National Academies Press: OpenBook

The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1998)

Chapter: 4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study

« Previous: 3 Fiscal Impacts of Immigrant and Native Households: A New Jersey Case Study
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

4

The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study

Michael S. Clune

INTRODUCTION

Shifts in the settlement patterns of immigrants to the United States since 1965 have placed California at the forefront of any discussion of immigration issues. Along with sharp increases in the volume of immigration, a shift in the country of origin distribution away from flows from Europe to flows from Mexico, Central and South America, and Asia led a much larger share of immigrants to settle in California. Since 1976, California has been the top destination of choice for new legal immigrants to the United States, receiving 34.6 percent of immigrants in 1992. That year, 61.8 percent of Mexicans, 43.1 percent of Vietnamese, 44.0 percent of Filipinos, and 57.5 percent of Salvadorans admitted to the United States chose California as their state of intended residence. California receives a disproportionate share of immigrants from all entry categories. In 1992, 29 percent of admitted immigrants indicated California as the state of intended residence, and 32.7 percent of refugees and asylees granted permanent legal resident status in 1992 resided in California. In addition, the overwhelming majority of applicants for legalization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 filed applications in California (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1993).

As a result, California contains the largest population of immigrants, both as a proportion of total residents and in real numbers. By 1995, 7.7 million California residents were foreign born, 24.4 percent of the state population and 34.3 percent of all non-native U.S. residents. At that time, 34.0 percent of all California residents and 42.4 percent of children in California lived in a household

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

headed by an immigrant. More than half of all immigrant-headed households in California were headed by an immigrant from Latin America and approximately one-fourth were headed by an Asian immigrant.

With the rise in the number of foreign-born residents, immigration issues have taken center stage on the California political scene. In 1994, Californians voted in favor of Proposition 187, which, had it not been blocked by the courts, would have eliminated public education and health services for undocumented aliens (Ayres, 1995). Decrying the costs of incarcerating and providing public education and other services to undocumented aliens. Governor Pete Wilson sued the federal government in 1994 for funds to cover the state's expenditures, claiming that California was adversely affected by failed federal policy ( New York Times, 1994; Freedberg, 1997). In 1998, Californians will return to the polls to determine whether the state will continue to provide bilingual education in the public schools (Pyle, 1997).

The debate over the provision of services to immigrants and costs incurred has been fueled by extensive research into the fiscal impacts of immigration on government revenues and expenditures. Generally, these studies have found that both natives and immigrants make the largest tax contributions to the federal government, that immigrants make lower average tax contributions, and that immigrants are a greater burden on state and local governments (Vernez and McCarthy, 1996; Garvey and Espenshade, 1996). Three studies have examined fiscal impacts of immigrants in California. Los Angeles County (1992) found that recent legal immigrants, legalized aliens, and undocumented aliens and their children incurred costs to the county in excess of their share of the population. Although these immigrants and their families composed 25 percent of the county population, this group consumed 30.9 percent of total county services while paying only 8.7 percent of tax revenues, most of which flowed to the federal government. Two later studies (Romero et al., 1994; Urban Institute, 1994) found that the benefits and services consumed by undocumented aliens greatly exceeded their tax contributions. Rothman and Espenshade (1992) review immigrant fiscal impact studies completed through 1992; Vernez and McCarthy (1996) and MaCurdy et al. (in this volume) review more recent studies.

Several problems with these studies make the results difficult to compare and to fully assess the fiscal impacts of immigration. Among these problems, the earlier studies are limited in scope either because of their focus on undocumented aliens or a small geographic area. The studies do not provide estimates of the contributions of natives, preventing examination of the relative impacts of immigrants. Comparisons of subgroups of immigrants by age or region of origin are also not available. Finally, because the studies examine a limited number of benefits and taxes and fail to match estimates provided with administrative budget information, a full accounting of the relationship between immigrants and government budgets is not provided.

In this chapter I examine the fiscal impacts of native and foreign-born house-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

holds in California on federal, state, and local governments. Five principles established by the Panel on Demographic and Economic Impacts of Immigration guide the research. First, the study seeks to identify the current annual impact of immigrants—the flows of government funds to and from Californian immigrants during the single fiscal year 1994–1995. Two questions summarize this focus. How much did the average immigrant pay in direct taxes and fees during 1994–1995, relative to the average native? How much did the average immigrant receive in government benefits during 1994–1995, relative to the average native? I do not consider the long-term fiscal effects of immigration, which may be different from current annual effects because of the age structure of the immigrant population.1 Indirect effects of immigrants on government revenues or expenditures, which might occur through impacts on the wage rates of natives, prices of goods, or business income, are also not considered in this chapter. Thus, the analysis proposes a short-term partial equilibrium answer to the experimental question of how much an additional immigrant affects government budgets: what would happen to government revenues and expenditures if a single immigrant household entered the state at the beginning of the fiscal year and no adjustments were made in the structure of taxation or government spending per household and this arrival had no effect on other households, prices, or business income?

Second, the analysis considers the household as the unit of analysis, primarily because households or quasi-household units pay most taxes (e.g., income, property, sales, and excise taxes), and households or quasi-household units consume most government services (e.g., public assistance, police, and fire protection). Other taxes paid and benefits received by individuals (e.g., employment taxes, education benefits) can be aggregated to households with relative ease. Use of the household as the unit of analysis has one important effect on the results: native-born children, who receive high levels of education benefits while paying almost nothing in taxes, are counted as part of their parents' households. Thus, the household method appropriately assigns the costs of education for native-born children of immigrants to immigrant households. However, the native-born adult children of immigrants, who are no longer resident in their parents' households, are not counted as part of an immigrant household. The taxes paid and benefits received are counted as native contributions. 2

Third, the analysis follows a micro-level "bottom-up" approach to assigning tax payments and benefit receipt to households. Sample households from survey data serve as the unit of analysis, and characteristics are identified that allow the estimation of each tax payment or benefit amount for each household. House-

1  

The lifetime fiscal impacts of immigrants and their descendants are considered in Chapter 7 of the panel's report (National Research Council, 1997) and by Lee and Miller (in this volume).

2  

This results in a seemingly unfair bias in the results, assigning the children of immigrants to the foreign-born impact during the childhood years in which they receive high levels of education benefits, but counting the taxes paid by these individuals during adulthood to the native impact. Lee and Miller (in this volume) consider the fiscal impacts of the adult children of immigrants.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

holds are then organized into categories, such as by age, nativity, and region of origin of the householder, and the mean values of tax and benefit items are compared. Espenshade and King (1994) conducted the first application of this microdata approach to the study of immigrant fiscal impacts, examining the impact of immigrants in New Jersey using the 1980 Census. Garvey and Espenshade (1996) conducted a similar study for New Jersey using the 1990 Census. The methodology for this California study follows largely on the New Jersey studies. The alternative "top-down" approach, used in most other fiscal impact studies, involves making estimates of total taxes paid (or benefits received) by immigrant households as a group, which are then divided by the estimated number of immigrant households. One problem with this approach is that variation across households resulting from characteristics other than nativity is often ignored. As a result, the top-down method precludes comparisons of native and immigrant households by age of householder, region of origin, citizenship status, or household income. The microdata approach allows these comparisons.

Fourth, an attempt was made at comprehensive treatment of all tax and benefit items at the federal, state, and local government levels. In this study, 13 tax revenue items (67% of total government revenues) and 25 benefit and service items (100% of government expenditures, excluding federal debt interest payments) are allocated to households. The remaining 33 percent of government revenues, primarily taxes paid by corporations and tourists, are addressed later in the chapter.

Fifth, household tax and benefit estimates are reconciled to match administrative totals from government budgets. Allocations to households are made in such a away that the average revenue or expenditure allocated to each household multiplied by the total number of households equals the actual total revenue or expenditure in the government budget. In this way, the study provides a full accounting of the flows of revenues from and expenditures to native and immigrant households.

The following section describes the data and methodology used for this study. In the third section I review the structure of the federal, state, and local revenues and expenditures for fiscal year 1995. In the fourth section I provide an overview of the characteristics of California's native and immigrant households, providing the foundation for the tax and benefit estimates discussed in the fifth section. In the final section I summarize and discuss the results.

DATA AND ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY

The primary data source is the California sample of the Current Population Survey (CPS), March 1995, Annual Demographic File. The file contains data for 4,590 California households completing a detailed survey of income earned or received in 1994. The CPS universe encompasses the civilian noninstitutional

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

population living in households and members of the Armed Forces living in civilian housing units on a military base or in households not on military bases. The CPS does not cover institutionalized persons, including residents of military barracks, rooming houses, mental hospitals, rest homes, and correctional institutions. The interviews contain questions about 20 types of cash income, and 9 types of noncash income, as well as participation in public housing programs. Among these are the major income transfer and noncash benefit programs provided by the federal government, the state of California, and local government agencies. The cash transfer income types identified are Social Security, federal retirement and disability benefits, welfare (AFDC and general assistance), Supplemental Security Income, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, veterans' benefits, and educational assistance. The noncash income types identified are Medicare, Medi-Cal, food stamps, school lunch programs, public housing, rent subsidies, and energy assistance. The 1990 Census of Population and Housing Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) provides supplementary information.

Revenue and expenditure data for federal fiscal year 1995, which began October 1, 1994, and California budget year 1994–1995, which began July 1, 1994, are collected from a number of government sources. Federal revenue and expenditure data are estimates for 1995 reported in the 1996 federal budget (Office of Management and Budget, 1995). The Bureau of the Census (1996b) provides direct benefit and intergovernmental transfer amounts. Expenditure figures for the state of California reflect actual amounts of expenditures for 1994–1995 as reported in the 1996–1997 Governor's Budget (Department of Finance, 1996a). The 1994–1995 Governor's Budget provides state revenue estimates (Department of Finance 1995a); this information is supplemented by information on taxes collected from the Board of Equalization (1995). The California Office of the State Controller (1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c) compiles records of city, county, school district, and special district revenues and expenditures. The most recent reports provide information for fiscal year 1993–1994. The Governor's Budget provides supplementary information about transfers to local governments and local spending.

After estimation of taxes paid and benefits received, households are classed by the nativity and age of the householder. Native households are those in which the householder was born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or U.S. outlying areas, or born abroad of American parents. Third-generation households are those in which both parents of the householder were native born. Second-generation households are those in which at least one parent of the householder was foreign born. Immigrant households are those in which the householder was foreign born. Comparisons are made for each of these household types, as well as for households further classed by the age of the householder (15–39, 40–64, and 65+) and by the place of birth of the householder. These region-of-origin classes are Europe/Canada, Asia, Latin America (encompassing Mexico, Central and

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

South America, and the Caribbean), and other. Comparisons are also made for foreign-born households by citizenship status and native and foreign-born households by income level.

Tax Estimation Methodology

For each tax and benefit item, a combination of household demography, program participation, and income sources and amounts is used to estimate the contribution or cost to government. Estimates are developed for household payments of federal and California personal income taxes; federal and state employment taxes (Social Security, unemployment insurance, and state disability insurance); California and local sales taxes; local property taxes; federal and California tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and fuel taxes; California motor vehicle fees; and federal and California gift and estate taxes.

Federal and state personal income tax values imputed by the Bureau of the Census based on income, home ownership, and household size are adjusted proportionally to match budget or empirical figures. 3,4 Assuming that employer shares of employment taxes are passed on and borne by workers, Social Security, unemployment compensation, and state disability insurance taxes are calculated using earned income of household members employed in nonexempt sectors.5 Sales taxes are calculated by estimating the amount of household income spent on taxable items, based on work by Sheffrin and Dresch (1995), and applying the average statewide tax rate of 8 percent. Property tax amounts are estimated for owner-occupied and rental properties using tax and rent payments reported in the 1990 Census by nativity and age of householder and adjusting these to 1995 levels. Taxes on rental properties are assumed to be passed on by property owners and fully borne by renters. Excise and other taxes are allocated based on estimates of household participation, such as the number of persons age 21 and older who are eligible to pay alcohol taxes, and assuming no differences in tax paid by participating households or individuals by nativity. The specific methods and assumptions made for each benefit item are included in Appendix A.

3  

The Bureau of the Census (1993a) used these variables to impute filing status, capital gains, itemized deductions, and exemptions and to calculate estimated tax payments.

4  

The total weighted sum of state personal income taxes imputed by the Census Bureau exceeds actual state receipts by $4 billion. In order to match the administrative total, household estimates are reduced proportionally by 16.95 percent. Similarly, federal income taxes imputed by the Census Bureau appear to underestimate federal receipts from California and these estimates are increased by 7.23 percent. With ideal data, the survey estimates would match administrative totals, and no adjustment would be necessary.

5  

My goal in this chapter is to provide a cross-sectional examination of tax and benefit flows. All taxes are treated as contributions to a general fund rather than to a trust fund from which the taxpayer may draw at a later date. Similarly, benefits are treated as monetary transfers from a general fund, rather than as a government-held retirement, disability, or health plan.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Corporations and out-of-state tourists pay less than 33 percent of taxes contributed in California. Although some share of corporate taxes is likely passed on to households through higher prices, these indirect taxes are not estimated in this chapter. Instead, an adjustment is made in the calculation of household fiscal impacts assuming that corporate and tourist taxes pay for services and benefits received by these entities, and the benefits received by households are reduced by the amounts of these taxes.

Benefit Estimation Methodology

For each budget item, the amount ''paid" to California households by government entities is identified and, where possible, an estimate of administrative costs is added. The average household or individual benefit is estimated by dividing the total program expenditure amount by the CPS estimate of the number of participating households and individuals. Estimates of household benefits and services received are developed for all major federal, California, and local income transfer programs; health care; K-12 and higher education services; corrections costs; and other federal, California, and local expenditures. 6

Three methods are used to allocate benefits. The first method identifies participating households and assumes no differences by nativity or age of householder in average benefits received by these households. Average household benefits are allocated to participating households for federal civilian and military benefits, railroad retirement benefits, veterans' benefits, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, energy assistance, housing assistance, and general assistance. The second method identifies the number of benefit recipients in each participating household and assumes no differences by nativity or age of householder in average benefits received for each individual participant. Average recipient benefits are allocated to participating households based on the number of recipients for food stamps, educational assistance, Medicare, Medical, and school lunches, and the number of students participating in K-12 education7 and higher education. The third method identifies participating households

6  

The multiple beneficiaries of government spending may not be reflected in this analysis. For example, education spending may benefit both those receiving educations resulting from government spending and indirect beneficiaries such as corporations that profit from a highly trained labor pool. In this case, the benefits of education spending are allocated to the students incurring the expenditure.

7  

The statewide average per pupil expenditure for K-12 education is allocated to each student. Two important issues arise here and in other studies of fiscal impacts. First, immigrants and their children may reside in school districts in which per pupil expenditures are different on average than those in which the children of natives are enrolled. This may not be a significant issue in California because the state attempts to equalize funding across school districts. In 1976, the California Supreme Court ruled in Serrano v. Priest that funding mechanisms which created disparities across school districts were unconstitutional. A study of California school financing found that by 1985–1986, 91 percent of public school students were enrolled in school districts with per pupil expenditures within $100 of the statewide average expenditure (Silva and Sonstelie, 1995). A second issue is variation in the "true" benefit received by students, which may result from variation in the quality of education received across schools or school districts.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

and assumes benefits depend on the nativity and age of the household head in proportion to benefit differentials observed in the 1990 Census. Average benefits for each householder nativity and age class are estimated for 1995 based on average benefits in 1990.8 This method is used for allocation of Social Security, AFDC, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

Government expenditures on general government activities, national defense, environmental protection, transportation, public health, public safety, and criminal incarceration are assumed to benefit all households equally. Federal debt interest payments are not allocated. Average rather than marginal costs are allocated.9 The specific methods and assumptions made for each benefit item are included in Appendix B.

Sources of Inaccuracy

Several sources of inaccuracy in the CPS data must be acknowledged. Sampling error may be large because the California sample is small (4,590 households) and is not a simple random sample. Census Bureau methods and parameters are used to calculate standard errors for household characteristics and program participation rates. These methods yield error estimates based on the size of the population for which the error is being calculated rather than the number of households or persons sampled. Adjustment parameters are included for specific characteristics and population subgroups and depend on the Bureau's assessment of the effect of the sampling method on the accuracy of the estimate.

Nonsampling error may result from inaccurate reporting of income sources and amounts. The Census Bureau reports an estimate of underreporting of 11 percent of all income in the 1987 survey, resulting both from underreporting of receipt and from underreporting of income amounts. Some income types are subject to greater underreporting than others, and 99.4 percent of wage and salary income is reported. Irregular income such as interest and unemployment com-

8  

For example, native recipient households in 1990 received higher average Social Security benefits compared with immigrant recipient households. Benefits allocated reflect this differential, after controlling for changes in the age and nativity distribution of recipients.

