Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 66
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration 3 Fiscal Impacts of Immigrant and Native Households: A New Jersey Case Study Deborah L. Garvey and Thomas J. Espenshade INTRODUCTION Studies of the economic impacts of immigration on receiving countries have focused primarily on the labor market consequences of immigrants. For example, how are the wages and employment opportunities of native-born Americans affected by the growing presence of foreign workers in local area labor markets? Much of the available research has concentrated on identifying potential adverse impacts for native minority workers (including women, blacks, and Latinos) and quantifying the change in either native workers' wages or their employment prospects (Abowd and Freeman, 1991; Borjas and Freeman, 1992; Borjas, 1994). Considerably less effort has been expended by economists in estimating the fiscal impacts of immigrants or in evaluating how these effects compare with the governmental benefits received and taxes paid by the native-born population. Indeed, these issues are barely mentioned in two recent review papers by Friedberg and Hunt (1995a, 1995b). Examining the impacts of immigrants from a budgetary perspective involves estimating their revenue contributions to federal, state, and local governments; estimating the benefits they receive from each level of government in return; and then determining the degree to which the two amounts differ at each jurisdictional level. If revenues provided by a household exceed government expenditures on that household, the household is considered to be a net fiscal asset or gain to other taxpayers. If, on the other hand, fiscal costs exceed the revenues generated by a household, then it is a net fiscal burden or drain on remaining taxpayers (Rothman and Espenshade, 1992). Fiscal costs include transfer payments from means-tested entitlement programs, expenditures on elementary and secondary
OCR for page 67
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration school education, and a range of government services that are provided to all residents regardless of age or need (for example, trash collection, public roads, and police and fire protection). Fiscal revenues include an assortment of tax payments, fees and licenses, and voluntary contributions made to governments by households. In recent years, knowledge of the fiscal impacts of immigrant households has taken on additional policy significance as numerous states have sued the federal government for the costs of services they are required by law to provide to resident illegal immigrants (Clark et al., 1994; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994, 1995).1 Some studies of immigrants' fiscal impacts have been conducted by university researchers, but most have been prepared by analysts working for state or local governments.2 Census data suggest that immigrants were slightly less likely than natives in 1970 to receive cash welfare payments (for example, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Supplemental Security Income), but that by 1990 immigrant households were overrepresented among the welfare population (Borjas, 1994). In 1990 the fraction of immigrant households receiving welfare was 9.1 percent versus 7.4 percent among native households. Tracking immigrant cohorts reveals that immigrants "assimilate into welfare" the longer they are in the United States. Using data from the 1984, 1985, 1990, and 1991 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, Borjas and Hilton (1996) found little difference between natives and immigrants in the probability of receiving cash welfare benefits, but a larger differential emerges when both cash and noncash means-tested programs are analyzed. For example, the fraction of immigrant households that receive some kind of public assistance is 21 percent compares with 14 percent among natives. Part of the increase in the fraction of immigrant households receiving welfare is explained by growth in the refugee population. When refugees are excluded, Fix and Passel (1994) find that working-age migrants are less likely to receive welfare than their native-born counterparts, a conclusion that is consistent with Borjas's (1994) observation that households from Cambodia or Laos had a welfare participation rate in 1990 of almost 50 percent. Immigrants' legal status 1 During 1994 Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Texas filed suits in federal district courts to recover costs they claim they incurred because of the federal government's failure to enforce U.S. immigration policy, protect the nation's borders, and provide adequate resources for immigration emergencies (Dunlap and Morse, 1995). All six lawsuits sought compensation for the costs of imprisoning undocumented criminal aliens in state or local correctional facilities, and many included claims for public education, emergency health care, and other social services. The amounts involved ranged from $50 million in New Jersey for the 1993 costs of jailing 500 undocumented criminal felons and for future costs of new prison construction to more than $33 billion in the New York case which sought reimbursement of all state and county costs associated with illegal immigration between 1988 and 1993 (State and Local Coalition on Immigration, 1994). All six suits have been dismissed, but some states are appealing the decisions (Espenshade, 1996). 2 For comprehensive reviews, see Rothman and Espenshade (1992) and Vernez and McCarthy (1995, 1996).
OCR for page 68
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration also matters in other ways. Current illegal immigrants pay less in taxes than former undocumented migrants who received amnesty under the terms of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, who in turn pay less than permanent resident aliens. Members of the native-born population pay the highest taxes, but the authors of these findings point out that the differentials reflect differences in average income rather than anything intrinsic to immigration status (Vernez and McCarthy, 1995). There is only limited evidence bearing on the question of immigrants' net fiscal implications. Fix and Passel (1994) conclude that immigrant households on average are substantial fiscal benefits to other U.S. taxpayers when all levels of government are considered simultaneously. But these effects are not distributed uniformly. Only at the federal level do immigrants appear to contribute more than they receive (Vernez and McCarthy, 1995). Revenues and expenditures associated with immigrants appear to be more or less offsetting for state governments, whereas it is typically at the level of local governments where the fiscal impacts of immigrants are most negative (Rothman and Espenshade, 1992). Evidence from the 1980 census for New Jersey suggests that both immigrant and native families are fiscal burdens for local governments and that the negative impact is greater for immigrants (Espenshade and King, 1994). Existing studies usually exhibit some combination of three problems. First, they look selectively at particular expenditure or revenue items associated with immigrants, which means that it is impossible to draw conclusions about immigrants' net fiscal impacts.3 Second, only one previous study (Espenshade and King, 1994) makes use of available micro-level information about the demographic and economic circumstances of individual immigrant households that can be obtained routinely from decennial census data. Instead, researchers commonly employ a "top-down" or average cost strategy that amounts to allocating a simple pro rata share of government expenditures or revenues to each household. This approach ignores potentially important sources of household-level variation.4 For example, Clark et al. (1994) assume the same per capita school expenditure for all students in a given state, even though these expenditures vary substantially by school district. Incorporating place of residence into estimates of elementary and secondary school expenditures could make a significant difference to the results. Third, researchers often emphasize the fiscal impacts of the immigrant population and ignore taxes paid and benefits received by native households. This approach may cast immigrants in a prejudicial light by overlooking the fact that both immigrants and natives can be fiscal drains on state and local government budgets (Espenshade and King, 1994). Results for immigrants should be interpreted in the context of natives' impacts. In addition, one challenge for all fiscal impact studies is to cast the analysis 3 See, for example, Borjas and Trejo (1991) and Clark et al. (1994). 4 See Huddle (1993) and Clark et al. (1994) as examples.
