August 2026 | v1.0 | Extended, not changed, by the holiday tipping calculator: an answer may be a list of people rather than a baseline with corrections. No principle moved, so no version bump — recorded here because a reader who screenshotted a number deserves to see what did and did not change. |
| 22 August 2026 | v1.0 | Extended again, by the wedding vendor tip calculator: an input may change what kind of line an answer carries, not only how large it is — a vendor whose contract already includes gratuity renders at $0 and stays on the ledger. Also the first line whose reasoning cites a source and then departs from it in the open: the IRS distinction between a tip and a service charge is theirs, the decision to keep budgeting for a vague service charge is ours, and the line says so. Two labels still sufficed, so no version bump. |
Good — that is what publishing them is for. Every house-judgment figure on this site is written down as an exact number in its tool’s methodology section, so there is always a specific thing to argue with rather than a vibe. If you have a source we have missed, or a figure has moved since we last checked, tell us at hello@kindhow.com and we will re-check it and log the outcome here either way.
Informational only, not professional advice. The Kindhow Scale is a published model, not a standard. Method version 1.0. Last reviewed: August 2026.