9  

Two areas where marginal costs are arguably important are K-12 education and incarceration costs. California's school districts spent approximately 10 percent of K-12 funds on building costs during 1993–1994 (Office of the State Controller, 1996b). Some of these funds were spent on new school buildings needed because of enrollment growth, whereas other funds were spent on retrofitting older school buildings for earthquake safety. For this reason, and because both immigrant and native households experienced increases in the number of school-age children since 1990, it is not clear to what extent capital outlay is attributable to enrollment growth due to immigrant households. Capital outlay was 1.2 percent of the $3.5 billion state corrections budget in 1994–1995 (Department of Finance, 1996a).

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

pensation is subject to particularly high underreporting (Bureau of the Census, 1993a). Underreporting of benefit receipt is corrected in this analysis by allocating total budget amounts to households reporting participation. This method has the effect of raising the average allocation to an individual participating household, but the average benefit across all households does not change. In other words, the underestimated participation rate is multiplied by an overestimated benefit amount. As mentioned above, ideally, survey data would reflect administrative totals, and these crude adjustments would not be necessary. However, if underreporting is proportional to the observed participation rate and not related to nativity or age, perfect reporting would not produce different results. Top coding of income amounts will result in underestimates of income tax paid, particularly because of progressive taxation.

Furthermore, use of the March 1995 CPS data may underestimate income and overestimate program participation in 1995. Income levels and income transfer program participation rates in the data reflect household experiences during 1994, while the budget year examined includes part of 1994 and most of 1995. Improvement in California's economy likely led to lower participation in welfare programs and increased tax contributions. California payrolls grew 4.5 percent during the second quarter of 1995 and personal income rose 5.2 percent during the 1994–1995 budget year (Board of Equalization, 1995). The net effects of underreporting and economic shifts are likely to exacerbate underestimation of taxes contributed, but declines in program participation resulting from an improving economy should offset underreported participation. Underestimation of taxes is avoided by adjusting income tax amounts proportionally to match budget or empirical data.

GOVERNMENT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

Government Revenues

Revenues from California by government level are displayed in Table 4-1. Federal revenues from taxes and borrowed funds totaled $1,538 billion during fiscal year 1995. Personal income taxes constituted 39 percent of federal revenues, the largest single source of revenue. Social security and unemployment insurance contributions were the second largest revenue source (32%). Corporate taxes, excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and motor fuels, and miscellaneous receipts constituted another 18 percent of total revenues. Borrowed funds accounted for the remaining 11 percent (Office of Management and Budget, 1995).

Federal tax contributions in 1995 from California households and corporations are not directly available and must be estimated based on the percentage of federal revenues paid by California households and corporations during previous years. In 1993, 13.2 million California households and individuals filed federal income tax returns and paid $63.9 billion in federal personal in-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-1 Revenues by Level of Government, Fiscal Year 1995 (in thousands)

Revenue Item

Federal Governmenta

State of California

Local Governments

Total Government Revenues

Total Allocated to Householdsb

Individual Income Taxes

71,711,000

18,500,000

 

90,211,000

90,211,000

Social Security (OASDHI)

54,2311,750

   

54,311,750

54,311,750

Railroad Retirement

323,000

   

323,000

323,000

Unemployment Insurance

3,199,601

   

3,199,601

3,199,601

State Disability Insurance

 

1,967,827

 

1,967,827

1,967,827

Corporate Taxes

15,933,000

5,716,000

 

21,649,000

0

Sales Tax

 

16,283,000

7,130,000

23,413,000

10,540,019

Property Tax

   

19,300,000

19,300,000

11,287,156

Tobacco Tax

429,840

685,383

 

1,115,223

970,093

Alcohol Tax

990,486

269,056

 

1,259,542

1,094,743

Fuel Tax

2,913,429

2,752,005

 

5,665,434

3,206,937

Gambling Fees

 

649,829

 

649,829

649,829

Other Excise Taxes

1,685,756

   

1,685,756

0

Estate and Gift Taxes

2,335,283

599,000

 

2,934,283

2,934,283

Customs Duties

2,383,000

   

2,383,000

0

Vehicle Fees

 

4,700,000

 

4,700,000

1,944,968

Insurance Premiums

 

1,059,000

 

1,059,000

0

Current Services/Other Sources

   

27,705,000

27,705,000

0

Miscellaneous Receipts

2,428,000

1,689,344

4,680,000

8,797,344

0

Total Taxes and Fees

$158,644,145

$54,870,444

$58,815,000

$272,329,589

$182,641,206

a Federal amounts are estimates for taxes paid by California households and corporations based on Current Population Survey and historical data.

b Amounts in this column represent the revenues directly attributable to households. These amounts are allocated to households in later tables. The remaining revenues are revenues contributed primarily by corporations. Per-household shares of these "Unallocated Revenues" are included in Table 4-7.

Sources: Office of Management and Budget, 1994, 1995; Bureau of theCensus, 1996b; Department of Finance, 1995a, 1996a; Office of theState Controller, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

come taxes, constituting 12.0 percent of federal personal income taxes collected (U.S. Internal Revenue Service, 1995b). In 1992, Californians contributed $44.94 billion to the OASDHI funds, 11.42 percent of the national total (Social Security Administration, 1996). Railroad retirement contributions from California were $323 million in 1994. The share of corporate taxes generated from California is assumed to be proportional to California's share of total U.S. households. Using these historical data, the estimated contributions of California households and corporations are approximately $72 billion in federal individual income taxes, $54 billion in Social Security taxes, and $15.9 billion in federal corporate taxes during fiscal year 1995. Based on state excise tax revenues, sales of taxable items in California generated an estimated $2.9 billion in federal fuel taxes, $991 million in federal alcohol taxes, and $430 million in federal tobacco taxes (Board of Equalization, 1995). In 1994, 15.4 percent of federal estate taxes were paid in California (U.S. Internal Revenue Service, 1995a). Based on this figure, the government generated an estimated $2.3 billion in estate taxes from California in 1995. The total federal tax contribution from California is estimated at $158.6 billion, 11.6 percent of total federal receipts (excluding borrowed funds). California households' share of borrow funds equals $19.2 billion during fiscal year 1995.

The state of California collected $54.9 billion in taxes and other revenues during 1994–1995. Personal income taxes are the largest source of revenue for California: In 1994–1995, the state collected $18.5 billion in personal income taxes, amounting to 33.8 percent of total state revenues. Sales taxes are the second largest revenue source for the state, totaling $16.3 billion in 1994–1995. Bank and corporation taxes constituted 10.5 percent of state revenues, and gasoline taxes and vehicle license fees were 13.4 percent of state revenues (Department of Finance, 1995a).

Local governments in California include 58 counties, 469 cities, 1,001 K-12 school districts, and more than 4,000 special districts. The primary source of revenue for local governments is property tax revenue, totaling $19.3 billion during 1994–1995. Of this revenue, 52 percent is allocated to K-14 schools, 19 percent to counties, 11 percent to cities, and 18 percent to redevelopment agencies and other special districts. Sales and use taxes contributed $7.13 billion to local government coffers (Board of Equalization, 1995). Other taxes, including utility users, business license, and transient occupancy taxes contribute $4.68 billion to local government revenues. Current services and other revenue sources raised $27.7 billion10 (Board of Equalization, 1995; Office of the State Controller, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c).

10  

This figure was calculated as the total of other revenue sources for counties, cities, school districts, and special districts as reported in the 1993–1994 series of reports from the Office of the State Controller. The 1993–1994 values were carried over to 1994–1995.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Government Expenditures

Table 4-2 displays expenditures in California by government level. Federal spending during fiscal year 1995 totaled $1,538.9 billion. Benefits paid to individuals accounted for approximately 48 percent of spending. Social Security, federal retirement benefits, and Medicare amounted to 37.7 percent of the budget total. National defense and interest paid on the federal debt comprised 18 percent and 14 percent, respectively. Grants to states and localities were 15 percent of federal spending with the remaining 5 percent spent on other federal operations, including expenditures on scientific research, environmental protection, national parks, and public health services (Office of Management and Budget, 1995).

Federal spending on direct benefits to Californians totaled $75.8 billion in 1995. The largest components were Social Security benefits ($31.2 billion) and Medicare payments ($19.6 billion). In addition, the federal government transferred $26.9 billion to the state of California and local governments, and federal spending on poverty programs for Californians was more than $25 billion in direct payments and intergovernmental transfers. California's share of national defense, interest payments, and other expenditures equaled $61.4 billion. California's share of all federal spending totaled $170.5 billion (Bureau of the Census, 1996b).

State expenditures of state revenues totaled $53.9 billion in 1994 –1995. Education comprises the largest share of expenditures: $16.4 billion was spent on K-12 education and $5.8 billion was spent on higher education; $10.9 billion was spent on the state shares of the three largest health and welfare programs for the poor: Medi-Cal, AFDC, and SSI. The state spent $3.6 billion on youth and adult corrections; and general government operations, including transportation, environmental protection, and legislative and judicial functions, totaled $8.2 billion. The remaining $9.2 billion was passed on to local governments (Department of Finance, 1996a).

California's 58 counties and 469 cities spent an estimated $45 billion in addition to welfare spending during fiscal year 1994–1995. Public protection, at one-third of total expenditures, is the single largest component of city and county spending. Additional county and city spending includes expenditures on public health, sanitation, recreation, culture, transportation, and public utilities. The state's 1,001 school districts spent $29 billion in 1994–1995, including $10.4 billion in local revenues (Office of the State Controller, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c). California's community colleges spent $1.3 billion in local property tax revenues. Additional local spending by special districts is not included (Department of Finance, 1995a).

CHARACTERISTICS OF CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLDS

California was home to an estimated 31.7 million people living in noninstitutional housing in March 1995. Between 1990 and 1995, more than 1.2 million

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-2 Expenditures by Level of Government, Fiscal Year 1995 (in thousands)

Expenditure Item

Federal Government

State of California

Local Governments

Total Government Expenditures

Social Security

31,243,608

   

31,243,608

Federal Retirement and Disability

3,823,317

   

3,823,317

Military Retirement and Disability

3,506,669

   

3,506,669

Railroad Retirement

480,925

   

480,925

Medicare

19,603,300

   

19,603,300

Unemployment Compensation

4,272,532

   

4,272,532

Workers' Compensation

291,882

   

291,882

Veterans' Benefits

1,505,386

   

1,505,386

Pell Grants

613,633

   

613,633

Medi-Cal

9,095,207

6,040,337

 

15,135,544

Aid to Families with Dependent Children

2,935,678

2,814,883

 

5,750,561

Supplemental Security Income

3,542,779

2,017,714

 

5,560,493

Housing Benefits

3,833,250

   

3,833,250

Food Stamps

2,723,221

   

2,723,221

School Lunches

899,757

   

899,757

General Assistance

   

450,000

450,000

Energy Assistance

66,796

   

66,796

Earned Income

Tax Credit

2,405,545

   

2,405,545

K-12 Education

2,404,000

16,370,000

10,360,000

29,134,000

Higher Education

4,000,242

5,768,303

1,270,900

11,039,445

State Corrections

34,756

3,573,496

 

3,608,252

National Defense

30,799,440

   

31,234,000

Net Interest (less offsets)

21,867,149

   

22,175,680

Other Federal Operations

8,725,563

   

8,848,675

Other State Operations

7,815,697

8,155,559

 

15,971,256

Other Local Operations

3,962,351

9,164,556

46,734,100

59,861,007

Total Expenditures

$170,452,683

$53,904,848

$58,185,000

$283,172,531

SOURCES: Office of Management and Budget, 1994, 1995; Bureau of theCensus, 1996b; Department of Finance, 1995a, 1996a; Office of theState Controller, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

international immigrants settled in California (Byerly and Deardoff, 1995; Bureau of the Census, 1996a). In March 1995, 7.7 million immigrants resided in California, 24.4 percent of the state's population, up from 21.6 percent in 1990. An additional 6.6 million Californians are second-generation Americans while 17.3 million Californians are third-generation natives. Of California's 11.2 million householders, 25.3 percent are foreign born, 14.0 percent are second-generation natives, and 60.7 percent are third-generation natives. More than half of foreign-born householders were born in Latin America. Latin American immigrant households constitute 14.1 percent of California households; Asian immigrant households make up 6.3 percent of the state total.

Household Size and Structure

Socioeconomic characteristics of households by nativity of householder are presented in Table 4-3a, 4-3b, and 4-3c. The average household contains 2.79 persons, including 0.83 children and 0.31 persons age 65 and older. Native households are slightly smaller on average, and second-generation households are slightly smaller than third-generation households. Immigrant households are larger, containing 3.72 persons on average, including 1.37 children. Among immigrant households, Latin American and Asian immigrant households are particularly large. Households headed by immigrants from Latin America contain 4.18 persons on average, including 1.70 children, but only 0.15 persons over age 64. Similarly, households headed by Asian immigrants contain 3.54 persons on average, including 1.15 children and 0.26 elderly persons. In contrast, European/Canadian immigrant households are the smallest, containing 2.18 persons on average. Immigrant households contain a higher average number of adult earners than natives, particularly Latin American immigrant households. Second-generation households contain fewer earners than third-generation households.

As a result of the larger average size of California's immigrant households, 34 percent of household residents live in a foreign-born household. While only 10.1 percent of children are immigrants themselves, 42.4 percent of children live in a household headed by an immigrant. The percentage of children who reside in the home of a Latin American immigrant householder is 30.4 percent. Of persons age 65 and older, 18.9 percent live in an immigrant household.

Characteristics of Householders

Foreign-born householders are younger than native householders on average, and second-generation householders are older than third-generation householders on average. Of immigrant householders, 47.5 percent are younger than age 40, and 87.6 percent are younger than age 65, compared with 77.1 percent of native householders. Only 12.4 percent of foreign-born householders are age 65 and older, compared with 22.9 percent of natives. Second-generation household-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-3a Demographic and Economic Profile of California Households by Nativity of Householder, 1995

 

All Households

Native Born

Third Generation

Households

11,235,736

8,385,080

6,807,009

Persons

2.79

2.48

2.51

Children < Age 18

0.83

0.64

0.67

Schoolage Children

0.58

0.46

0.49

% LEP

16.8%

2.4%

2.2%

College Students (Age 16–24)

0.07

0.06

0.06

Persons age 65 and older

0.31

0.34

0.29

Adult Wage Earners

1.38

1.32

1.37

Householders

Age 15–39

38.6%

35.6%

37.1%

Age 40–64

41.2%

41.5%

43.6%

Age 65+

20.2%

22.9%

19.3%

Mean Age

47.7

49.1

47.7

Male

60.9%

59.5%

60.3%

Spouse Present

53.4%

50.5%

50.9%

Immigrant Spouse | Spouse

32.2%

10.1%

7.5%

Educational Attainment

< High School Diploma

19.4%

10.6%

8.7%

High School Diploma

24.1%

25.6%

25.5%

Some College

30.3%

35.1%

36.1%

Bachelor's Degree +

26.3%

28.7%

29.7%

Household Income, 1994

Mean Household Income

$44,844

$47,884

$49,220

Per Capitaa

$19,671

$22,241

$22,738

Median Household Income

$35,130

$39,184

$40,586

Per Capitaa

$14,616

$17,122

$17,914

Mean Earned Income

$35,255

$37,208

$39,134

Below Poverty Level

14.8%

11.0%

10.7%

Income Above $50,000

35.4%

39.3%

41.1%

Homeowners

56.4%

61.8%

61.6%

n

4,590

3,058

2,379

* Indicates native and immigrant means (or third- and second-generation means) are significantly different at the 5% level.

a Found by calculating per capita income for each household and averaging over all households in the category.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, March 1995.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Foreign-born Households by Region of Origin

Second Generation

Foreign Born

Europe/ Canada

Asia

Latin America

Other

1,578,070

2,850,656

345,234

698,952

1,592,190

214,280

2.36

3.72*

2.18

3.54*

4.18*

3.41*

0.52*

1.37*

0.42

1.15*

1.70*

1.22*

0.36*

0.93*

0.28

0.87*

1.10*

0.93*

2.0%

37.6%

9.3%

35.4%

40.4%

31.4%

0.07

0.10*

0.06

0.16*

0.09

0.10

0.53*

0.23*

0.45

0.26

0.15*

0.34

1.11*

1.56*

1.05

1.52

1.70*

1.42

29.4%

47.5%

21.6%

36.9%

58.3%

44.1%

32.4%

40.1%

44.0%

51.6%

33.9%

42.4%

38.1%

12.4%

34.4%

11.5%

7.8%

13.5%

54.9

43.7

56.0

45.2

40.0

45.8

56.1%

65.0%*

58.1%

66.2%

64.6%*

75.0%*

48.9%

61.8%*

46.7%

67.9%*

61.2%*

70.3%

21.5%

85.4%

57.8%

93.2%

87.7%

74.7%

18.7%*

45.3%*

21.8%*

19.7%*

65.6%*

15.8%

26.0%

19.6%*

21.3%*

20.3%

18.8%*

20.3%

30.8%*

16.0%*

24.6%*

23.8%*

10.4%*

18.3%*

24.5%*

19.1%*

32.4%

36.3%

5.1%*

45.6%*

$42,118

$35,903

$42,857

$45,589

$28,447

$48,499

$20,098

$12,114

$22,122

$15,135

$8,018

$16,572

$32,555

$26,193

$32,870

$37,800

$22,000

$38,634

$14,872

$7,805

$15,750

$12,076

$6,003

$14,825

$28,900

$29,513

$30,315

$38,007

$24,514

$37,656

12.1%

26.3%

17.6%

17.8%

33.1%

17.1%

31.6%

23.8%

35.6%

37.2%

13.5%

37.8%

62.4%

40.5%*

53.4%

42.8%*

34.4%*

56.6%*

679

1,532

131

335

977

88

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-3b Demographic and Economic Profile of California Households by Age and Nativity of Householder, 1995