OCR for page 69
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration in the context of a general equilibrium economic framework (Isbister, 1996). In contrast to simpler budgetary accounting approaches, general equilibrium models examine the lifetime interactions of natives and immigrants in the economy as workers, consumers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and recipients of government services. For example, educating immigrant children or providing them with sufficient health care to make learning possible may impose high short-run fiscal costs on local governments. However, as productive adults, these individuals are also potential net benefits to local governments as wage earners and as payers of sales and property taxes. Even in the short run, government expenditures flow as wages to teachers, health care workers, and other suppliers of goods or services to immigrant children. Moreover, if immigrants depress wage rates and reduce the employment opportunities of native workers, then there is an interaction between immigrants and the fiscal impacts of natives that is typically ignored in available research. In this chapter we examine the fiscal impacts of immigrants from a micro perspective utilizing household-level information on New Jersey's population from the 1990 census. A comprehensive view is taken of state and local government revenues from and expenditures on noninstitutional households, which means that we are able to evaluate the net fiscal implications associated with immigrant families. Finally, we compare the budgetary consequences of households headed by native-born versus foreign-born individuals. Our results suggest that the typical New Jersey household, whether native or foreign born, uses more state and local government services than it pays for with taxes. Among nonelderly household heads, the negative fiscal impact of immigrant households exceeds that of native households by 46 percent at the state level and by 60 percent for county and municipal governments. In general, however, there is greater diversity within the foreign-born population, when stratified by region of origin, than there is between natives and immigrants. CONCEPTUAL AND OTHER ISSUES Attempts to estimate the fiscal impacts of immigrants encounter a variety of conceptual, methodological, and data issues. We do not claim to have resolved these issues definitively. Rather our purpose in this section is to describe the most critical ones as the basis for a subsequent discussion of the choices and assumptions we made in producing estimates for New Jersey. Unit of Analysis One issue involves the appropriate unit of analysis—whether it should be an individual, a family, or a household. There are reasons to prefer a household definition. First, many local government services such as fire and police protection are provided to households, and numerous taxes (such as property taxes) are
OCR for page 70
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration paid by households. Second, a household comes closer to approximating a functioning socioeconomic unit of mutual exchange and support than a family. Using the ''family" in the Census Bureau's sense of two or more individuals who are living together and who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption may be unnecessarily limiting for budgetary accounting purposes. Third, in most cases it makes little practical difference whether a family or household definition is used. In 1990 roughly 89 percent of the noninstitutional population in New Jersey lived in family households, approximately 8 percent lived alone, and just 3 percent lived in households with unrelated persons. Households are usually labeled "immigrant" or "native" according to the householder's place of birth. But this practice encounters difficulty whenever some household members are foreign born and others are native born (Vernez and McCarthy, 1995). Immigrant-headed households may contain native-born children, and native-born householders may have a foreign-born spouse. Marginal Versus Average Cost Some services that governments provide have the characteristic of being pure or nearly pure public goods in the sense that consumption by one additional individual or household does not necessarily diminish the consumption of everyone else. National defense is the classic example at the federal level. Parks and other recreational facilities are illustrations of near-pure public goods at the state and local level. How should these expenditures be allocated to households? Some analysts argue that the appropriate cost to assign to an immigrant household for a public good is zero, because the marginal cost of servicing an additional household is negligible. There are two problems with this approach, however. One is the arbitrary manner of identifying the "last" household or households to benefit from the expenditure. A related difficulty pertains to threshold effects—that is, to assigning discrete jumps in marginal cost to particular households when population growth creates the need, for example, for a new school, road, or fire house. An alternative perspective is that costs should be averaged over the general population if they cannot be earmarked to a well-defined subset of beneficiaries. This approach avoids the invidious comparisons inherent in marginal cost assignments, while recognizing that each household privately consumes a small portion of near-pure public goods. The issue is perhaps less important at the state level, because many services provided by the state arise from means-tested transfer programs in which recipient households are readily identifiable. At the county and municipal levels, however, a larger fraction of expenditures is not attributable directly to individual households. Net of education expenditures that benefit a student population, most of the goods provided by New Jersey's local governments are relatively public in nature (for example, parks and recreation, public health departments, public libraries, and judicial and legislative functions).
OCR for page 71
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up Two general and competing methodologies for assigning governmental expenditures and revenues are the top-down and bottom-up strategies —also known as macro and micro procedures, respectively. In the top-down approach one begins with a global sum, derived from governmental balance sheets, and then devises rules to distribute that total among beneficiary or taxpayer households. An alternative procedure is to build up to the aggregate total by inspecting the benefits received and the taxes paid by each individual household in the population and then cumulating the results. In principle, both methods should give the same or nearly the same answer, not only in the aggregate but also in the distribution of benefits and costs across households. 5 In actual practice, however, a macro or top-down approach minimizes variation across households because analysts frequently assign each household a prorated share of total tax revenue and public expenditure on goods and services. This approach will be inappropriate whenever the goods or services in question are not public goods or if households exhibit substantial variation by demographic or socioeconomic characteristics. Most studies of immigrants' fiscal impacts have used a macro perspective (Rothman and Espenshade, 1992). Recent exceptions include work reported by Borjas (1994) and Espenshade and King (1994). Immigrants' Legal Status Another practical difficulty is the common inability to distinguish among immigrants by their legal status. Decennial census data and the monthly Current Population Survey (since January 1994) contain questions on place of birth, year of immigration, and citizenship status for the foreign-born population. Roughly two-thirds of New Jersey's foreign-born household heads are naturalized U.S. citizens, but it is impossible to tell with census data whether noncitizen householders are permanent legal residents, temporary residents, refugees, or illegal migrants. Previous studies have suggested that different categories of immigrants have differential patterns of benefit receipt and tax payments (Rothman and Espenshade, 1992; Fix and Passel, 1994; Vernez and McCarthy, 1995, 1996). This problem is attenuated in studies that use a micro-level approach to calculate household benefit receipts and tax payments, because differences in average benefits received and taxes paid are permitted to fall out of the estimation benefits received and taxes paid are permitted to fall out of the estimation and are not imposed by arbitrary rules that assign expenditures and revenues to house- 5 There are obvious situations in which discrepancies would occur, however. Not all of the state sales tax collections come from New Jersey residents. Pennsylvania and New York residents who work or shop in New Jersey contribute to New Jersey's total sales tax revenues through their purchases. Moreover, out-of-state tourists visiting New Jersey contribute to sales tax receipts. A similar situation exists on the expenditure side. Public monies spent to build state roads provide benefits to out-of-state motorists as well as to New Jersey's residents.
OCR for page 72
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration holds. Simply prorating government expenditures and revenues across households blurs the distinctions between native- and foreign-born populations and between naturalized citizens and resident aliens. The ability to distinguish the legal status of immigrants is also relevant to policy, given recent changes to welfare laws. Who benefits and Who pays? There are also questions regarding the proper attribution of tax revenues received by state and local governments. First, the problem of tax incidence has been largely ignored in the demographic literature. However tax incidence—that is, who really bears the burden of a given tax levy—has generated considerable research in public finance (Pechman, 1985; Fullerton and Rodgers, 1993; Metcalf, 1993). Previous studies of the fiscal impacts of immigrants have assumed that the statutory payer of a tax bears the full incidence. Second, similar incidence questions arise on the benefits side. Who are the beneficiaries of local public school expenditures? The proximate beneficiaries of public education expenditures are the students, but an important rationale for public funding of elementary and secondary schooling is that society as a whole is better off in the long run with a more educated population. Third, the household sector is not the sole beneficiary of state and local government expenditures. The corporate sector benefits when, for example, an improved transportation or communication system permits a company to function more efficiently, or when a more educated work force makes a business more productive. The fourth question concerns the proper allocation of the costs of capital construction projects. Unlike a government's current expenditures on goods and services that are consumed in a single period, capital investments (for example, roads, schools, water treatment plants) generate a stream of services over time. For these items it is not obvious how to identify the population of beneficiaries. Should it be the residents of a jurisdiction when construction is completed? Should it include residents when the debt is retired? What about future residents who will enjoy the benefits years after the initial capital outlays have been obligated? These could include as-yet-unborn children and future in-migrants from other states or localities. Data Numerous data sets from federal, state, and local sources were combined to produce the estimates described in this chapter. The principal source of information is the 5 percent public use micro-data sample (PUMS) for New Jersey from the 1990 Census of Population and Housing conducted by the Bureau of the Census. This file contains detailed information on the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (as of April 1, 1990) of approximately 145,000 randomly selected New Jersey households. We exclude from our analysis residents
OCR for page 73
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration of institutional and noninstitutional group quarters, who constitute less than 2 percent of New Jersey's total population. Income data for household members pertain to the 1989 calendar year. Census data were extensively supplemented with state and local government budget information. The major source of additional information at the state level was the State of New Jersey Budget: Fiscal Year 1991–1992 (State of New Jersey, 1991b). This document contains actual state program expenditures during the 1990 fiscal year (ending June 30, 1990) as well as explanations of program participation parameters and eligibility criteria. When these data were inadequate to identify the relevant beneficiary populations, we obtained additional information and program data from individual departments in the executive branch of the state government and from independent research organizations. For example, information about municipal aid distributions came from State Aid Programs for Municipalities, 1989 and 1990 (Forsberg, 1995). Data on the state's share of school district expenditures were derived from the 1990 New Jersey Legislative District Data Book (Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 1990). The principal supplementary sources of information at the local level were detailed municipal and county budget and tax data found in the Fifty-Second Annual Report of the Division of Local Government Services, 1989 (State of New Jersey, 1990c). Clarifications of definitions for revenue and expenditure categories were frequently