 

Householders Age 15–39

 

All

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

All

Households

4,342,222

2,987,342

2,522,814

464,527

1,354,880

4,623,610

Persons

3.17

2.80

2.76

2.98

3.99

2.95

Children < Age 18

1.26

1.04

1.02

1.13

1.74

0.80

School-age Children

0.77

0.66

0.65

0.71

1.01

0.67

% LEP

19.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

43.4%

14.8%

College Students

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.08

0.05

0.12

Persons age 65+

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.04

0.06

Adult Wage Earners

1.56

1.54

1.55

1.51

1.59

1.69

Householders

Mean Age

31.4

31.6

31.7

30.7

31.0

49.9

Male

60.8%

58.3%

58.7%

55.7%

66.4%

64.6%

Spouse Present

49.0%

43.8%

43.3%

47.0%

60.3%

61.9%

Immigrant Spouse | Spouse

42.2%

12.8%

9.0%

30.6%

89.4%

30.9%

Educational Attainment

< High School Diploma

20.5%

8.2%

6.9%

15.7%

47.5%

14.8%

High School Diploma

24.0%

26.2%

27.1%

21.6%

19.1%

21.9%

Some College

32.4%

38.8%

39.0%

38.2%

18.3%

30.8%

Bachelor's Degree +

23.1%

26.7%

27.1%

24.5%

15.1%

32.5%

Household Income, 1994

Mean Household Income

$41,419

$45,877

$46,584

$42,039

$31,590

$54,610

Per Capitaa

$17,012

$20,305

$20,723

$18,031

$9,751

$22,764

Median Household Income

$33,356

$39,919

$40,577

$36,700

$31,590

$47,025

Per Capitaa

$12,020

$15,655

$15,952

$14,638

$6,370

$18,108

Mean Earned Income

$37,669

$42,061

$42,739

$38,380

$27,987

$46,643

Below Poverty Level

20.3%

14.4%

13.7%

17.8%

33.4%

11.6%

Income Above $50,000

31.7%

38.0%

38.8%

33.6%

17.7%

47.5%

Homeowners

34.5%

39.3%

39.3%

39.2%

24.0%

67.3%

n

1,862

1,109

890

219

753

1,866

* Indicates native and immigrant means (or third- and second-generation means) are significantly different at the 5% level.

a Found by calculating per capita income for each household and averaging over all households in the category.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, March 1995.

ers are more likely to be age 65 or older (38.1%). European/Canadian householders are also older; Latin American householders are the youngest on average.

Foreign-born householders are more likely than natives to be male and more likely to reside with a spouse, particularly immigrant householders from Asia and Latin America. Among foreign-born householders with a spouse present, 85.4 percent are married to an immigrant, while married third-generation natives are unlikely to be married to an immigrant (7.5%). The nativity distribution of spouses of married second-generation householders more closely resembles that of the general population; 21.5 percent of spouses of second-generation householders are foreign born.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Householders Age 40–64

Householders Age 65+

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

All

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

3,480,394

2,968,484

511,910

1,143,216

2,269,903

1,917,344

1,315,711

601,633

352,559

2.63

2.62

2.66

3.92

1.76

1.71

1.76

1.61

2.04

0.63

0.64

0.53

1.31

0.08

0.06

0.07

0.04

0.18

0.52

0.54

0.42

1.09

0.05

0.04

0.05

0.03

0.11

2.6%

2.7%

2.7%

31.7%

6.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

22.0%

0.09

0.09

0.12

0.19

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.04

0.05

0.04

0.08

0.11

1.36

1.36

1.39

1.31

1.36

1.63

1.64

1.63

1.85

0.43

0.42

0.45

0.36

0.47

50.2

49.7

52.9

49.0

74.5

74.4

73.9

75.3

75.1

63.7%

63.7%

63.6%

67.5%

53.7%

54.0%

55.8%

50.2%

51.5%

59.5%

59.1%

62.1%

69.2%

44.5%

44.6%

47.1%

39.2%

43.7%

9.6%

7.8%

20.0%

86.1%

14.8%

6.7%

3.8%

15.1%

59.7%

6.3%

5.1%

13.2%

40.4%

26.8%

22.0%

20.3%

25.8%

52.9%

22.3%

22.2%

22.7%

20.8%

28.6%

30.7%

30.0%

32.2%

17.2%

36.2%

36.7%

33.0%

14.4%

25.0%

27.3%

29.2%

23.2%

12.5%

35.2%

35.9%

31.2%

24.4%

19.5%

19.9%

20.4%

18.8%

17.5%

$58,214

$58,573

$56,130

$43,637

$31,503

$32,258

$33,173

$30,258

$27,397

$25,590

$25,821

$24,246

$14,163

$18,560

$19,179

$19,642

$18,165

$14,551

$51,390

$52,200

$50,360

$34,241

$20,373

$20,906

$21,078

$19,370

$14,929

$21,010

$21,346

$16,834

$9,350

$12,909

$13,649

$13,687

$13,593

$8,707

$49,595

$49,917

$47,727

$37,656

$7,441

$7,160

$7,892

$5,560

$8,972

8.5%

8.3%

9.3%

21.0%

11.1%

10.2%

10.3%

10.0%

15.9%

52.1%

52.3%

51.0%

33.4%

17.9%

18.2%

20.3%

13.6%

16.2%

71.3%

71.4%

70.3%

55.4%

75.8%

79.6%

82.2%

73.7%

55.1%

1,260

1,033

227

606

862

689

456

233

173

Foreign-born householders have lower educational attainment than natives, and wide variations exist across region-of-origin groups. Although nearly 90 percent of native householders have attained at least a high school diploma, only 54.7 percent of immigrant householders have completed high school. Approximately one-fifth of European/Canadian and Asian immigrant householders and two-thirds of Latin American immigrant householders did not complete high school. Of native householders, 28.7 percent have earned a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 19.1 percent of immigrant householders. European/Canadian and Asian householders exhibit higher college attainment with 32.4 percent

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-3c Demographic and Economic Profile of California Households by Selected Household Characteristics, 1995

 

Foreign Born

Income below Poverty

 

Citizens

Non- citizens

Native Born

Foreign Born

Households

825,086

2,025,569

919,306

748,663

Persons

3.23

3.92

2.47

4.25

Children < Age 18

0.98

1.53

0.97

2.11

School-age Children

0.71

1.02

0.63

1.39

% LEP

34.2%

38.4%

2.1%

39.1%

College Students

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

Persons age 65 and older

0.38

0.17

0.26

0.15

Adult Wage Earners

1.57

1.55

0.55

0.99

Householders

Age 15–39

24.9%

56.7%

46.7%

60.4%

Age 40–64

52.0%

35.3%

32.1%

32.1%

Age 65+

23.1%

8.0%

21.2%

7.5%

Mean Age

51.4

40.5

45.5

40.1

Male

64.7%

65.1%

37.8%

51.7%

Spouse Present

63.1%

61.3%

17.9%

52.4%

Immigrant Spouse | Spouse

74.6%

89.9%

17.9%

94.8%

Educational Attainment

< High School Diploma

21.9%

54.9%

24.5%

68.2%

High School Diploma

20.5%

19.2%

36.4%

16.1%

Some College

24.4%

12.6%

29.7%

9.8%

Bachelor's Degree +

33.1%

13.4%

9.5%

5.9%

Household Income, 1994

Mean Household Income

$50,854

$29,812

$8,115

$10,617

Per Capitaa

$18,364

$9,568

   

Median Household Income

$41,853

$22,743

   

Per Capitaa

$13,620

$6,428

   

Mean Earned Income

$41,255

$24,730

$3,472

$7,125

Below Poverty Level

11.9%

32.1%

   

Income Above $50,000

43.0%

16.0%

   

Homeowners

65.4%

30.3%

32.5%

16.8%

n

394

1,138

357

425

* Indicates native and immigrant means (or third- and second-generation means) are significantly different at the 5% level.

a Found by calculating per capita income for each household and averaging over all households in the category.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, March 1995.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Income above Poverty

Income below Median

Income above Median

Income above $50,000

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

7,465,773

2,101,993

3,810,733

1,771,363

4,574,347

1,079,293

3,299,394

678,364

2.48

3.53

2.07

3.55

2.82

3.99

2.94

4.03

0.60

1.11

0.56

1.45

0.71

1.25

0.72

1.21

0.44

0.77

0.39

0.96

0.53

0.89

0.53

0.85

2.2%

36.6%

2.2%

38.7%

2.3%

35.4%

2.3%

33.7%

0.06

0.12

0.05

0.08

0.08

0.14

0.09

0.20

0.35

0.25

0.46

0.26

0.23

0.18

0.20

0.21

1.42

1.76

0.77

1.17

1.79

2.18

1.92

2.29

34.3%

42.9%

34.6%

51.7%

36.5%

40.6%

34.4%

35.3%

42.7%

42.9%

30.2%

33.0%

50.9%

51.8%

55.0%

56.3%

23.1%

14.1%

35.2%

15.3%

12.6%

7.6%

10.6%

8.4%

49.5

45.0

52.2

43.6

46.5

43.8

46.4

45.3

62.2%

69.7%

45.1%

59.4%

71.6%

74.1%

75.8%

77.8%

54.6%

65.1%

29.4%

55.0%

68.1%

72.9%

75.3%

76.8%

9.7%

82.8%

14.3%

90.0%

8.5%

79.7%

8.4%

76.7%

8.9%

37.2%

18.9%

58.8%

3.7%

23.2%

2.3%

17.2%

24.3%

20.8%

32.4%

19.2%

19.9%

20.2%

18.2%

14.8%

35.8%

18.2%

35.4%

11.7%

34.9%

23.1%

32.5%

25.4%

31.0%

23.8%

13.3%

10.3%

41.5%

33.5%

47.0%

42.6%

$52,781

$44,909

$17,598

$16,795

$73,114

$67,262

$85,159

$82,527

$41,362

$37,486

$9,613

$12,215

$60,197

$57,901

$70,925

$70,221

65.4%

48.9%

47.0%

26.4%

74.1

63.6%

79.0%

69.9%

2701

1107

1645

544

1413

988

1179

330

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

of European/Canadian and 36.3 percent of Asian immigrant householders holding bachelor's degrees, while only 5.1 percent of Latin American immigrant householders have completed a bachelor's degree.

Income, Poverty, and Home Ownership

Median household income in 1994 was $35,130. Third-generation households had higher levels of total household and earned income than either second-generation or immigrant households in 1994. Median household income for third-generation households was $40,586, compared with $32,555 for second-generation households and $26,193 for immigrant households. Among foreign-born households, Asian immigrant households enjoyed the highest household income levels while Latin American households reported the lowest levels of income. Foreign-born households earned a greater share of their household income (82%) than did native households (77%). Foreign-born households are more likely to have household income below the poverty line. Of foreign-born households, 26.3 percent had incomes below the poverty line, compared with 14.8 percent of native households. Nearly one-third of Latin American immigrant households live below the poverty line.

In 1995 native householders were more likely than immigrant householders to own their residence. Of native householders, 61.8 percent were homeowners, compared with 40.5 percent of immigrant householders. No difference in home ownership is observed between third- and second-generation homeowners. European/Canadian householders were more likely than other immigrants to own, and Latin American householders are least likely to own.

Program Participation

Participation in income transfer, health care, and other assistance programs by nativity and age of householder is displayed in Table 4-4a. Generally, native households exhibit greater participation in nonpoverty programs than immigrant households while the reverse is true for poverty programs. Approximately 27 percent of native households received Social Security benefits in 1994 and a similar percentage included at least one person covered by Medicare, while 15.2 percent of immigrant households received Social Security and 16.2 percent contained at least one person covered by Medicare. Second-generation and European/Canadian households were more likely to receive benefits from these programs, reflecting higher average numbers of elderly in these households. Only 12 percent of Asian and Latin American households received benefits from Social Security and Medicare. Among households headed by someone age 65 or older, immigrant householders were less likely to receive Social Security benefits. Native households were also more likely to receive federal civilian and military retirement benefits and veterans' benefits but immigrant households

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

were more likely to receive unemployment compensation, particularly Latin American immigrant households.

Participation in eight benefit programs for the poor are examined, and immigrant households exhibit greater participation in the six largest. Household participation rates for natives were 14.3 percent for Medicaid, 4.8 percent for AFDC, 4.2 percent for SSI, 3.5 percent for housing benefits, 5.9 percent for food stamps, and 5.6 percent for the school lunch program in 1994. Immigrant households are twice as likely as native households to participate in Medi-Cal, AFDC, SSI, housing programs, and food stamps, and more than four times as likely to participate in the school lunch program. For Medi-Cal, food stamps, and school lunches, participating immigrant households also report higher average numbers of participants. Participation in Medi-Cal, AFDC, food stamps, and school lunches was highest among Latin American immigrant households for all programs except SSI; Asian immigrant households were most likely to receive SSI. Of Latin American households, 36.3 percent report Medi-Cal coverage and 36.2 percent report participation in the school lunch program. These findings are consistent with the 1990 Census data and with other data sources (Borjas and Hilton, 1996; Bean et al., 1997). Among native households, second-generation households were more likely to receive SSI. Controlling for the age of the householder (Table 4-4b), immigrant households in all three age classes were more likely than natives to have Medi-Cal coverage. Immigrant households with heads age 15–39 and 40–64 exhibit statistically significant greater participation in food stamps and school lunch programs, and older immigrant households are more likely than natives to receive SSI and housing benefits. Among households with incomes below the poverty line (Table 4-4c), foreign-born households exhibit greater participation in Medi-Cal, food stamps, and the school lunch program and lower participation in AFDC, SSI, and housing benefits.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLDS

Tax Contributions of California Households

Table 4-5a displays average household tax contributions by nativity of household head. The average California household pays a total of $16,227 in taxes: approximately $8,000 in income taxes, $5,300 in employment taxes, $940 in sales tax, $1,000 in property tax, and $930 in miscellaneous other taxes. The federal government receives 73.7 percent of total contributions, 18.3 percent of taxes flow to the state of California, and 7.9 percent flow to local governments.