provided by representatives of the respective state and local agencies. A full listing of all data sources used together with a detailed description of the methodology used to arrive at our estimates of fiscal impacts are contained in the Appendix. A demographic profile of our study population is shown in Table 3-1. It is constructed by multiplying unweighted PUMS data by 20. There were almost three million households in New Jersey in 1990. More than 85 percent of these are headed by someone born in the United States. Among foreign-born households, those headed by individuals born in Europe or Canada are the most numerous and comprise nearly one-half of the foreign-born total. Immigrant households are significantly larger than native households, although there is considerable diversity within the foreign population. Households with a head from Europe or Canada are somewhat smaller than the typical native household, whereas households headed by non-natives from other regions of the world have significantly more members. There are also striking differences in age composition. The relative concentrations of children versus the elderly suggest that immigrant households are on average substantially younger than native households. Once again, however, there are sharp contrast within the foreign population. Households headed by migrants from Europe or Canada are markedly older than their counterparts from other regions and have fewer minor children. On the other hand, households headed by Asian immigrants are the youngest on average, having the fewest elderly and the most children. Differences in the average age of household heads
OCR for page 74
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration TABLE 3-1 Demographic Profile of New Jersey Households, 1990 Foreign-born Households by Region of Origin Characteristic (mean) Total Native Born Foreign Born Europe / Canada Asia Latin America Other Number of Households 2,897,560 2,505,400 392,160 182,460 77,100 111,200 21,400 Persons in Household 2.74 2.68 3.10* 2.62* 3.59* 3.51* 3.16* Children <18 in Household 0.66 0.63 0.81* 0.52* 1.14* 1.02* 0.99* School-Age Children in Householda 0.43 0.41 0.54* 0.38* 0.76* 0.65* 0.59* In Public School 0.34 0.33 0.42* 0.30* 0.60* 0.49* 0.45* LEP Children <18 in Householdb 0.03 0.01 0.11* 0.04* 0.19* 0.18* 0.10* LEP Children in Bilingual Educationc 0.02 <0.01 0.08* 0.03* 0.13* 0.12* 0.07* Persons 65+ in Household 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.56* 0.15* 0.19* 0.19* Age of Household Head 50.03 50.03 50.01 57.74* 42.06* 43.98* 44.06* % Male Household Head 68.36% 67.45 74.14* 70.53* 85.40* 71.80* 76.54* * Indicates native and foreign-born means are significantly different at the 5% level. a School-age children are defined as those aged 6 to 17, inclusive. b Limited English proficient children are defined as those who speak a language other than English at home and who speak English "well," "not well," or ''not at all," as opposed to "very well." c Defined as LEP children aged 6 to 17 inclusive, who are enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools.
OCR for page 75
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration confirm these conclusions. In short, the picture that emerges reflects a relatively large proportion of foreign households, nearly half of which are headed by European immigrants. These migrants tended to come to the United States earlier in the twentieth century and now head households that are both smaller and older than the average. Immigrants from Asia and Latin America predominate among more recent migrant cohorts, and they are now heads of households that are larger and more youthful than even native households. The average number of children under age 18 who are enrolled in public school is significantly greater for immigrant households, with the exception of those from Canada and Europe. These differentials reflect differences in the number of minor children, not in the propensity of immigrant families to use public education services. Conditional on having school-age children, immigrant-headed households are no more likely to enroll their children in public school than native-headed households. Because local governments spend a large proportion of their budgets on public schools, these demographic differences across households have important fiscal consequences. Just slightly more than one-fourth (26 percent) of the average number of minor children in foreign-born households are themselves foreign born (0.21 out of 0.81). This proportion ranges between 15 percent in households headed by persons born in Europe or Canada to 32 percent in Asian-headed households. Of the 0.21 average number of foreign-born children in the typical foreign household, 84 percent are 6-17 years old. And of these, nearly 80 percent are enrolled in public elementary or secondary school. In other words, foreign- and native-born children have similar school attendance patterns, regardless of the nativity status of the native children's parents. Finally, there is remarkable uniformity in public school enrollment rates among foreign-born children when households are stratified by region of origin. Socioeconomic variations by household type are shown in Table 3-2. Immigrant households from outside Europe and Canada have significantly above-average numbers of earners when compared with natives. This is partly a reflection of their greater size and youthfulness. Not only are households headed by Latin American immigrants significantly poorer than native households, they are also more likely to receive public assistance income than any other group of households. European and Asian immigrants are less likely to rely on public assistance than natives. On average, foreign-born households in 1989 had incomes that were about 6 percent below those for natives. However, income differences within the immigrant population are significantly greater than they are between natives and foreigners. Mean household income for Asian migrants, for example, is 56 percent higher than the average income for Latin American immigrants. A simple measure of relative economic well-being can be obtained by calculating per capita income for each household and averaging across all households in a category. For the total population, per capita household income equals more than $20,900. It is approximately $21,500 for natives versus $17,600 for immi-
OCR for page 76
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration TABLE 3-2 Socioeconomic Profile of New Jersey Households, 1990 Foreign-born Households by Region of Origin Characteristic Total Born Native Born Foreign Canada Europe / Asia America Latin Other Mean Number of Wage Earners in Household 1.39 1.37 1.51* 1.22* 1.76* 1.78* 1.54* % of Households Receiving Public Assistance Incomea 5.31% 5.24 5.79* 4.19* 4.46* 9.37* 5.70 % of Households Receiving SSI 1.66% 1.62 1.91 2.07* 0.96* 2.45* 1.21 % of Households Receiving AFDC 2.58% 2.57 2.63 1.01* 3.04 4.93* 2.99 Mean Public Assistance Income of Recipient Households, 1989 $4,428 4,459 4,250 4,502 4,163 4,135 3,905 Median Public Assistance Income of Recipient Households, 1989 $3,900 3,926 3,775 3,870 3,600 3,864 3,612 Mean Household Income, 1989 $50,684 51,085 48,122* 46,886* 62,836* 40,279* 46,404* Per Capitab $20,946 21,477 17,557* 19,335* 19,941* 13,144* 16,747* Median Household Income, 1989 $41,929 42,110 39,000 37,200 54,180 34,000 37,000 a Public assistance income includes General Assistance, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. b Found by calculating per capita income for each household and averaging over all households in the category. * Indicates native and foreign-born means are significantly different at the 5% level.