Native households pay higher average contributions than immigrant households for all taxes except unemployment insurance, state disability insurance, and excise taxes. The proportional differences between native and immigrant households are largest for federal and California personal income taxes. Native households pay an average tax of $7,224 in federal income tax and $1,862 in state

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-4a Household Participation in Income Transfer, Health Care, and Assistance Programs by Nativity of Householder, 1994

 

All Households

Native Born

Third Generation

Social Security

23.8%

26.7%

23.6%

Recipientsa

0.322

0.363

0.324

1989 mean

$7,966

8,081

8,081

Medicare

23.5%

26.0%

22.7%

Recipients

0.317

0.35

0.307

Federal Benefits

2.1%

2.6%

2.3%

Military Benefits

2.1%

2.5%

2.6%

Railroad Benefits

0.9%

0.9%

0.8%

Unemployment Compensation

9.4%

8.8%

9.0%

Workers' Compensation

3.1%

3.2%

3.5%

Veterans' Benefits

2.3%

2.9%

3.0%

Pell Grants

4.7%

4.6%

4.8%

Recipients

0.052

0.048

0.05

Medi-Cal

18.3%

14.3%

13.7%

Recipients

0.463

0.308

0.305

AFDC

6.1%

4.8%

4.8%

Recipients

0.068

0.052

0.052

1989 mean

$7,315

6,902

6,902

SSI

5.0%

4.2%

3.8%

Recipients

0.056

0.045

0.041

1989 mean

$5,467

4,941

4,941

Housing Benefits

4.2%

3.5%

3.3%

Food Stamps

7.9%

5.9%

5.8%

Recipients

0.245

0.165

0.167

School Lunches

10.6%

5.6%

5.7%

Recipients

0.208

0.102

0.105

General Assistance

1.1%

0.8%

0.8%

Energy Assistance

2.9%

2.9%

3.0%

* Indicates native and immigrant means (or third- and second-generation means) are significantly different at the 5% level.

a Average number of recipients per household.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, March 1995; Census of Populationand Housing, 1990.

income tax, compared with average taxes of $3,908 and $1,014 among immigrant households; immigrant income tax averages are 54 percent of native averages. The differential is due largely to higher adjusted gross incomes among native households, but higher marginal tax rates among native households and larger numbers of exemptions for household members among immigrant households also play a role. To some extent, greater home ownership and itemization of deductions among native households relative to immigrant households reduces the differential. Third-generation households pay higher taxes than second-gen-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Foreign-born Households by Region of Origin

Second Generation

Foreign Born

Europe/ Canada

Asia

Latin America

Other

39.9%*

15.2%*

35.7%

12.0%*

11.9%*

16.9%*

0.531*

0.199*

0.449

0.161*

0.154*

0.255

8,081

7,297

8,370

6,574

6,307

6,780

40.4%*

16.2%*

34.2%

17.2%*

11.1%*

21.6%

0.533*

0.22*

0.435

0.269*

0.139*

0.32

3.8%

0.6%*

1.1%

0.8%

0.2%*

3.0%

2.4%

1.1%*

2.8%

1.5%

0.6%*

0.0%*

1.3%

0.8%

1.3%

0.4%

0.7%

1.4%

8.3%

10.9%

5.0%

5.8%

15.0%*

6.8%

2.2%

2.7%

2.1%

1.6%

3.2%

3.1%

2.3%

0.9%*

2.0%

1.5%

0.3%*

0.8%

4.0%

4.9%

2.8%

3.9%

5.3%

9.0%

0.041

0.063

0.04

0.051

0.066

0.124

16.8%

30.2%*

14.2%

27.1%*

36.3%*

21.4%

0.322

0.92*

0.307

0.85*

1.122*

0.643

5.0%

9.8%*

3.0%

8.8%*

12.5%*

4.7%

0.052

0.114*

0.041

0.121

0.131*

0.077

6,902

8,188

7,707

10,475

6,119

7,631

5.9%*

7.2%*

8.0%

10.0%*

5.9%

7.0%

0.062

0.087

0.107

0.128

0.064

0.097

4,941

6,721

5,555

8,073

5,483

5,420

4.3%

6.4%*

8.2%

6.5%

6.3%*

4.4%

6.0%

13.7%*

6.0%

12.2%*

16.7%*

8.9%

0.156

0.480*

0.130

0.480*

0.566*

0.408

4.9%

25.2%*

4.3%

14.1%*

36.2%*

13.4%

0.088

0.521*

0.054

0.332*

0.735*

0.3

1.1%

1.9%

2.6%

2.1%

1.5%

2.3%

2.4%

3.0%

6.3%

2.7%

2.8%

0.0%

eration households; among immigrant households, Latin American households pay the lowest taxes. Within age categories (Table 4-5b), the largest immigrant-native differential is observed for households in the 40 to 64-year-old group.

The immigrant-native difference for Social Security is somewhat smaller, and immigrant households actually pay higher unemployment insurance and state disability insurance taxes. The average Social Security tax for immigrant households is 81 percent of the average for native households. The smaller differential for Social Security and higher payments by foreign-born households are due in part to

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

the tax structure; except for the hospital insurance portion of the tax, these taxes are flat up to a maximum taxable income amount. Unemployment insurance has the lowest maximum ($7,000). The higher tax contribution by immigrant households suggests that these households contain a higher average number of wage earners in nonexempt sectors who earn $7,000 or more. Because no deductions or exemptions are allowed for Social Security taxes, immigrant households pay an average Social Security tax higher than their average federal personal income tax. Employ-

TABLE 4-4b Household Participation in Income Transfer, Health Care, and Assistance Programs by Age and Nativity of Householder, 1994

 

Householders Age 15–39

 

All

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

All

Social Security

3.4%

3.6%

3.9%

2.2%

2.8%

11.2%

Recipientsa

0.039

0.043

0.047

0.022

0.03

0.135

1989 mean

$5,366

5,522

5,522

5,522

4,937

6,419

Medicare

1.6%

1.7%

1.8%

1.4%

1.4%

8.4%

Recipients

0.021

0.021

0.023

0.014

0.019

0.101

Federal Benefits

0.3%

0.5%

0.4%

1.1%

0.0%

1.8%

Military Benefits

0.3%

0.3%

0.2%

0.8%

0.3%

2.3%

Railroad Benefits

0.8%

0.9%

0.8%

1.8%

0.5%

1.0%

Unemployment

Compensation

10.5%

11.0%

10.9%

11.5%

9.5%

11.6%

Workers' Compensation

3.4%

3.9%

4.0%

3.2%

2.4%

3.7%

Veterans' Benefits

0.8%

0.9%

1.0%

0.0%

0.6%

2.4%

Pell Grants

7.3%

8.3%

8.2%

8.8%

5.2%*

4.1%

Recipients

0.078

0.085

0.084

0.091

0.062

0.049

Medi-Cal

21.4%

16.7%

16.3%

19.0%

31.8%*

15.8%

Recipients

0.648

0.461

0.448

0.532

1.06

0.399

AFDC

10.7%

9.7%

9.2%

12.3%

13.0%

4.3%

Recipients

0.116

0.104

0.099

0.13

0.141

0.05

1989 mean

$7,261

7,014

7,014

7,014

7,888

7,473

SSI

1.8%

1.5%

1.6%

0.8%

2.4%

5.4%

Recipients

0.02

0.015

0.016

0.008

0.031

0.06

1989 mean

$7,516

7,051

7,051

7,051

7,897

6,537

Housing Benefits

4.7%

4.7%

4.5%

6.2%

4.7%

2.9%

Food Stamps

12.2%

10.2%

9.6%

13.7%

16.4%*

6.7%

Recipients

0.394

0.304

0.288

0.39

0.593*

0.2

School Lunches

16.7%

10.0%

9.8%

11.0%

31.7%*

9.3%

Recipients

0.316

0.178

0.174

0.195

0.621*

0.2

General Assistance

1.2%

1.1%

1.0%

1.8%

1.5%

1.3%

Energy Assistance

2.6%

2.9%

3.0%

2.4%

2.0%

2.5%

* Indicates native and immigrant means (or third- and second-generation means) are significantly different at the 5% level.

a Average number of recipients per household.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, March 1995; Census of Populationand Housing, 1990.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

ment tax contributions are lower than natives for immigrant households in the young and middle-age householder classes. Older immigrant households pay higher employment taxes than similar native households, but older households pay much lower employment taxes than younger households.

The average household contributes $938 in sales tax (Table 4-5a). Because sales tax is a flat tax on consumption, lower-income households pay a greater share of household income in sales tax. The average native household contribution is

Householders Age 40–64

Householders Age 65+

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

All

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

11.5%

10.6%

16.5%*

10.4%

88.5%

90.3%

90.9%

88.9%

78.7%*

0.138

0.129

0.19

0.127

1.243

1.272

1.299

1.214

1.086

6,543

6,543

6,543

5,762

8,589

8,658

8,658

8,658

8,146

7.9%

7.7%

9.1%

9.8%

96.3%

96.9%

96.7%

97.2%

93.6%

0.09

0.087

0.108

0.133

1.324

1.333

1.35

1.294

1.275

2.1%

2.0%

2.8%

1.0%*

6.1%

6.8%

6.9%

6.7%

2.1%*

2.8%

2.9%

1.8%

1.1%*

5.2%

5.5%

6.1%

4.1%

3.6%

1.0%

0.7%

2.4%

1.3%

0.7%

0.8%

1.2%

0.0%

0.4%

10.4%

10.2%

11.6%

15.1%*

2.7%

2.7%

2.6%

2.9%

3.0%

3.7%

3.9%

2.7%

3.6%

1.2%

1.3%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

2.9%

3.0%

2.5%

0.6%*

5.3%

5.8%

6.7%

3.9%

2.5%

3.5%

3.5%

3.6%

6.0%*

0.8%

0.9%

1.1%

0.6%

0.4%

0.038

0.038

0.036

0.082

0.009

0.009

0.011

0.006

0.007

12.1%

11.4%

16.1%

26.9%*

17.7%

14.4%

13.9%

15.6%

35.2%

0.243

0.232

0.311

0.874*

0.242

0.188

0.196

0.17

0.537

2.9%

2.7%

3.9%

8.6%*

0.8%

0.7%

1.0%

0.2%

1.5%

0.031

0.03

0.039

0.109

0.011

0.008

0.011

0.002

0.024

6,809

6,809

6,809

8,526

6,926

6,214

6,214

6,214

8,422

4.5%

4.2%

6.3%

8.2%*

10.2%

7.9%

7.2%

9.5%

22.6%

0.049

0.046

0.063

0.092

0.117

0.085

0.077

0.102

0.29

6,013

6,013

6,013

7,376

6,000

4,523

4,523

4,523

6,062

2.2%

2.2%

2.3%

5.2%

5.8%

3.7%

3.4%

4.5%

17.2%

4.5%

4.4%

5.2%

13.2%

2.1%

1.6%

1.9%

0.8%

5.1%

0.114

0.113

0.115

0.465

0.049

0.041

0.055

0.01

0.097

4.5%

4.5%

4.3%

23.9%

1.4%

0.7%

0.7%

0.8%

4.9%

0.087

0.087

0.086

0.545

0.019

0.011

0.013

0.008

0.057

0.9%

1.0%

0.7%

2.5%

0.4%

0.3%

0.0%

0.9%

1.2%

2.4%

2.6%

1.4%

3.0%

4.3%

3.8%

4.1%

3.3%

6.7%

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-4c Household Participation in Income Transfer, Health Care, and Assistance Programs by Selected Household Characteristics, 1994

 

Foreign Born

Income below Poverty

 

Citizens

Non-Citizens

Native Born

Foreign Born

Social Security

27.4%

10.3%

24.1%

9.9%

Recipientsa

0.348

0.138

0.275

0.108

Medicare

27.6%

11.6%

28.5%

12.2%

Recipients

0.356

0.165

0.324

0.137

Federal Benefits

1.6%

0.3%

0.6%

0.0%

Military Benefits

1.9%

0.7%

0.6%

0.0%

Railroad Benefits

0.7%

0.8%

0.0%

0.0%

Unemployment Compensation

8.9%

11.7%

8.9%

8.8%

Workers' Compensation

2.1%

2.9%

1.7%

1.3%

Veterans' Benefits

2.0%

0.4%

2.2%

0.2%

Pell Grants

3.1%

5.7%

4.8%

4.4%

Recipients

0.047

0.07

0.053

0.052

Medi-Cal

17.6%

35.4%

47.2%

53.7%

Recipients

0.381

1.14

1.183

2.022

AFDC

2.5%

12.8%

25.2%

24.1%

Recipients

0.031

0.147

0.26

0.273

SSI

6.4%

7.6%

10.2%

8.0%

Recipients

0.076

0.092

0.11

0.087

Housing Benefits

3.8%

7.5%

13.1%

11.4%

Food Stamps

4.9%

17.3%

31.1%

36.4%

Recipients

0.144

0.617

0.882

1.344

School Lunches

9.6%

31.6%

20.0%

51.2%

Recipients

0.182

0.659

0.394

1.165

General Assistance

0.6%

2.4%

6.1%

3.3%

Energy Assistance

3.1%

2.9%

10.1%

6.5%

* Indicates native and immigrant means (or third- and second-generation means) are significantly different at the 5% level.

a Average number of recipients per household.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, March 1995; Census of Populationand Housing, 1990.

$992 in sales tax, compared with $778 for the average immigrant household. 11 These estimates are based on household income only and assume no differences in expenditures on taxable items by nativity within income ranges. Immigrant households are larger on average, and may spend a greater share of income on food,

11  

These estimates of sales tax paid by households may underestimate actual taxes paid. Corporations pay a large share of sales tax and tourists from outside the state pay a small share of tax. A top-down allocation based on assumptions that corporations pay 35 percent of sales tax and that out-of-state tourists pay 8.5 percent of tax yields an average household contribution of $1,178, 26 percent higher than allocated based on the bottom-up approach.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Income above Poverty

Income below Median

Income above Median

Income above $50,000

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

27.0%

17.1%

38.7%

16.4%

16.7%

13.2%

14.4%

13.8%

0.374

0.232

0.494

0.209

0.255

0.182

0.224

0.197

25.7%

17.6%

38.7%

18.6%

15.5%

12.3%

13.2%

13.7%

0.353

0.25

0.49

0.252

0.233

0.168

0.204

0.188

2.9%

0.9%

1.9%

0.3%

3.2%

1.1%

3.8%

1.4%

2.8%

1.4%

1.8%

0.5%

3.1%

2.0%

3.3%

2.9%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

0.9%

0.9%

0.6%

0.8%

0.2%

8.8%

11.7%

8.3%

10.4%

9.3%

11.7%

8.3%

9.6%

3.4%

3.1%

2.6%

2.3%

3.8%

3.2%

3.5%

3.7%

2.9%

1.1%

2.4%

0.6%

3.3%

1.3%

3.4%

1.6%

4.6%

5.1%

4.8%

4.3%

4.5%

6.0%

4.6%

5.9%

0.047

0.067

0.049

0.055

0.047

0.078

0.048

0.075

10.2%

21.9%

24.4%

39.3%

5.9%

15.4%

4.9%

13.2%

0.2

0.528

0.543

1.244

0.112

0.389

0.085

0.335

2.3%

4.8%

9.3%

13.5%

1.1%

3.8%

0.4%

3.1%

0.026

0.057

0.097

0.159

0.014

0.039

0.004

0.031

3.5%

6.9%

7.9%

9.7%

1.1%

3.2%

1.1%

2.8%

0.037

0.088

0.086

0.12

0.011

0.034

0.011

0.028

2.3%

4.6%

7.4%

9.4%

0.1%

1.6%

0.2%

0.4%

2.8%

5.6%

12.0%

20.0%

0.8%

3.4%

0.3%

1.8%

0.076

0.172

0.334

0.705

0.024

0.112

0.013

0.063

3.8%

16.0%

10.2%

33.7%

1.7%

11.3%

1.2%

5.0%

0.066

0.292

0.185

0.704

0.032

0.221

0.018

0.099

0.2%

1.3%

1.8%

2.5%

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

0.5%

2.0%

1.7%

6.4%

4.6%

0.0%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

which is nontaxable, than smaller native families at the same income level. Also, estimated remittances to the country of origin are not removed from household income before calculating the tax contribution. 12 As a result, the actual sales tax contributions of foreign-born households may be smaller.

The average property tax contribution is $1,004. Owner-occupied residences

12  

Recent estimates of remittances (see Vernez and McCarthy, 1996) suggest that sales tax paid by immigrant households would decline by $72 if all dollars remitted reduced spending on taxable goods.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-5a Estimates of Household Taxes and Contributions Paid by Nativity of Householder, Fiscal Year 1995 (dollars)

 

All Households

Native Born

Third Generation

Federal Individual Income

6,382

7,224

7,660

Social Security

4,834

5,073

5,324

Unemployment Insurance

285

271

282

California Personal Income

1,647

1,862

1,983

State Disability Insurance

175

171

178

Sales Tax

938

992

1,016

Property Tax

1,004

1,035

1,050

Tobacco Tax

86

81

81

Alcohol Tax

97

92

92

Fuel Tax

285

289

292

Motor Vehicle Fees

173

176

178

Gambling Taxes

58

55

55

Inheritance Tax

261

313

313

Federal Share

11,966

13,069

13,768

State Share

2,971

3,227

3,375

Local Share

1,290

1,337

1,360

Total Contributions

16,227

17,632

18,503

have higher assessed values and therefore owners incur higher average taxes. Because they are more likely to own their homes, native householders pay higher average property taxes than immigrant householders. However, because European/Canadian and Asian immigrant householders report higher average property taxes paid and higher average home values in 1990, higher estimates of property taxes result for these region-of-origin classes. Within the middle and older age classes, property tax differentials are small (Table 4-5b). Older householders pay lower average property taxes in part because they have owned their homes longer and have lower assessed values.

Among other taxes, immigrant households pay higher alcohol, tobacco, and gambling taxes because these households contain higher numbers of adults on average (Table 4-5a). Small differences in automobile ownership are observed in the 1990 Census, resulting in small differences in fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees paid. Only one-third of immigrant householders entered the United States before 1975, and therefore the estimate of inheritance tax paid by immigrant households is approximately one-third the tax paid by natives.

To summarize, foreign-born households contribute average total taxes that

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
   

Foreign-born Households by Region of Origin

Second Generation

Foreign Born

Europe/ Canada

Asia

Latin America

Other

5,340

3,908

5,832

5,875

2,234

6,831

3,990

4,131

4,146

5,262

3,494

5,151

226

325

204

322

361

265

1,340

1,014

1,468

1,550

586

1,712

143

186

135

204

191

171

889

778

904

949

645

1,004

967

915

1,059

1,174

736

1,169

81

103

78

105

109

96

91

113

90

117

117

107

274

275

266

301

268

259

167

167

162

183

163

157

54

67

53

70

70

64

313

109

199

77

105

105

10,050

8,721

10,576

11,808

6,444

12,586

2,588

2,219

2,683

2,918

1,702

3,032

1,237

1,152

1,335

1,463

933

1,474

13,875

12,092

14,594

16,189

9,078

17,092

are 68.6 percent of the average total tax paid by native households. Total taxes paid are highest for third-generation households in all age categories. These households pay more than $18,000 in tax. Second-generation households pay average taxes totaling $13,875, and immigrant households pay total taxes averaging $12,092. The differential between immigrant and native contributions is largest for Latin American immigrant households, which contribute $9,078 on average. Within age groups (Table 4-5b), the differential is slightly larger between native and immigrant households in the young and middle-age categories. The immigrant-native differential is small among older households, and older households pay average taxes one-third the level paid by middle-age households. Among households grouped by income level (Table 4-5c), foreign-born households with income below the poverty line pay more in total taxes than similar native households, and among households with incomes below California median income, the tax contribution of foreign-born households is just $100 below that of similar natives. These patterns are generally observed at all three levels of government, but the proportional difference in tax paid is smaller at the local level. At the federal and state levels, immigrant households make average contri

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

butions that are approximately 67 percent the average contribution of native households; at the local level, the immigrant contribution is 86 percent of the native contribution.

Benefits Received by California Households

Table 4-6a displays estimates of benefits received by California households by nativity of the householder. The federal, state, and local governments spend $22,762 per household. Of household benefits, 56.7 percent are provided through federal funds, 20.2 percent from state funds, and 23 percent from local funds.

The largest single household benefit comes from Social Security benefits. Native households receive an average benefit of $3,334, compared with $1,638 among immigrant households. Benefits for immigrant households are also lower for federal, military, and railroad retirement benefits, Medicare, and veterans' benefits. Second-generation and European/Canadian households receive average benefits from these programs that are higher than those received by third-generation households. Among region-of-origin groups. Latin American immigrant

TABLE 4-5b Estimates of Household Taxes and Contributions Paid by Age and Nativity of Householder, Fiscal Year 1995 (dollars)

 

Householders Age 15–39

 

All

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

All

Federal Individual Income

5,517

6,509

6,772

5,080

3,328

8,829

Social Security

5,218

5,799

5,877

5,373

3,937

6,348

Unemployment Insurance

337

333

333

330

346

339

California Personal Income

1,422

1,653

1,724

1,264

912

2,304

State Disability Insurance

220

230

231

228

198

201

Sales Tax

883

966

979

896

700

1,112

Property Tax

978

1,051

1,051

1,050

816

1,165

Tobacco Tax

84

77

76

81

99

95

Alcohol Tax

95

88

88

89

111

105

Fuel Tax

273

281

281

281

256

333

Motor Vehicle Fees

166

170

170

170

156

202

Gambling Taxes

56

52

52

53

66

62

Inheritance Tax

228

313

313

313

40

273

Federal Share

11,500

13,133

13,474

11,277

7,900

16,023

State Share

2,729

3,044

3,124

2,606

2,035

3,841

Local Share

1,247

1,345

1,349

1,323

1,029

1,503

Total Contributions

15,475

17,522

17,948

15,206

10,964

21,367

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

households receive the lowest average benefits from these programs. These benefits flow largely to older households, and within this group, foreign-born households receive lower average benefits, but the differentials are smaller after controlling for the age of the householder.

Average household benefits are higher among immigrant households relative to natives for eight of nine poverty programs. Among these programs, the largest benefit received by immigrant households is the Medi-Cal benefit. The average immigrant household receives a benefit of $1,774, more than three times the average native household benefit. Average benefits from poverty programs total $5,067 for immigrant households, compared with $1,983 for native households. Second-generation households receive poverty program benefits that are higher on average than those received by third-generation households for five of the nine programs. Latin American and Asian households receive the highest average benefits among region-of-origin classes. Poverty program benefits are higher among immigrant households in all three age classes (Table 4-6b). Among households with incomes below the poverty level (Table 4-6c), foreign-born households receive higher benefits from Medi-Cal, food stamps, school lunches,

Householders Age 40–64

Householders Age 65+

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

All

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

10,081

10,360

8,464

5,016

3,056

3,150

3,272

2,883

2,542

6,707

6,741

6,513

5,254

1,015

974

1,065

777

1,233

328

328

326

373

74

72

77

61

88

2,648

2,726

2,194

1,255

738

760

801

671

621

197

197

196

216

36

34

34

33

45

1,174

1,179

1,142

925

689

705

721

669

604

1,184

1,185

1,178

1,105

729

737

744

722

681

88

87

94

115

74

73

74

69

82

99

98

104

122

87

86

88

82

95

335

335

335

326

213

218

218

218

183

204

204

204

198

129

133

133

133

111

59

58

62

72

52

51

52

49

57

313

313

313

152

301

313

313

313

238

17,650

17,961

15,842

11,072

4,591

4,653

4,873

4,174

4,254

4,225

4,306

3,756

2,670

1,664

1,701

1,755

1,581

1,462

1,542

1,544

1,526

1,387

938

952

964

926

865

23,416

23,812

21,124

15,128

7,193

7,306

7,592

6,680

6,581

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-5c Estimates of Household Taxes and Contributions Paid by Selected Household Characteristics, Fiscal Year 1995 (dollars)

 

Foreign Born

Income below Poverty

 

Citizens

Non-citizens

Native Born

Foreign Born

Federal Individual Income

7,049

2,629

223

166

Social Security

5,698

3,493

523

1,047

Unemployment Insurance

332

322

75

171

California Personal Income

1,848

673

53

24

State Disability Insurance

210

176

24

63

Sales Tax

1,044

670

221

278

Property Tax

1,167

813

838

721

Tobacco Tax

99

105

66

94

Alcohol Tax

110

114

73

102

Fuel Tax

278

274

285

271

Motor Vehicle Fees

169

166

173

165

Gambling Taxes

66

68

43

60

Inheritance Tax

193

75

313

67

Federal Share

13,501

6,774

1,299

1,693

State Share

3,278

1,787

706

730

Local Share

1,485

1,017

905

805

Total Contributions

18,264

9,578

2,910

3,228

and earned income tax credits. Among households with incomes above $50,000, foreign-born households receive higher benefits from eight of the programs, with large differences for Medi-Cal, AFDC, and SSI.

Foreign-born households contain higher average numbers of school-age children and college students, and therefore receive higher average educational benefits (Table 4-6a). The average immigrant household receives benefits of $4,209 for K-12 education and $1,391 for higher education, compared with native benefits of $2,044 for K-12 education and $844 for higher education. Second-generation and European/Canadian households receive lower average K-12 benefits, and Latin American households receive the highest average benefit. Asian immigrant households receive the highest average benefit from expenditures on higher education. Average household benefits from expenditures on state corrections and national defense are $321 and $2,741, respectively. General government expenditures total $6,251 per household, with the largest expenditure at the local government level.

Government expenditures per immigrant household are $2,904 higher than expenditures per native household. At the federal level, expenditures are lower for

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Income above Poverty

Income below Median

Income above Median

Income above $50,000

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

8,086

5,241

790

523

12,583

9,464

15,944

13,215

5,633

5,229

1,399

1,777

8,134

7,995

9,461

9,550

295

380

139

230

381

481

409

499

2,084

1,366

115

51

3,317

2,594

4,289

3,800

190

230

65

102

260

324

288

351

1,087

956

436

419

1,456

1,368

1,626

1,583

1,059

985

862

762

1,179

1,167

1,224

1,256

82

106

66

93

93

120

97

124

94

117

75

101

106

133

111

139

289

277

275

267

300

289

304

293

176

168

167

162

183

176

185

178

56

70

45

60

63

79

66

82

313

125

313

94

313

134

313

146

14,518

11,224

2,803

2,857

21,621

18,346

26,343

23,688

3,538

2,749

948

893

5,125

4,394

6,253

5,789

1,390

1,276

994

889

1,622

1,584

1,720

1,738

19,445

15,249

4,746

4,639

28,368

24,324

34,316

31,216

immigrant households by $283. Federal expenditures are highest for second-generation, European/Canadian immigrant, and native and foreign-born older households. The state and local governments spend $2,335 and $870 more, respectively, on immigrant households. Asian, Latin American, young, and middle-age immigrant households were particularly expensive for the state and local governments.

Net Costs to Government

Table 4-7a shows total contributions and benefits and the net costs to governments by level of government. Before an adjustment is made to offset unallocated revenues, the average household is a net burden on all three levels of government, receiving $6,535 more in services than paid in taxes. Unallocated taxes paid by corporations and tourists and local revenues for fees, fines, and services charges total $8,011 per household. 13 After reducing household benefits by this amount,

13  

The assumption is made that corporation and out-of-state tourists receive one dollar in benefits and services for each dollar paid in taxes. The further assumption is made that these benefits come largely from spending on national defense, environmental protection, public safety, and other general expenditures. The average amount per household ($8,011) is subtracted from the benefits allocated to households.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-6a Estimates of Benefits and Services Received by Nativity of Householder, Fiscal Year 1995 (dollars)

 

All

Native Born

Third Generation

Second Generation

Federal Individual Income

6,382

7,224

7,660

5,340

Social Security

2,904

3,334

2,924,5

103

Federal Benefits

340

421

377

608

Military Benefits

312

366

371

343

Railroad Benefits

43

45

40

63

Medicare

1,618

1,785

1,569

2,719

Unemployment Compensation

380

359

364

336

Workers' Compensation

26

27

29

18

Veterans' Benefits

134

163

170

133

Pell Grants

55

51

52

43

Medi-Cal

893

594

587

621

AFDC

512

399

397

410

SSI

459

358

332

470

Housing Benefits

341

280

264

347

Food Stamps

242

163

165

154

School Lunches

80

39

40

34

General Assistance

40

31

29

39

Energy Assistance

6

6

6

5

Earned Income Tax Credit

192

113

116

101

K-12 Education

2,593

2,044

2,151

1,578

Higher Education

983

844

827

916

State Corrections

321

321

321

321

National Defense

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

Other Federal Operations

777

777

777

777

Other State Operations

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

Other Local Operations

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

Federal Share

12,921

12,993

12,313

15,928

State Share

4,606

4,014

4,052

3,847

Local Share

5,235

5,014

5,049

4,865

Total Benefits

22,762

22,021

21,414

24,639

the average California household becomes a net benefit to the federal government and the state and local government break even.14,15 Native households are a net benefit for all three levels of government, while foreign-born households are a net

14  

In Table 4-7a, column 1, the net fiscal impact at the federal level is $1,198 for the average household. This figure includes all federal taxes and expenditures, except debt interest payments, borrowed funds, and payments on behalf of institutionalized persons. The California share of debt interest payments totals $21.9 billion, or $11,946 per household, based on California containing 11.34 percent of the nation's households. Adding federal interest payments as a benefit for households would make the average California household a net burden on the federal government. The California share of federal borrowing totals $19.2 billion, or $1,707 per household. Treating this amount as a current tax, the net federal fiscal impact of an average California household would be a surplus of $1,052. This surplus results from the exclusion of benefits for institutionalized persons and because California pays higher taxes and receives lower benefits relative to other states.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
 

Foreign-born Households by Region of Origin

Foreign Born

Europe/ Canada

Asia

Latin America

Other

3,908

5,832

5,875

2,234

6,831

1,638

4,599

1,240

1,157

1,738

104

170

134

24

490

155

402

224

91

0

37

65

19

35

67

1,124

2,219

1,372

708

1,635

443

203

237

608

276

22

18

14

27

26

49

116

86

19

47

67

42

54

69

130

1,774

591

1,637

2,162

1,238

843

273

1,102

908

428

756

805

1,299

522

640

521

663

528

509

359

475

129

475

560

404

200

21

128

283

115

67

95

76

56

83

6

13

5

6

0

425

51

152

666

122

4,209

1,159

3,869

5,027

4,157

1,391

810

2,184

1,169

1,385

321

321

321

321

321

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

777

777

777

777

777

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

12,710

14,680

12,736

12,340

12,205

6,349

3,598

6,841

6,795

5,857

5,884

4,760

5,863

6,137

5,880

24,943

23,038

25,440

25,272

23,942

15  

The state share net fiscal impact is not zero because California had a small surplus at the end of the fiscal year and because state expenditures on Medi-Cal and SSI for institutionalized persons are not included.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-6b Estimates of Benefits and Services Received by Age and Nativity of Householder, Fiscal Year 1995 (dollars)

 

Householders Age 15–39

 

All

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

All

Social Security

274

308

330

190

198

1,091

Federal Benefits

54

78

61

170

0

297

Military Benefits

48

47

35

110

50

341

Railroad Benefits

38

45

37

87

23

51

Medicare

105

109

116

72

97

516

Unemployment Compensation

426

445

441

467

384

469

Workers' Compensation

29

33

34

27

20

31

Veterans' Benefits

45

49

58

0

35

135

Pell Grants

82

90

89

95

66

51

Medi-Cal

1,248

888

863

1,025

2,042

770

AFDC

883

811

771

1,027

1,041

380

SSI

197

161

175

84

277

534

Housing Benefits

382

384

363

503

378

238

Food Stamps

390

301

285

386

587

198

School Lunches

122

68

67

75

239

77

General Assistance

45

41

36

65

54

48

Energy Assistance

5

6

6

5

4

5

Earned Income Tax Credit

316

194

193

198

586

160

K-12 Education

3,435

2,941

2,903

3,148

4,523

2,946

Higher Education

810

864

822

1,090

692

1,542

State Corrections

321

321

321

321

321

321

National Defense

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

Other Federal Operations

777

777

777

777

777

777

Other State Operations

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

Other Local Operations

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

Federal Share

8,822

8,351

8,264

8,822

9,859

10,043

State Share

5,217

4,776

4,708

5,142

6,190

5,010

Local Share

5,519

5,345

5,323

5,470

5,902

5,432

Total Benefits

19,558

18,472

18,295

19,435

21,951

20,486

burden for all levels of governments. The average native household contributes $2,229, $1,126, and $267 in surplus funds to the federal, state, and local governments, respectively, while the average foreign-born household receives net benefits of $1,835, $2,217, and $787, respectively.

 

Third-generation households are a net benefit for all three levels of government, but second-generation households are a burden on the federal government and a smaller benefit than third-generation households to the state government.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Householders Age 40–64

Householders Age 65+

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

All

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

1,156

1,069

1,660

893

11,627

12,002

12,082

11,825

9,589

343

324

450

157

977

1,096

1,104

1,079

331

400

425

256

163

758

800

892

597

529

47

36

115

61

36

39

57

0

19

462

446

553

681

6,755

6,801

6,891

6,605

6,506

422

414

472

612

111

109

105

119

122

31

33

23

30

10

11

12

8

5

168

172

145

36

303

332

381

224

144

40

40

38

86

9

9

11

6

8

469

447

599

1,684

466

362

377

328

1,034

236

222

318

819

70

54

72

13

159

417

387

590

889

807

557

507

665

2,166

178

175

190

421

473

304

277

361

1,395

112

112

114

460

49

40

54

9

96

33

33

33

210

7

4

5

3

22

34

36

24

91

15

10

0

31

43

5

5

3

6

9

8

8

7

14

94

89

127

360

20

21

29

4

14

2,271

2,349

1,818

5,000

265

232

264

163

440

1,229

1,159

1,635

2,495

172

113

88

169

493

321

321

321

321

321

321

321

321

321

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

777

777

777

777

777

777

777

777

777

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

9,369

9,191

10,400

12,096

26,627

26,805

27,119

26,117

25,659

4,235

4,216

4,347

7,370

2,614

2,425

2,427

2,421

3,644

5,142

5,164

5,018

6,315

4,288

4,265

4,264

4,268

4,416

18,746

18,571

19,764

25,782

33,529

33,495

33,810

32,805

33,718

This is partly the result of age structure; older households are a greater burden on the federal government and second-generation households are more likely to be older (Table 4-7b). Young and middle-age second-generation households are smaller net benefits than third-generation households on the federal and state governments.