OCR for page 109
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration State Revenues Revenues collected by the state that are paid directly by households include those from the gross income tax, sales and use tax, motor vehicle fees, motor vehicle taxes, alcoholic beverage tax, cigarette tax, inheritance/estate transfer tax, business personal property tax, and the realty transfer tax.62 These sources accounted for nearly three-quarters of total state tax revenue in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990 (State of New Jersey 1991a:4–5). We neglect corporate-sector taxes in our simulation, which causes us to underestimate state tax revenue by about 25 percent. Gross Income Tax. The amount of income tax paid to the state is estimated using New Jersey state marginal tax rates and household income as reported by the household in the census. Gross income is first determined according to the procedures described in the 1989 New Jersey Gross Income Tax Resident Return form. Gross household income is calculated as the sum of wage and salary income (INCOME1); nonfarm self-employment income (INCOME2); farm self-employment income (INCOME3); and interest, dividend, and rental income (INCOME4) for all household members. 63 If gross income is less than $3,000, there is no tax liability in FY 1989–1990. We then subtract from gross income the dollar value of the household's total number of exemptions.64 The resulting figure is New Jersey taxable income. The marginal tax rate on the first $20,000 of taxable income is 2 percent, the marginal tax rate on the next $30,000 of taxable income (up to $50,000) is 2.5 percent, and the marginal tax rate on income over $50,000 is 3.5 percent (State of New Jersey, 1990b). Persons with negative taxable income owe no tax, but do not receive a tax credit from the state. Sales and Use Tax. We base our estimate of sales and use tax revenue on the guidelines developed by the Internal Revenue Service for itemizing sales tax deductions on the federal income tax form. As detailed in the Instructions for Preparing Form 1040, the approximation takes into account the sales tax rate 62 The question of tax incidence, or who really bears the burden of a given tax, is discussed in the introduction to the appendix. Our assumptions about tax incidence, which reflect the general consensus in the public finance literature, enable us to attribute revenues to contributing households. 63 There is a no-offset provision in the New Jersey tax code, which prohibits taxpayers from writing off gains in one income category against losses in another income category. Hence, losses in the INCOME2-INCOME4 categories are set to 0 prior to summation. 64 Tax exemptions in 1989 were set as follows. Married persons deducted $2,000 from gross income, single payers, $1000, and there were additional $1,000 exemptions for each senior citizen and minor child under 18 in the household. There were additional exemptions in the tax code for blind taxpayers and for special classes of dependents and children attending college away from home. Such exemptions are not considered in our simulation because they are not observed in census data (State of New Jersey, 1990b). 65 The sales tax rate effective in New Jersey from January 1983 to July 1, 1990 was 6 percent.
OCR for page 110
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration effective in the state at the time65 and varies with household size and income. We use the PUMS variables HHINC and PERSONS to determine total household income and household size, respectively. We then approximate each household's contribution to state sales tax receipts by inflating the Optional Sales Tax Table values (in the Instructions for Preparing Form 1040, 1987) by the growth in the CPI-U from 1986 to 1989.66 Automobile and Fuel Taxes. Motor vehicle taxes and the motor fuels tax are levied on automobiles in the state of New Jersey. The first component of motor vehicle taxes is the per vehicle inspection fee, whereas the second consists of the registration fee, which varies with the weight of the automobile and its date of purchase. We took the average cost of registering an automobile as the per vehicle fee.67 We then multiplied the number of automobiles owned by the household (AUTO) by the sum of the two motor vehicle taxes to arrive at the estimate of motor vehicle taxes paid by the household. The motor fuels tax is levied on all motor vehicles in the state. The average per vehicle contribution to motor fuels tax revenue is estimated by dividing total revenues from the tax by the number of automobiles registered in the state.68 This estimate slightly overstates the average per auto contribution to motor fuels tax revenue because the tax also applies to buses, trucks, and motorcycles. However, the number of cars registered in New Jersey far exceeds the number of other motor vehicles, and automobiles account for over 90 percent of the registered vehicles in the state in 1990. Furthermore, the bias induced by our estimation strategy affects immigrant and native-headed households approximately equivalently. 69 Alcoholic Beverage and Cigarette Taxes. The calculations in our model take into account household composition in estimating each household's contribution to state revenue from alcoholic beverage and cigarette taxes. Average consump- 66 The PUMS does not contain any information on household consumption expenditures, which renders a more precise estimate of household sales tax contributions impossible. The estimated sales tax payments in the Optional Sales Tax Tables are derived from estimates based on household consumption expenditures in the Consumer and Expenditure Survey (CEX). The CEX is a detailed survey of expenditures of a random sample of the U.S. population (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1986). The estimates in the Optional Sales Tax are inflated by the CPI-U for the Northeast to reflect changes in the general price level in urban areas over the three-year period. 67 The inspection fee was $2.50 per vehicle, and the average vehicle registration fee was $54.50 in FY 1989–1990 (Commerce Clearing House, 1990:930). 68 State revenues from the Motor Fuels Tax for FY 1989–1990 are found in the Annual Report of the Division of Taxation State of New Jersey (1990a), while state automobile registrations are given in the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Statistics 1990 (1991). 69 Foreign-born households possess 1.53 cars on average, whereas households with a native-born householder possess 1.70. Although this difference is statistically significant, it is negligible from the perspective of bias introduced by our estimation strategy.
OCR for page 111
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration tion is assumed for all persons of at least the legal purchase age for each taxed commodity.70 Hence, we calculate an average contribution for each individual by dividing one-twentieth of the total revenue derived from each tax by the total number of persons eligible for that tax in the PUMS. 71 This figure is the average per person contribution for the given tax. Thus, a household's contribution to the state revenues derived from each of these taxes equals the product of the number of eligible persons in the household and the average per person contribution to the tax. Transfer Inheritance and Estate Tax. The transfer inheritance and estate tax is most appropriately estimated on a per household basis. The likelihood that an immigrant-headed household must pay transfer inheritance taxes in a given year is less than a native-headed household of similar demographic and socioeconomic characteristics because immigrants are less likely to have friends or family members in the United States from whom they may inherit property. In the absence of detailed inheritance data in the census, inheritance and estate taxes are allocated to eligible households on a prorated share basis. The number of households across whom revenue from the transfer inheritance and estate tax is to be attributed is taken as the number of native-headed households plus the number of immigrant-headed households whose head immigrated to the United States before 1970. 72 Twenty years serves as a conservative estimate of the length of time necessary to raise the probability of inheritance for an immigrant householder to that of a native-born householder in 1989. We take one-twentieth of total state revenue from the transfer inheritance and estate tax73 and divide it by the number of potentially eligible households to arrive at a per eligible household figure. We then attribute this average contribution to households that potentially received an inheritance in 1989 to arrive at our estimate of inheritance taxes paid by each household. Business Personal Property Tax. Revenues from the business personal property tax are allocated on a per eligible prorated share basis. Eligible persons are those for whom the variable CLASS74 indicates that he or she is self-employed in 70 The PUMS does not contain detailed information on consumption of goods and services. Although the CEX does provide such data, it is impossible to identify the state of residence from the survey. 71 Eligible persons for the alcoholic beverage tax are those ages 21 and older, and for the cigarette tax, 18 and older. Revenues derived from the Alcoholic Beverage Tax and the Cigarette Tax are given in the Annual Report of the Division of Taxation (State of New Jersey, 1991a). 72 Such immigrant heads have a value of 7 or greater for the IMMIGR variable on the PUMS, which indicates the period of arrival in the United States. 73 State revenue from the Transfer Inheritance and Estate Tax is given in the Annual Report of the Division of Taxation (State of New Jersey, 1991a). 74 CLASS indicates whether a worker is a private wage or salary worker; a local, state, or federal worker; a self-employed worker in an incorporated or unincorporated business; or an unpaid worker in a family business (Bureau of the Census, 1993:5–22).
OCR for page 112
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration an incorporated or unincorporated business. We then divide one-twentieth of the total state revenue from the business personal property tax 75 by the number of self-employed persons in the PUMS to arrive at the average contribution of each self-employed worker to the business personal property tax. Multiplying this average figure by the number of self-employed persons in the household gives our estimate of the business personal property tax paid by each household. Realty Transfer Tax. The realty transfer tax is imposed on the recording of deeds and the transfer of titles to real property between individuals or institutions. We assume that statutory incidence of the tax is equivalent to economic incidence. Hence, the tax, which is paid by purchasers of homes at the time of closing, is allocated to potentially eligible households. Eligible households have householders for whom the variable TENURE 76 indicates the household owns its dwelling, and the variable YRMOVED 77 indicates the householder moved into the unit during 1989. For such households, revenues from the realty transfer tax78 are calculated as $1.75 per $500 property VALUE79 up to $150,000, and $2.50 per $500 property VALUE in excess of $150,000. Local Expenditures Local expenditures include those incurred by county and municipal governments. Our strategy involves prorating categories of local expenditure that do not permit allocation to specific households on an average-share basis. For municipal expenditures, the proration pertains to all households in the PUMA, which is typically smaller than a county. PUMAs are aggregated to the county level to prorate general county expenditures. Our discussion of the calculation of benefits received by New Jersey households from county and municipal government follows the order of their presentation in the tables describing the fiscal impact of households on local governments. We first consider expenditures on general county services made on behalf of households and subsequently turn to general municipal expenditures, expenditures on elementary and secondary public education services, county colleges, and transfer payments through AFDC. 75 State revenue from the Business Personal Property Tax is given in the Annual Report of the Division of Taxation (State of New Jersey, 1991a). 76 TENURE indicates whether a residential unit is owner or renter occupied (Bureau of the Census, 1993:5–11). 77 YRMOVED indicates the year the householder moved into the dwelling (Bureau of the Census, 1993, p. B-50). 78 The marginal tax rates of the realty transfer fee are given in the Annual Report of the Division of Taxation (State of New Jersey, 1991a). 79 VALUE is the respondent's estimate of the sale price he or she would expect to obtain for the dwelling and its lot if it were put on the market (Bureau of the Census, 1993:B-49). Because VALUE is a categorical variable, midpoints of each category are used in the calculations.