Among immigrant households, European/Canadian households are a net burden on the federal government but provide surpluses for both the state and local

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-6c Estimates of Benefits and Services Received by Selected Household Characteristics, Fiscal Year 1995 (dollars)

 

Foreign Born

Income below Poverty

 

Citizens

Non-citizens

Native Born

Foreign Born

Social Security

3,109

1,039

2,881

1,000

Federal Benefits

253

43

104

0

Military Benefits

277

105

86

0

Railroad Benefits

33

39

0

0

Medicare

1,817

841

1,655

701

Unemployment Compensation

363

476

360

359

Workers' Compensation

18

24

15

11

Veterans' Benefits

115

22

127

13

Pell Grants

49

74

56

55

Medi-Cal

735

2,197

2,279

3,897

AFDC

248

1,085

2,086

2,054

SSI

700

779

951

856

Housing Benefits

306

608

1,061

926

Food Stamps

142

611

873

1,331

School Lunches

70

254

152

448

General Assistance

21

86

222

121

Energy Assistance

6

6

20

13

Earned Income Tax Credit

202

516

299

854

K-12 Education

3,190

4,624

2,803

6,320

Higher Education

1,547

1,327

1,093

844

State Corrections

321

321

321

321

National Defense

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

Other Federal Operations

777

777

777

777

Other State Operations

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

Other Local Operations

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

Federal Share

13,187

12,516

15,957

15,136

State Share

5,132

6,844

6,284

8,726

Local Share

5,493

6,043

5,504

6,625

Total Benefits

23,813

25,403

27,744

30,487

governments. Asian immigrant households provide a net surplus at the federal level, albeit smaller than that of natives. These households are a net burden on the state and local governments. Latin American households are large burdens on all three levels of government. The average Latin American household receives $3,742 in net federal benefits, $3,181 in net state benefits, and $1,260 in net local benefits ( Table 4-7a).

Among young and middle-age households (Table 4-7b), foreign-born households are a net burden to the state and local governments, while native house-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Income above Poverty

Income below Median

Income above Median

Income above $50,000

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

3,390

1,866

4,900

1,818

2,029

1,343

1,722

1,430

460

141

301

55

520

184

605

221

400

210

262

72

452

291

473

425

50

51

47

41

43

31

39

8

1,802

1,274

2,498

1,285

1,192

859

1,044

961

359

473

336

423

378

476

335

389

29

27

22

20

32

27

30

31

167

62

135

33

186

76

196

92

50

71

52

57

49

82

51

79

386

1,017

1,046

2,397

217

750

163

645

192

411

768

1,167

92

310

34

260

285

720

667

999

100

356

97

322

184

377

603

761

11

128

15

32

76

171

331

697

24

111

13

62

25

112

71

271

12

85

7

38

7

49

67

90

1

31

0

17

4

4

13

9

0

1

0

0

90

272

202

591

39

153

31

77

1,950

3,457

1,725

4,338

2,309

3,996

2,339

3,785

813

1,585

626

1,060

1,025

1,934

1,204

2,665

321

321

321

321

321

321

321

321

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

2,741

777

777

777

777

777

777

777

777

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

1,421

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

5,328

12,628

11,846

16,177

14,181

10,341

10,296

9,936

10,425

3,734

5,502

4,195

6,745

3,863

5,699

3,922

5,883

4,954

5,620

4,912

5,914

5,099

5,834

5,130

5,829

21,316

22,968

25,284

26,840

19,303

21,829

18,989

22,137

holds provide surpluses to all three levels of government. The state government bears the largest burdens for these households. All older householders are a net burden on the federal government, and older foreign-born householders are a net burden on the state government. Among households with incomes below the poverty level (Table 4-7c), both native and foreign-born households are a burden on all three levels of government. These burdens are smaller, but still notable, among households with incomes below the state median. Foreign-born households with income above $50,000 are a small burden on local governments.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder, Fiscal Year 1995 (dollars)

 

All

Native Born

Third Generation

Second Generation

Total Contributions

Federal Share

11,966

13,069

13,768

10,050

State Share

2,971

3,227

3,375

2,588

Local Share

1,290

1,337

1,360

1,237

Total Contributions

16,227

17,632

18,503

13,875

Total Benefits

Federal Share

12,921

12,993

12,313

15,928

State Share

4,606

4,014

4,052

3,847

Local Share

5,235

5,014

5,049

4,865

Total Benefits

22,762

22,021

21,414

24,639

Net Costs

Net Federal Share

-956

75

1,455

-5,878

Net State Share

-1,635

-787

-677

-1,258

Net Local Share

-3,945

-3,677

-3,689

-3,628

Net Total Cost

-6,535

-4,389

-2,911

-10,764

Unallocated Revenues

Federal Share

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

State Share

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

Local Share

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

Net Fiscal Impacts

Net Federal

1,198

2,229

3,610

-3,724

Net State

277

1,126

1,235

654

Net Local

0

267

256

317

Net Total

1,476

3,622

5,100

-2,753

Relative Contributions, Benefits, and Net Costs

Table 4-8 shows the tax contributions, benefit receipt, and fiscal impacts of foreign-born households relative to native households, for all households and household groups by age of householder and income level. Relative to native households, foreign-born households contribute lower average taxes to all three levels of government. This is true for all age groups and among most of the income groups. The notable exception is the tax contribution of households with incomes below poverty. Among these households, foreign-born households make tax contributions higher than those of natives to the federal and state governments. Relative benefit receipt is consistently higher for foreign-born households at the state and local government levels. Federal benefits are lower for foreign-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
 

Foreign-born Households by Region of Origin

Foreign Born

Europe/ Canada

Asia

Latin America

Other

8,721

10,576

11,808

6,444

12,586

2,219

2,683

2,918

1,702

3,032

1,152

1,335

1,463

933

1,474

12,092

14,594

16,189

9,078

17,092

12,710

14,680

12,736

12,340

12,205

6,349

3,598

6,841

6,795

5,857

5,884

4,760

5,863

6,137

5,880

24,943

23,038

25,440

25,272

23,942

-3,989

-4,104

-928

-5,896

382

-4,130

-915

-3,923

-5,093

-2,826

-4,732

-3,426

-4,400

-5,204

-4,405

-12,850

-8,444

-9,251

-16,193

-6,849

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

-1,835

-1,950

1,226

-3,742

2,536

-2,217

997

-2,010

-3,181

-913

-787

519

-456

-1,260

-461

-4,839

-433

-1,240

-8,182

1,162

born households with householders over age 65 and in all income groups except households with incomes over $50,000.

The relative fiscal impact of foreign-born households is below zero for all households and for households classed by age and income. At the federal level, the relative deficit of $4,065 for the average foreign-born household derives entirely from lower relative tax contributions. In contrast, more than two-thirds of the relative deficits at the state and local levels are due to higher relative benefit receipt. Among the age groups, the greatest relative deficit exists between foreign-born and native households headed by persons age 40–64. In this group, the federal deficit results largely from lower relative tax contributions while the state and local deficits are due largely to higher relative benefit receipt.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Among households with incomes below poverty and households with incomes below the median, foreign-born households provide a relative surplus to the federal government, resulting primarily because of lower benefit receipt. The relative deficits at the state and local government levels are created almost entirely by higher relative benefit receipt of foreign-born households in these categories.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

Several important differences between native and foreign-born households interact with fiscal policy to create different fiscal impacts. Among these differences, foreign-born households contain more students and have lower incomes

TABLE 4-7b Net Fiscal Impacts by Age and Nativity of Householder, Fiscal Year 1995 (dollars)

 

Householders Age 15–39

 

All

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

All

Total Contributions

Federal Share

11,500

13,133

13,474

11,277

7,900

16,023

State Share

2,729

3,044

3,124

2,606

2,035

3,841

Local Share

1,247

1,345

1,349

1,323

1,029

1,503

Total Contributions

15,475

17,522

17,948

15,206

10,964

21,367

Total Benefits

Federal Share

8,822

8,351

8,264

8,822

9,859

10,043

State Share

5,217

4,776

4,708

5,142

6,190

5,010

Local Share

5,519

5,345

5,323

5,470

5,902

5,432

Total Benefits

19,558

18,472

18,295

19,435

21,951

20,486

Net Costs

Net Federal Share

2,678

4,781

5,210

2,455

-1,959

5,980

Net State Share

-2,488

-1,732

-1,584

-2,536

-4,155

-1,170

Net Local Share

-4,272

-4,000

-3,973

-4,147

-4,873

-3,929

Net Total Cost

-4,082

-951

-347

-4,229

-10,987

881

Unallocated Revenues

Federal Share

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

State Share

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

Local Share

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

Net Fiscal Impacts

Net Federal

4,832

6,935

7,364

4,609

195

8,134

Net State

-576

180

328

-624

-2,243

743

Net Local

-328

-56

-29

-202

-928

16

Net Total

3,929

7,060

7,664

3,783

-2,976

8,893

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

than native households, and foreign-born householders are younger and less likely to be homeowners than native-born householders. These differences persist after controlling for age of householder and household income ranges. Among region-of-origin groups, Latin American immigrant households contain the most K-12 students and have the lowest incomes. Households headed by naturalized citizens are more like native households than noncitizen households.

Foreign-born households are less likely than native households to receive benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and other nonpoverty income transfer programs, except unemployment compensation. In contrast, foreign-born households exhibit relatively high participation in poverty programs and contain more recipients in participating households than native households. These findings persist when households are grouped by the age of the householder and by in-

Householders Age 40–64

Householders Age 65+

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

All

Native Born

Third Gen.

Second Gen.

Foreign Born

17,650

17,961

15,842

11,072

4,591

4,653

4,873

4,174

4,254

4,225

4,306

3,756

2,670

1,664

1,701

1,755

1,581

1,462

1,542

1,544

1,526

1,387

938

952

964

926

865

23,416

23,812

21,124

15,128

7,193

7,306

7,592

6,680

6,581

9,369

9,191

10,400

12,096

26,627

26,805

27,119

26,117

25,659

4,235

4,216

4,347

7,370

2,614

2,425

2,427

2,421

3,644

5,142

5,164

5,018

6,315

4,288

4,265

4,264

4,268

4,416

18,746

18,571

19,764

25,782

33,529

33,495

33,810

32,805

33,718

8,281

8,770

5,442

-1,024

-22,035

-22,151

-22,247

-21,943

-21,405

-10

90

-591

-4,701

-951

-724

-671

-840

-2,181

-3,601

-3,620

-3,492

-4,929

-3,350

-3,313

-3,300

-3,342

-3,551

4,670

5,241

1,360

-10,653

-26,336

-26,189

-26,218

-26,125

-27,137

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

10,435

10,924

7,596

1,130

-19,881

-19,997

-20,093

-19,789

-19,251

1,903

2,003

1,322

-2,788

962

1,188

1,241

1,072

-269

344

325

453

-984

595

632

645

602

394

12,681

13,252

9,371

-2,642

-18,325

-18,178

-18,207

-18,114

-19,126

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-7c Net Fiscal Impacts by Selected Household Characteristics, Fiscal Year 1995 (dollars)

 

Foreign Born

Income below Poverty

 

Citizens

Noncitizens

Native Born

Foreign Born

Total Contributions

Federal Share

13,501

6,774

1,299

1,693

State Share

3,278

1,787

706

730

Local Share

1,485

1,017

905

805

Total Contributions

18,264

9,578

2,910

3,228

Total Benefits

Federal Share

13,187

12,516

15,957

15,136

State Share

5,132

6,844

6,284

8,726

Local Share

5,493

6,043

5,504

6,625

Total Benefits

23,813

25,403

27,744

30,487

Net Costs

Net Federal Share

314

-5,742

-14,658

-13,444

Net State Share

-1,854

-5,057

-5,578

-7,996

Net Local Share

-4,008

-5,026

-4,599

-5,820

Net Total Cost

-5,549

-15,825

-24,835

-27,259

Unallocated Revenues

Federal Share

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

State Share

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

Local Share

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

Net Fiscal Impacts

Net Federal

2,468

-3,588

-12,504

-11,289

Net State

58

-3,144

-3,666

-6,084

Net Local

-64

-1,082

-654

-1,875

Net Total

2,462

-7,814

-16,824

-19,248

come level, except for households below poverty. Among households below poverty, foreign-born households are more likely than native households to participate in Medi-Cal, food stamps, and school lunches, but they are not more likely to use AFDC, SSI, or housing benefits. Naturalized citizen households are more likely than noncitizen households to participate in the nonpoverty transfer programs and less likely to participate in poverty programs.

Compared with natives, foreign-born households pay lower federal and state income, Social Security, and sales and property taxes. The differences between native and foreign-born households are greatest for the progressive income taxes and smaller for flatter and regressive taxes, such as Social Security and sales taxes. Because of caps on taxable earned income and because foreign-born

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Income above Poverty

Income below Median

Income above Median

Income above $50,000

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

Native Born

Foreign Born

14,518

11,224

2,803

2,857

21,621

18,346

26,343

23,688

3,538

2,749

948

893

5,125

4,394

6,253

5,789

1,390

1,276

994

889

1,622

1,584

1,720

1,738

19,445

15,249

4,746

4,639

28,368

24,324

34,316

31,216

12,628

11,846

16,177

14,181

10,341

10,296

9,936

10,425

3,734

5,502

4,195

6,745

3,863

5,699

3,922

5,883

4,954

5,620

4,912

5,914

5,099

5,834

5,130

5,829

21,316

22,968

25,284

26,840

19,303

21,829

18,989

22,137

1,890

-622

-13,374

-11,324

11,280

8,050

16,407

13,263

-197

-2,753

-3,246

-5,851

1,262

-1,304

2,330

-93

-3,564

-4,344

-3,917

-5,025

-3,477

-4,250

-3,410

-4,091

-1,871

-7,719

-20,538

-22,201

9,065

2,495

15,327

9,079

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

2,154

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

1,912

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

3,945

4,044

1,532

-11,220

-9,170

13,434

10,204

18,561

15,417

1,716

-840

-1,334

-3,939

3,175

608

4,243

1,819

381

-400

27

-1,080

467

-305

534

-146

6,140

292

-12,527

-14,190

17,076

10,506

23,338

17,090

households contain more wage earners, foreign-born households actually pay higher unemployment and state disability insurance taxes. These differences persist for households in all age categories and in higher income brackets. Among households below poverty, foreign-born households pay higher total taxes and among households with incomes below the state median, native and foreign-born households pay almost equal total tax amounts. Naturalized citizen households pay higher total taxes than noncitizen households.

Native households receive higher average benefits from Social Security and Medicare, while foreign-born households receive higher benefits from all poverty programs, K-12 education, and higher education. These patterns generally persist within age groups and income classifications. Naturalized

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-8 Fiscal Impacts of Foreign-Born Households Relative to Native Households, by Age of Householder and Income, Fiscal Year 1995 (dollars)

   

Age of Householder

Household Income

 

All Households

18–39

40–64

65+

Below Poverty

Above Poverty

Below Median

Above Median

Above $50,000

Relative Tax Contribution

Federal

-4,348

-5,233

-6,578

-400

394

-3,294

54

-3,275

-2,655

State

-1,008

-1,009

-1,555

-238

24

-788

-55

-731

-464

Local

-185

-316

-155

-87

-100

-114

-105

-38

19

Total

-5,540

-6,558

-8,288

-725

318

-4,196

-106

-4,044

-3,100

Relative Benefit Receipt

Federal

-283

1,508

2,727

-1,146

-820

-782

-1,996

-45

489

State

2,335

1,414

3,136

1,219

2,442

1,768

2,550

1,836

1,960

Local

870

556

1,173

151

1,121

666

1,002

735

699

Total

2,921

3,479

7,035

223

2,742

1,652

1,556

2,525

3,148

Relative Fiscal Impact

Federal

-4,064

-6,741

-9,305

747

1,214

-2,511

2,050

-3,230

-3,143

State

-3,343

-2,423

-4,691

-1,457

-2,418

-2,556

-2,605

-2,567

-2,424

Local

-1,054

-873

-1,328

-238

-1,221

-780

-1,108

-773

-681

Total

-8,462

-10,036

-15,323

-948

-2,424

-5,848

-1,663

-6,570

-6,248

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

citizen households are more like native households than noncitizen households.

After benefits are reduced to reflect those hypothetically received by corporations and tourists, California's native households provide net surpluses to all three levels of government while foreign-born households are a burden on the federal, state, and local governments. Among age groups, younger and middle-age foreign-born households provide a net surplus to the federal government. Among households in poverty, foreign-born households are a greater burden on the state and local governments than native households while the reverse is true at the federal level. Foreign-born households are a burden on local government even among households with incomes over $50,000.

Among all households, the negative relative federal impact of foreign-born households is created entirely by lower federal tax payments by foreign-born households, while the negative impacts at the state and local levels are dominated by higher benefit receipt of foreign-born households. The relative state, local, and total impacts of foreign-born households are negative in all categories, while foreign-born households in the age group 65 and older, below poverty, and below median income categories have a positive fiscal impact on the federal government.

Three interactions between immigrant characteristics and fiscal policy appear to be driving the fiscal impacts observed. First, working-age immigrant households have lower incomes, resulting in large differences between immigrant and native tax contributions. The higher numbers of dependents in foreign-born households, which result in lower income taxes, exacerbate these differences, but higher numbers of wage earners and regressive taxes on employment also offset the differences. Because the majority of income and employment taxes accrue to the federal government, the income differential creates the larger relative deficits at the federal level. Second, the lower incomes of immigrant households are related directly to greater participation in social service programs for the poor. This results in greater benefit receipt among foreign-born households. Again, the higher numbers of persons, particularly children, in foreign-born households exacerbate this difference, but it is offset by lower program participation by foreign-born households in poverty when compared with native households in poverty. Greater program participation has the largest impact at the state level. At the federal level, higher participation in poverty programs (particularly Medi-Cal and SSI) is offset by lower participation in Social Security and Medicare; in effect this trade-off shifts some of the cost of health care and income maintenance from the federal government to the state. Third, foreign-born households contain more children and therefore consume a greater share of state and local spending on both K-12 and higher education. This difference in education benefits accounts for nearly all of the relative deficit for foreign-born households at the local government level.