OCR for page 113
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration General County Expenditures. Our model assumes average use of several types of services provided by county governments. Total general county expenditure includes general government operations, judicial functions (excluding correctional and penal expenditures), public safety, public works, general health and welfare (excluding expenditures for the county welfare board), recreation and conservation, nonschool education expenditures (i.e., libraries and other educational services), and interest payments on local debt.80 We divide one-twentieth of total general county expenditures by the number of households in each county to arrive at average general county expenditures per household.81 We then allocate average general county expenditures to each household residing in a particular county. County expenditure on the local agricultural extension service is included under general county expenditures, although it is allocated to households on an actual-use basis. Although such services exist for the benefit of all households, they primarily benefit local farmers. Farmers (defined as those for whom the OCCUP variable is between 473 and 476) are assumed to benefit equally from these expenditures. Hence, we divide one-twentieth of county expenditures on the agricultural extension by the number of farmers in the county and allocate the resulting average figure to each farmer in the household. General Municipal Expenditures. Our model also assumes average cost in allocating several types of municipal government expenditure to households. Total general municipal expenditures include those labeled General Government, Judiciary, Public Safety, Public Works, Health and Welfare (excluding expenditures on Welfare-Public Assistance), Recreation and Conservation, Education (excluding schools), Statutory Expenditures (includes costs of employee benefits, taxes, and pension contributions), and Debt Service (interest payments).82 We sum these expenditures for all municipalities in a PUMA. We then take one-twentieth of this total general municipal expenditure and divide by the number of households in the PUMA to arrive at average general municipal expenditures per 80 These expenditures are detailed by county in the Summary of 21 County Government Data Sheets in the County Government Fiscal Data section of the Fifty-Second Annual Report of the Division of Local Government Services, 1989: Statements of Financial Condition of Counties and Municipalities (State of New Jersey, 1990c). 81 The PUMS does not permit separate identification of four counties. These include Sussex and Warren counties as well as Salem and Cape May counties (Bureau of the Census, 1993). For these two county groups, we determine average general county expenditure by summing one-twentieth of general county expenditures over the two counties and dividing by the number of households in both counties. 82 Municipal government expenditures are given in the Municipal Fiscal Data section of the Fifty-Second Annual Report of the Division of Local Government Services, 1989: Statements of Financial Condition of Counties and Municipalities (State of New Jersey, 1990c).
OCR for page 114
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration household. The resulting average dollar figure is then allocated to each household in the PUMA. Elementary and Secondary Education. There are three types of local government expenditure on education: general elementary and secondary education, the local share of per pupil expenditure on public elementary and secondary education, and county vocational schools. We allocate these expenditures to households on an actual-use basis. General elementary and secondary education expenditures comprise county-level expenditures on the county superintendent of schools. As in the case of state expenditures on elementary and secondary education, we count all children enrolled in public school in the household. We aggregate this figure across all households in the county. We then take one-twentieth of the total expenditures on the county superintendent of schools, divide it by the number of public school pupils in the county, and allocate the resulting average to each public school pupil in a household. Summing across public school pupils in the household yields the household's contribution to general elementary and secondary education costs. We discussed the calculation of average per pupil expenditure by PUMA in the section that describes the allocation of state elementary and secondary education expenditure. The fraction of average per pupil expenditure for which localities are responsible is calculated as one minus the average state share. Hence, each PUMA's local elementary and secondary school costs per pupil are simply the product of the PUMA's average per pupil expenditure and the average local share. Thus, for every child in the household ages 6 through 17 for whom the variable ENROLL indicates ''in public school," the local share of the PUMA of residence's average per pupil expenditure is added to local expenditures on that household. All counties, with the exception of Hunterdon, support county vocational schools that provide intensive preparation for students interested in technical occupations. Because these schools are highly specialized, they invest in costly equipment and enroll relatively few pupils. As a result, their per pupil expenditures are quite high, ranging from $8,000 to $23,000 per pupil in 1989.83 We define persons who are potentially enrolled in county vocational education in the following way. Persons ages 18 through 21 who indicate they are ENROLLED in a public school, who have completed no less than 9th grade and no more than 12th grade, and do not have a diploma (6 <= YEARSCH <= 9) are considered potentially enrolled in a county vocational school.84 We then take one-twentieth 83 Figures provided by the New Jersey School Boards Association (1990). 84 This definition, although as precise as possible with the available data, still overestimates by roughly a factor of three the number of persons enrolled in county vocational schools.
OCR for page 115
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration of the county's total expenditure on vocational schools and divide it by the number of potential vocational education students, which yields the county's average expenditure per potential vocational student. Multiplying this figure by the number of potential vocational education students in the household gives each household's contribution to the costs of county vocational education. County College. Counties contribute to the support of their local community colleges. As described above under state expenditures, a person is coded as attending a community college if ENROLL indicates "enrolled in public school" and YEARSCH indicates "is a high school graduate or holds a GED or diploma" and if the person has attained no more than "an associate degree in college in an academic program.'' One-twentieth of the county's total expenditure on community colleges is divided by the number of students potentially enrolled in the county's community college to arrive at the per student cost. Each student potentially enrolled in a county college is then allocated the average county expenditure on the community college. Aid to Families with Dependent Children. AFDC costs are allocated to households on an actual-use basis. For each eligible household,85 local expenditures on AFDC are calculated as 12.5 percent of each household's reported public assistance income (INCOME6). Local Revenues Property Taxes. Property taxes are the most important taxes paid by households to local governments. To estimate property tax payments, we use actual property taxes paid by homeowners and impute property taxes paid by renters. Householders who own their own dwellings (TENURE = 1 or 2) were asked to report on their 1990 census questionnaire the amount of property tax they paid in 1989. Property taxes paid by such households are reported as ranges in the categorical variable RTAXAMT. We take the midpoint of the category as a point estimate of property tax paid in 1989. For homeowners who were in the highest category of RTAXAMT with no upper bound on property tax paid and for those who did not report paying real estate taxes, we use the estimated market VALUE of the residence and multiply this figure by the population-weighted equalized property tax rate for the PUMA of residence86 to estimate property taxes paid. 85 For a description of eligibility requirements for AFDC, state and local share of AFDC costs, and the determination of household AFDC receipt, see the discussion of the allocation of state AFDC expenditures. 86 Equalized property tax rates correct for the fact that assessed value in New Jersey municipalities rarely equals the true market value of a residence. They are defined such that the product of the equalized tax rate and the estimated market value of a residence equals the amount of property tax calculated by multiplying the statutory property tax rate by assessed value. Equalized property tax rates often vary widely across municipalities within a PUMA and tend to move inversely with the property wealth of a municipality. To account for this disparity in equalized rates and the fact that the population of a PUMA tends to be concentrated in the relatively high tax rate urban areas, we weight the equalized property tax rate by the fraction of the PUMA's population in the municipality to arrive at the equalized property tax rate of the PUMA.