The fiscal impacts reported here are estimated entirely on the basis of reported household characteristics. Differences between native and foreign-born

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

households are due to the interaction of fiscal policy with household characteristics such as income, income sources, household composition, and program participation. After controlling for these characteristics, no further differences in interaction between households and the government were assumed. As a result, these estimates ignore the possible effects of noncompliance with tax laws and remittances to the country of origin.

Three recent studies have provided analyses similar to those found in this chapter. Garvey and Espenshade (1996) examine the state and local government fiscal impacts of native and foreign-born households in New Jersey, using 1990 Census data. The methodologies of the New Jersey study and this study are very similar. Similar to the results reported here, the authors find that immigrants pay less in taxes and receive greater benefits than households headed by natives. However, the differences in fiscal impacts between natives and immigrants are somewhat smaller in New Jersey, largely because income differentials between natives and immigrants in income and the number of children per household are smaller in New Jersey than in California. Lee and Miller (1997) develop estimates of federal, state, and local impacts for the entire country, examining results under different methodological schemes. They compare current annual fiscal impact estimates generated by defining the immigrant unit in different ways: immigrants only, immigrant households (immigrants and their co-resident children), and immigrants and their concurrent descendants. Their ''immigrant household" results are comparable to those reported in this study, except that their results apply to the entire country. The third group, "immigrants and their concurrent descendants," includes the tax contributions (and benefits received) by the adult children and grandchildren of still-living immigrants. They find that including the fiscal impacts of these concurrent descendants results in an overall positive impact of immigrants. In addition, Chapter 7 of the National Research Council report (1997) provides estimates of the long-term fiscal impacts of immigrants and their descendants. This research differs from the analysis presented here in several ways: individuals rather than households are considered the unit of analysis, the total U.S. population is considered, and the present value of future costs and benefits of both immigrants and their descendants are included along with current impacts. Similar to the Lee and Miller results, the lifetime impacts of immigrants and their descendants are found to be positive overall for the federal government.

APPENDIX A:

TAX INFORMATION AND METHODOLOGY

Federal and State Income Taxes

The Census Bureau uses U.S. Internal Revenue Service data to estimate the federal and state income tax contributions paid by CPS households during 1994. Household structure determines filing status, and capital gains and itemized de-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

ductions are imputed based on home ownership and income level. The Bureau calculations produce an average federal tax contribution of $5,928 per household and a total contribution from California households of $66.9 billion (Bureau of the Census, 1993a). These figures underestimate total tax paid and are adjusted proportionally upward by 7.23 percent to coincide with empirical estimates. The state tax contributions imputed by the Census Bureau yield an overestimate of total tax contributions by $4 billion. These figures overestimate total tax paid and are adjusted proportionally downward by 16.95 percent to coincide with state budget figures.

The Bureau estimates ignore noncompliance with federal and state taxation laws. Well-documented evidence of tax compliance levels for immigrants and natives is not available. Cornelius et al. (1982) report results from several early studies of tax compliance among undocumented immigrants in which 87–100 percent of households had taxes deducted. The Los Angeles study used summary estimates that 83 percent of documented immigrants and 56 percent of undocumented immigrants have taxes withheld (Los Angeles County, 1992). Clark and Passel (1993) assumed 95 percent compliance with the federal income tax by natives and long-term immigrants and 74 percent compliance among recent immigrants.

Employment Taxes: Social Security, Unemployment, and State Disability

Earned income up to $60,000 is subject to a 12.4 percent tax contributed to the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance funds. A tax of 2.9 percent of earned income (no upper limit as of 1994) contributes to the Hospital Insurance fund. Wage and salary employees pay half of the contribution and employers pay the other half. The self-employed must pay the full 15.3 percent tax, but may deduct 7.65 percent from net earnings before calculating the Social Security contribution, making the effective tax paid 14.1 percent (Social Security Administration, 1996). In 1992, 15.9 million Californians had taxable earnings of $288.4 billion and contributed $44.9 billion to OASDI funds. In 1993, Social Security taxes covered 96 percent of all U.S. workers. The majority of workers not covered are federal, state, and local government employees. Beginning in 1983, federal employees were covered under the Medicare portion of the tax, and all federal employees hired after 1983 are covered under OASDI. In 1990, 67 percent of state and local government workers nationwide and 34 percent of California state and local government workers were covered by Social Security (Social Security Administration, 1996). Of working Californians, 95 percent are assumed to be employed in nonexempt sectors and are compliant with Social Security tax requirements.

The average unemployment insurance tax during 1994–1995 was 3.63 percent on the first $7,000 of wages for each worker (California Taxpayers Association, 1995b; California Legislature, 1995). Unemployment insurance contribu-

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

tions are paid by employers. Private employers in industry and commerce, agricultural employers with ten or more employees or a quarterly payroll exceeding $20,000, domestic employers paying wages of $1,000 or more per quarter, state and local government and nonprofit employers (except elected officials and non-profit organizations employing fewer than four workers), and federal civilian and ex-service members of the Air Force are covered. Workers self-employed or employed by their families are excluded from coverage. Contributions are kept in separate funds for each state (Social Security Administration, 1996). In 1994–1995, contributions to the California fund totaled $3.08 billion (California Legislature, 1995). All wage and salary workers are assumed to pay unemployment compensation taxes.

The state disability insurance tax is 1 percent of the first $31,767 of wages. Exempt workers are those employed by public agencies, public schools, religious organizations, and the self-employed. Tax contributions totaled $2.67 billion in 1993–1994 (California Legislature, 1995). All employees of private firms are assumed to pay state disability insurance taxes. Both the employee and employer shares of taxes are allocated to workers.

Sales Tax

Sales and use taxes totaled $23.4 billion in 1994–1995: $16.3 billion in state revenues and $7.1 billion in local revenues. The state tax of 7.25 percent is supplemented by county-imposed additional taxes capped at 1.50 percent. The statewide average (weighted by sales volume) is 8 percent. Exemptions to the state sales tax are provided for essentials such as food for home consumption, prescription drugs, electricity and gas delivered through mains, and services including entertainment. Major components of the sales tax base are manufacturing and nonexempt services (20%), motor vehicles (14%), building (8%), and fuel (7%). The other category (51%) includes furniture, apparel, general merchandise, and eating and drinking establishments (Board of Equalization, 1995; Department of Finance, 1995a).

Remittances sent to the country of origin may reduce the contribution to sales and excise taxes by an immigrant household. This is important for studies in which these taxes are applied as a percentage of total household income. The Los Angeles County study (1992) reports average remittances of $1,087 per family in the Westat survey Los Angeles sample. Vernez and McCarthy (1996) report findings from a survey of Salvadoran and Filipino immigrants that 69–92 percent of households send remittances averaging between $900 and $1,400 each year. The study found that average remittances did not increase with income. If all of a $900 remittance would otherwise be spent on taxable items, the sales tax contribution for a remitting household would decrease by $72.

Sheffrin and Dresch (1995) report that 35 percent of sales and use taxes are levied on businesses. Other studies suggest the percentage of business-paid sales

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

tax may be higher (DuBay, 1991). The California Division of Tourism (1995) estimates that tourism spending contributes $3.1 billion to state and local coffers, but that Californians themselves account for 82 percent of travel volume. Although international visitors outspend resident tourists overall, resident travelers outspend international visitors on food, shopping, entertainment, and lodging. International travelers spend $103 per day, compared with $69.3 per day by California resident leisure travelers and $78.1 per day by U.S. leisure travelers (Division of Tourism, 1995). Based on these figures, I estimate that 43.6 percent of taxes ($1.21 billion) contributed by tourists were actually paid by California households and businesses.

Studies of tax burdens find that sales taxes are generally regressive, but that California's sales tax is less regressive than other states because of the exemption for food consumed at home. Examining data from 1989, Sheffrin and Dresch (1995) find that taxable consumption as a percentage of income and taxable consumption as a percentage of expenditures both decline as income rises. As a result, the percentage of income paid in sales tax also declines with income (Sheffrin and Dresch, 1995). Similar findings are reported in previous studies (Citizens for Tax Justice, 1988; DuBay, 1991).

Data from the Sheffrin and Dresch study are used to estimate sales tax contributions. For each income level, the percentage of income spent on taxable goods and services (from Sheffrin and Dresch) is multiplied by household income to determine the amount of taxable spending per household. This estimate is then multiplied by the statewide average sales tax of 8 percent to determine the tax contribution. Remittances to the country of origin are ignored. This method yields a total sales tax contribution from households of $10.5 billion, 45 percent of sales taxes collected. This estimate of the household contribution of sales tax may be low; an alternative top-down approach and assuming businesses pay 35 percent of sales tax and out-of-state tourists pay 8.5 percent of sales taxes collected yields an estimate of household sales tax contributions totaling $13.24 billion.

Property Tax

The average property tax in California is 1.06 percent of assessed value. Assessed values are determined by the sale price of the property, and growth in assessed value is limited to 2 percent per year unless the property is sold or improved (Department of Finance, 1996a; Board of Equalization, 1995). As a result, two homeowners with equivalent property may pay very different amounts if one has owned the property for many years while the other purchased recently. A recent study determined that a new homeowner in Los Angeles County could pay up to five times the amount of annual tax paid by the long-term owner of a home of equal value (O'Sullivan et al., 1993). Property tax revenue in California totaled $19.3 billion in 1994–1995. For the 1995–1996 budget year, 41.5 percent

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

of total tax collected was associated with commercial property. Owner-occupied housing with homeowners' exemption claims accounted for 37.3 percent of tax assessed, and other residential property made up the remaining 21.2 percent (Board of Equalization, 1995).16

Studies of property tax incidence assume that property taxes are borne by the owners of owner-occupied housing, but debate continues concerning the burden of taxes on rental property. For a review of perspectives and findings, see O'Sullivan et al. (1993), Carroll and Yinger (1994), and Wassmer (1993). Other studies of tax burden and immigrant fiscal impacts have generally allocated one-half of tax payments on rental property to renters (Los Angeles County, 1992; Clark et al., 1994; Sheffrin and Dresch, 1995). Estimates provided in this chapter are calculated using the assumption that the tax incidence falls on the renter.

CPS property tax amounts imputed by the Census Bureau are not used because the imputation method did not rely on length of tenure, which strongly affects tax amounts in California. Self-reported tax amounts in the 1990 Census show that among homeowners, immigrant households pay higher taxes than natives.17 European and Asian immigrant homeowners report paying the highest average tax amounts while Latin American homeowners pay the lowest average taxes. The averages also decline with the age of the household head, but immigrants as a group report higher average taxes than natives in all three age groups. Higher tax contributions by immigrants may reflect more recent purchases, higher property values, or both. European and Asian immigrant homeowners also report property values and monthly mortgage payments higher than those of natives. Reported property values are highest for householders age 40–64 and lowest for homeowners age 65 and older. Effective tax rates, calculated as the reported tax paid divided by the reported property value, are slightly higher than for natives for all immigrant groups except European/Canadian homeowners. More notably, effective tax rates decline with the age of the homeowner. Young householders are taxed at 0.71 percent while householders age 40–64 are taxed at a rate of 0.56 percent and elderly householders are taxed at a rate of 0.41 percent.

State data prevent easy estimation of average property taxes paid by type of property because some owner-occupied properties are included in the category of rental property. In 1994–1995, the Board of Equalization reports that 5.09 million households took the homeowners' exemption of $7,000 of assessed value, while the CPS estimate of owner-occupied households exceeds 6.3 million, suggesting that 19.8 percent of owners failed to claim the exemption and/or did not

16  

In 1994–1995, the homeowners' exemption was claimed for only 5 million properties, while 6.3 million householders owned the property in which they lived. As a result, a sizable proportion of owner-occupied properties are classified as rental property by the Board of Equalization.

17  

Means for property taxes paid and property values are estimated by using the midpoint of each category on the census form.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

pay taxes. Using the Board of Equalization figures, these 5.09 million owners paid average taxes of $1,415.62.

The following assumptions are made in estimating property taxes. First, the mean payment by homeowners is adjusted to reflect lower average payments by owners who failed to claim the homeowner's exemption. The 1.3 million owners who fail to claim the exemption and the 4.9 million renters paid total taxes of $4.09 billion and average taxes of $664.93. Adjusting the average owner-occupied tax paid to reflect lower tax payments by owners who did not take the exemption yields an average tax payment for owners of $1,267.14. Second, data from the 1990 PUMS are included to estimate differences in property taxes and rent paid by nativity and age. Proportional differences between natives and immigrants by region of origin and age were assumed to be the same in 1995. This adjustment lowers the average tax allocated to native owners and raises the average tax allocated to native renters.

Fuel Taxes

The state of California taxes motor vehicle fuel and diesel fuel at a rate of $0.18 per gallon. Additional taxes are levied on aircraft fuel, liquefied petroleum gas, liquid natural gas, alcohol fuel, and compressed natural gas (California Legislature, 1995). In 1994 –1995, motor fuel sales in California generated $2.75 billion in state taxes (Board of Equalization, 1995). The federal government levies taxes of $0.183 per gallon of motor vehicle fuel and $0.244 per gallon on diesel fuel (California Legislature, 1995). Fuel consumption in California generated an estimated $2.9 billion in tax revenues to the federal government in 1994–1995, 12.4 percent of total federal fuel tax revenues. The shares of fuel taxes paid by businesses and tourists are estimated to be 35 percent and 8.5, percent, respectively, yielding an estimate of fuel taxes paid by California households of $3.21 billion. Fuel taxes are allocated to households on a per vehicle basis based on the average number of automobiles reported in the 1990 Census for age and nativity categories. The average household owned 1.78 automobiles in 1990. Using this average to estimate the number of vehicles per household in 1995, I calculate an average tax contribution of $161.02 per vehicle.

Liquor and Excise Taxes

California alcohol excise tax rates are $0.20 per gallon on beer, dry and sweet wine, and sparkling hard cider; $0.30 per gallon on sparkling wine; and $3.30–$6.60 per gallon on distilled spirits (California Legislature, 1995). Revenues for 1994–1995 totaled $269 million (Board of Equalization, 1995). Federal taxes on alcohol are $0.58 per gallon on beer, $1.07–$13.50 per gallon on wine depending on alcohol content, and $13.50 per gallon on distilled spirits (California Legislature, 1995). California alcohol sales accounted for an estimated $991

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

million in federal alcohol tax revenues in 1994–1995, 10.9 percent of total federal collections. Out-of-state tourists are assumed to contribute 8.5 percent of alcohol taxes paid in California. The remaining $1.1 billion is allocated to households based on the number of adults of legal drinking age per household. The average household contains 1.9 persons age 21 and older, and the estimated average tax contribution is $52.32 per adult.

Tobacco Taxes

The state of California levies tobacco taxes of $0.37 per package of cigarettes and, in 1994–1995, 31.20 percent of wholesale cost on tobacco-related products (California Legislature, 1995). State tobacco revenues in 1994–1995 were $685 million (Board of Equalization, 1995). The federal government levies tobacco taxes of $0.24 per package of cigarettes and additional taxes on other tobacco products (California Legislature, 1995). In 1994–1995, the federal government collected an estimated $430 million in tobacco taxes from sales in California (6.4% of revenues nationwide). Out-of-state tourists are assumed to pay 8.5 percent of tobacco taxes. The remaining $970 million is allocated to households based on the average number of adults age 18 and older per household. The average household contains 2.03 persons age 18 and older and the estimated average tax contribution is $43.95 per adult.

Motor Vehicle Fees

The state of California assesses annual operation fees of 2.0 percent of automobile market value, based on an 11-year depreciation period. The vehicle registration fee is $28 on motor vehicles, trailers, and other vehicles. License and registration fees generated $4.7 billion in revenue to the state of California in 1994–1995 (California Legislature, 1995). Assuming the average number of vehicles per household has remained constant since 1990, automobiles owned by households account for 35 percent of registered vehicles. The remaining 65 percent include automobiles owned by government and corporate entities and other vehicles such as trailers. Of vehicle license and registration fees, 35 percent is allocated to households based on the number of vehicles owned. For license fee allocation, all vehicles are assumed to have the same value. The average household contributes $97.86 in fees per vehicle annually.

Inheritance and Estate Taxes

California estate taxes range from 0.8 to 16 percent of the federal taxable estate, determined to pick up the maximum credit allowed against the federal tax

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

rate. Federal tax rates range from 18 to 55 percent of the taxable estate (California Legislature, 1995). In 1994–1995, the state estimated total estate tax receipts at $599 million. Federal taxes collected on California estates totaled $2.335 billion in 1994–1995, 15.4 percent of total federal revenues (U.S. Internal Revenue Service, 1995a). Following the methodology of Garvey and Espenshade (1996), a household is considered eligible to pay inheritance taxes if the householder is a native or has been in the United States for more than 20 years. Taxes are allocated on an average per recipient household basis, assuming inheritance amounts are unrelated to recipient household income. This method is used to allocate federal and California estate taxes. The average eligible household contributes $312.73 in estate taxes.

APPENDIX B:

BENEFIT INFORMATION AND METHODOLOGY

Social Security, Retirement, Health Care, and Poverty Programs

For the 17 programs listed in Table 4-B1, the government expenditure total was divided by the number of participating households or individuals identified in the CPS data. This average benefit was then allocated based on household participation or the number of recipients in the household. For most programs, the allocation is made with the assumption that no difference in recipient benefit levels exists by nativity. For Social Security, AFDC, and SSI, differentials in average recipient household benefits observed in the 1990 Census were incorporated. These average benefits were adjusted to reflect the total expenditure in 1995.

Earned Income Tax Credit

Earned income tax credits received by California households totaled $2.4 billion. CPS-imputed estimates of earned income tax credits are adjusted upward by 11.48 percent to reflect this figure.

K-12 Education

California households contained 6.19 million school-age children (children ages 5–17) in 1995, an average of 0.551. In 1990, 82.4 percent of children age 5–17 were enrolled in public schools, 9.7 percent were enrolled in private schools, and 7.8 percent were not enrolled in school.18 Total expenditures for K-12 education were $29.14 billion in 1994 –1995. Revenue sources were as follows: $16.37 billion of general and special fund state revenues, $2.40 billion in federal funds, $8.2 billion in local taxes, and $2.16 billion from miscellaneous local

18  

Application of this figure to the 1995 estimate of the school-age population yields an underestimate of enrollment in the public schools. Use of the 1990 figure yields an estimate of 0.454 public school enrollees per household and a total enrollment of 5.10 million in 1995. This estimate is 200,000 students short of the budget estimate of 5.316 million students. According to the state budget, public school enrollment in 1994–1995 was projected to be 5.316 million, suggesting that 85.9 percent of school-age children attend public school.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

TABLE 4-B1 Program Benefits, Expenditures, and Allocations

Program

Allocated Benefit

Allocated to

Social Securitya

 

per recipient household

Federal Retirement

$16,074

per recipient household

Military Retirement

$14,534

per recipient household

Railroad Retirement

$4,836

per recipient household

Medicare

$5,104b

per recipient

Unemployment Benefits

$4,058

per recipient household

Workers' Compensation

$843

per recipient household

Veterans' Benefits

$5,713

per recipient household

Pell Grantsc

$1,050

per recipient

Medicaidd

$1,927

per recipient

AFDCa

 

per recipient household

SSIa

 

per recipient household

Housing Assistance

$8,104

per recipient household

Food Stamps

$990

per recipient

School Lunches

$385

per recipient

General Assistance

$3,627

per recipient household

Energy Assistance

$203

per recipient household

a Benefit allocations for Social Security, AFDC, and SSI vary by nativity and age category of households. Benefit averages observed in the 1990 Census for each nativity and age category are inflated to reflect 1995 expenditures.

b Medicare allocations are reduced by the per-recipient annual premium of $493 for Supplemental Medical Insurance.

c Student loan interest subsidies for Californians totaled $120 million in 1995 (Bureau of the Census, 1996b). Because beneficiaries do not directly receive the subsidy, they are unlikely to report receipt in the CPS. These benefits are not allocated to households.

d The Medi-Cal allocation total was reduced by 33.7 percent, reflecting the share of costs paid for nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities for the mentall y retarded.

sources (Department of Finance, 1996b). Schools report spending $2.8 billion of the budget on capital outlay (Office of the State Controller, 1995). The only funds designated explicitly for bilingual education are $91.97 million of federal funds (Bureau of the Census, 1996b). 19

 

The number of children per household is multiplied by the estimate of the percentage of children attending public school by age and nativity of householder from the 1990 Census. The allocation of educational benefits to households is based on this estimated number of public school children per household; bilin-

19  

California school districts also receive $734.5 million in a fund called "Education for disadvantaged," but these are not dedicated specifically to educating the children of immigrants (Bureau of the Census, 1996b).

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

gual education funds are allocated based on the estimated average number of LEP students per household. The estimated average benefit per enrolled child is $5,362.74. The additional benefit per limited English proficiency (LEP) student is $101.39.

Higher Education

Total expenditures on public higher education (including state administrative offices) was $11.04 billion in 1994–1995. State, federal, and local shares of expenditures were 52.3 percent, 36.2 percent, and 11.5 percent, respectively. Of federal funds 85 percent went to the University of California (apparently research dollars). The CPS data only identify college students age 16–24. Surveyed households reported 882,975 college students age 16–24 either living at home or in college dormitories in 1995.20 A higher education benefit of $13,428.62 is allocated to each identified college student.

The allocation of higher education benefits is made difficult by a number of problems. First, the CPS misses a large number of students, particularly those over age 24. However, those over 24 are much less likely to be full-time students (see Bureau of the Census, 1993b), and therefore students age 16–24 will incur most of the higher education costs. Differences in full-time and part-time status also exist across nativity categories, with students in native households more likely to attend full time in the 1990 Census. In 1990, college students in native households were also more likely than students in households from Latin American countries to attend private colleges, but they were less likely to attend private colleges than students in European/Canadian and Asian immigrant households. Finally, costs will vary across students due to differences in enrollment patterns. Nationally, Hispanic students are more likely than non-Hispanics to be enrolled at the community college level (Bureau of the Census, 1993b). In 1993 Asian-American students constituted a disproportionate share of new students at the University of California (Office of the President, 1995). Expenditures per full-time-equivalent student are much higher at the University of California than they are at California community colleges. Because data on the institutional attendance of college students by nativity of parents do not exist, average benefits are assumed for all students.

Incarceration Costs

The state of California spent $35 billion on youth and adult corrections

20  

The CPS questionnaire only asks about school enrollment for household members age 16–24. However, interviewees are asked to include information about family members living in college dormitories, so the CPS should provide a complete census of 16 to 24-year-old college students affiliated with California households. Some of these college students attend college out of state and some proportion attend private colleges.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

during 1994–1995. Although incarceration costs are not directly attributable to households, the argument can be made that costs are linked to households as the former residences of the incarcerated population. To distribute costs to household classes, the nativity distribution of the prison population is needed.

Nativity data from the California Department of Corrections (CDC) is limited to undocumented persons. According to the Department of Finance, the CDC conducts a one-day census each year to estimate the number of deportable (undocumented) aliens in the prison population. In 1994–1995, 14.89 percent of the adult corrections population, 15.44 percent of the paroled population, and 10.9 percent of the youth corrections population were identified as deportable. Generally, 10 percent of those identified as deportable are determined not to be undocumented by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (Department of Finance, 1996b). These data appear inconsistent with the 1990 Census. In 1990, among all persons in institutions (primarily prisons and nursing homes), 15.5 percent were foreign born. PUMS coding does not allow direct estimates of the nativity of the incarcerated population, but among institutionalized persons with no income from public assistance, Social Security, or retirement, 16.6 percent were foreign born. It is unlikely that three-fifths of foreign-born inmates are undocumented. Because of the poor data, incarceration costs are allocated as a public protection benefit received by households, and each California household is allocated an average benefit.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge the research support, direction, and valuable comments of the Panel on Demographic and Economic Impacts of Immigration. Barry Edmonston and panel members Tom Espenshade, Ron Lee, Alan Auerbach, Bob Inman, and Jim Smith were particularly helpful in directing the research. Jim Smith also provided very helpful comments for editing the paper. Deborah Garvey and Tom Espenshade provided useful information about the methodological approach. I also thank the University of California Data Archive and Technical Assistance office and Tim Miller both for computing support and helpful comments.

REFERENCES

Ayres, B. Drummond, Jr. 1995. ''Federal Judge Voids Some Limits on California Services to Aliens." New York Times 145 (November 21):C18.

Bean, Frank D., Jennifer V.W. Van Hook, and Jennifer E. Glick 1997. "Country-of-Origin, Type of Public Assistance and Patterns of Welfare Recipiency Among U.S. Immigrants and Natives." Social Science Quarterly 78(2):432–451.

Board of Equalization 1995. Annual Report. Sacramento, Calif.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Borjas, George J. 1994. "Immigration and Welfare, 1970–1990." National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4872 Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Borjas, George J., and Lynette Hilton 1996. "Immigrants and the Welfare State: Immigrant Participation in Means-Tested Entitlement Programs." Quarterly Journal of Economics 111(2):575–604.

Bureau of the Census 1993a. Measuring the Effect of Benefits and Taxes on Income and Poverty: 1992. Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 186RD. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bureau of the Census 1993b. School Enrollment—Social and Economic Characteristics of Students: October 1992. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 474. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bureau of the Census 1993c. 1990 Census of Population, Social and Economic Characteristics: California. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bureau of the Census 1996a. Estimates of the Resident Population of States: July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bureau of the Census 1996b. Federal Expenditures by State for Fiscal Year 1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Byerly, Edwin, and Kevin Deardoff 1995. National and State Population Estimates: 1990 to 1994. Current Population Reports P25-1127. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census.

California Legislature. 1995. Revenue and Taxation Reference Book. Sacramento: Assembly Publications Office.

California Taxpayers Association. 1995a. "Gasoline Taxes and Transportation Funding." Cal-Tax News 36(18).

California Taxpayers Association. 1995b. "Automatic Boost: UI taxes go up $213 million in 1996." Cal-Tax News 36(23).

Carroll, Robert J., and John Yinger 1994. "Is the Property Tax a Benefit Tax—The Case of Rental Housing." National Tax Journal 47(2):295–316.

Census of Population and Housing 1990. Public Use Microdata Samples U.S. (machine-readable data files) prepared by the Bureau of the Census (producer and distributor), 1992.

Census of Population and Housing 1990. Public Use Microdata Samples U.S. Technical Documentation. 1992. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census.

Citizens for Tax Justice 1988. Nickels and Dimes: How Sales and Excise Taxes Add up in the 50 States. Washington, D.C.

Clark, Rebecca L., and Jeffrey S. Passel 1993. "How Much Do Immigrants Pay in Taxes? Evidence from Los Angeles County." Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Clark, Rebecca L., Jeffrey S. Passel, Wendy N. Zimmermann, and Michael E. Fix 1994. "Fiscal Impacts of Undocumented Aliens: Selected Estimates for Seven States." Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Clune, Michael S., and Cynthia T. Peete 1995. "Levels of Public Assistance in Los Angeles County: Differentials by Immigration Status." Paper presented at the Population Association of America Meeting, April 7, 1995. Department of Demography, University of California, Berkeley

Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives 1994. Overview of Entitlement Programs, 1994 Green Book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cornelius, Wayne A., Leo R. Chavez, and Jorge G. Castro 1982. Mexican Immigrants and Southern California: A Summary of Current Knowledge. La Jolla: Center for United States-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.

Current Population Survey. March 1995. (machine-readable data file) conducted by the Bureau of the Census (producer and distributor), for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1995

Current Population Survey. March 1995. Technical Documentation. 1995. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census

Department of Finance 1995a. Charting the Course for California's Future: Governor's Budget 1994–95. Sacramento.

Department of Finance 1995b. Population Estimates for California Cities and Counties, January 1, 1995. Report 95 E-1. Sacramento: Demographic Research Unit.

Department of Finance 1996a. Governor's Budget 1996–97. Sacramento.

Department of Finance 1996b. Telephone conversation with Louise Saucedo, July 16, 1996.

Division of Tourism 1995. Domestic Travel to California 1994. Sacramento: California Trade and Commerce Agency.

Division of Tourism 1996. Highlights: California Travel Statistics. Sacramento: California Trade and Commerce Agency.

DuBay, Ann 1990. California's Tax Burden: Who Pays? Part I, An Analysis of the California Personal Income Tax, Bank and Corporation Tax, Property Tax. Sacramento: California Senate Office of Research.

DuBay, Ann 1991. California's Tax Burden: Who Pays? Part II, An Analysis of the California Sales and Use Tax, Alcoholic Beverages Taxes, Tobacco Taxes, Gas Tax. Sacramento: California Senate Office of Research.

Espenshade, Thomas J., and Vanessa E. King 1994. "State and Local Fiscal Impacts of US Immigrants: Evidence from New Jersey." Population Research and Policy Review 13:225–256.

Freedberg, Louis 1997. "Wilson's Immigrant Claim Rejected—Supreme Court Denies $3 Billion in Payments." San Francisco Chronicle (October 7):A1.

Garvey, Deborah L., and Thomas J. Espenshade 1996. "State and Local Fiscal Impacts of New Jersey's Immigrant Population." Department of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.

Hansen, Kristin A. 1996. "Profile of the Foreign-born Population in 1995: What the CPS Nativity Data Tell Us." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of American in New Orleans, La., May 9.

Keenan, Maureen, and Jeffrey B. Curry 1995. "Individual Income Tax Returns, 1994: Early Tax Estimates." Statistics of Income Bulletin 15(2).

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

Lee, Ronald, and Timothy Miller 1997. "The Current Fiscal Impact of Immigrants and Their Descendants: Beyond the Immigrant Household." Department of Demography, University of California, Berkeley.

Los Angeles County 1992. Impact of Undocumented Persons and Other Immigrants on Costs, Revenues and Services in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles: Internal Services Division.

MaCurdy, Thomas, Thomas Nechyba, and Jay Bhattacharya 1996. "An Economic Framework for Assessing the Fiscal Impacts of Immigration." Department of Economics, Stanford University.

National Research Council 1997. The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

New York Times 1994. "California Sues U.S. Government Over Costs Tied to Illegal Aliens." (May 1):19.

Office of Management and Budget 1994. The Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Office of Management and Budget 1995. The Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1996. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Office of the President 1995. "Anticipating Enrollment Growth: How Much? How Soon?" University of California, Oakland.

Office of the State Controller 1995. Annual Report of Financial Transactions Concerning Counties of California, Fiscal Year 1993–94. Sacramento.

Office of the State Controller 1996a. Annual Report of Financial Transactions Concerning Cities of California, Fiscal Year 1993–94. Sacramento.

Office of the State Controller 1996b. Annual Report of Financial Transactions Concerning School Districts of California, Fiscal Year 1993–94. Sacramento.

Office of the State Controller 1996c. Annual Report of Financial Transactions Concerning Special Districts of California, Fiscal Year 1993–94. Sacramento.

O'Sullivan, Arthur, Terri A. Sexton, and Steven M. Sheffrin 1993. The Future of Proposition 13 in California. Berkeley: California Policy Seminar.

Pyle, Amy 1997. "Campaign Targets Bilingual Education." Los Angeles Times (July 9):B2.

Romero, Philip J., Andrew J. Chang, and Theresa Parker 1994. Shifting the Costs of a Failed Federal Policy: The Net Fiscal Impact of Illegal Immigrants in California. Sacramento: Governor's Office of Planning and Research.

Rothman, Eric S., and Thomas J. Espenshade 1992. "Fiscal Impacts of Immigration to the United States." Population Index 58(3):381–415.

Social Security Administration 1996. Annual Statistical Supplement, 1995 to the Social Security Bulletin. Washington, D.C.

Sheffrin, Steven M., and Marla Dresch 1995. Estimating the Tax Burden in California. Berkeley: California Policy Seminar.

Silva, Fabio, and Jon Sonstelie 1995. "Did Serrano Cause a Decline in School Spending?" National Tax Journal 48(2):199–215.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 1993. Statistical Yearbook of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1992. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Internal Revenue Service 1995a. U.S. Internal Revenue Service Data Book 1993/1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Internal Revenue Service 1995b. "Selected Historical and Other Data." Statistics of Income Bulletin 15(2).

Vernez, Georges, and Kevin McCarthy 1996. The Costs of Immigration to Taxpayers: Analytical and Policy Issues. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation.

Wassmer, Robert W. 1993. "Property Taxation, Property Base, and Property Value - An Empirical Test of the New View." National Tax Journal 46(2):135–159.

Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"4 The Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants: A California Case Study." National Research Council. 1998. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5985.
×
Page 182
Next: 5 The Current Fiscal Impact of Immigrants and Their Descendants: Beyond the Immigrant Household »
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $85.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The New Americans (NRC 1997) presents an analysis of the economic gains and losses from immigration--for the nation, states, and local areas--providing a scientific foundation for public discussion and policymaking. This companion book of systematic research presents nine original and synthesis papers with detailed data and analysis that support and extend the work in the first book and point the way for future work. The Immigration Debate includes case studies of the fiscal effects of immigration in New Jersey and California, studies of the impact of immigration on population redistribution and on crime in the United States, and much more.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!