OCR for page 116
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration To estimate property taxes paid by renters, we assume that taxes are capitalized in the value of rental property (Yinger, 1982) and that property taxes are passed on to renters by owners. If we conceptualize rent as payment for a stream of housing services, property taxes paid are equal to annual contract rent87 multiplied by [t/(t+i)], where t is the local equalized property tax rate and i is a discount rate, assumed in our calculation to be the average 30-year mortgage rate over the 1985–1995 period or 8 percent.88 Public Utility Gross Receipts Tax. The public utility gross receipts tax is levied on water, sewer, gas, electric, and power utilities in the state. We calculate the taxes remitted by households on an actual-use basis. We sum the ELECCOST, GASCOST, WATRCOST, and FUELCOST payments of households to arrive at total utility payments.89 We then apply the statutory tax rate, 7.5 percent to total utility payments to calculate the public utility tax paid by the household. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This chapter is an expanded version of Deborah L. Garvey and Thomas J. Espenshade, "State and Local Fiscal Impacts of New Jersey's Immigrant and Native Households," in T.J. Espenshade, ed., Keys to Successful Immigration: Implications of the New Jersey Experience (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Insti- 87 Annual contract rent is defined as 12 times monthly contract rent. Monthly rent is reported as ranges in the categorical variable RENT1 in the 1990 census. We take the midpoint of each category as an estimate of monthly rent paid (Bureau of the Census, 1993:B-41). 88 We thank Robert Inman for suggesting the capitalized value approach to us. In earlier work, Espenshade and King (1994) used a different approach for estimating renters' property tax contributions. They based their calculations on New Jersey guidelines (State of New Jersey, 1990b; Public Law, 1990) and multiplied annual contract rent by 18 percent to approximate the fraction of rent payments that compensates owners for property taxes. This method and the capitalized value approach give identical results if the equalized tax rate is 1.76 percent and if the assumed discount rate is 8 percent. 89 These variables give households' annual payments for electricity, gas service, water, and home heating fuel, respectively (Bureau of the Census, 1993:B-48). We assign the mean utility cost of same-sized households to those households who reported paying utilities as part of their rent (GASCOST or WATRCOST or ELECCOST or FUELCOST = 1). Approximately 1 percent of households reported no energy consumption whatsoever (WATRCOST = FUELCOST = ELECCOST = 2). These households were assigned the mean value of same-sized households' energy expenditures.
OCR for page 117
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration tute Press, 1997). Financial support for this research was provided by a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. We are grateful to the following individuals for supplying information, data, and guidance about the operations of state and local government programs: Pat Austin, Maryann Belanger, Gerald Dowgin, Pamela Espenshade, Mary Forsberg, David Grimm, Evelyn Klingler, Robert Lupp, Linda O'Connor, Marc Pfeiffer, Deena Schorr, and Mel Wyns. Andrei Shidlowski, from the New Jersey School Boards Association, prepared the data on per pupil expenditure. Valuable comments were received from members of the National Research Council's Panel on the Demographic and Economic Impacts of Immigration at a workshop in Irvine, California, January 25–26, 1996. Melanie Adams and Maya Smith provided skillful technical and research assistance. REFERENCES Abowd, John M., and Richard B. Freeman, eds. 1991. Immigration, Trade, and the Labor Market. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Borjas, George J. 1985. "Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Quality, and the Earnings of Immigrants." Journal of Labor Economics 3(4):463–489. Borjas, George J. 1994. "The Economics of Immigration." Journal of Economic Literature 32(4):1667–1717. Borjas, George J., and Richard B. Freeman, eds. 1992. Immigration and the Work Force: Economic Consequences for the United States and Source Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Borjas, George J., and Lynette Hilton 1996. "Immigration and the Welfare State: Immigrant Participation in Means-Tested Entitlement Programs." Quarterly Journal of Economics 111(2):575–604. Borjas, George J., and Stephen J. Trejo 1991. "Immigrant Participation in the Welfare System." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 44(2):195–211. Bureau of the Census 1990. Official 1990 U.S. Census Form. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census 1993. Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Public Use Microdata Sample Technical Documentation. Prepared by the Microdata Access Branch, Data User Services Division . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Clark, Rebecca L., Jeffrey Passel, Wendy Zimmermann, and Michael Fix 1994. Fiscal Impacts of Undocumented Aliens: Selected Estimates for Seven States. Report to the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Justice, September. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Commerce Clearing House 1990. State Tax Handbook as of October 1, 1990. Chicago: Commerce Clearing House, Inc. Dunlap, Jonathan C., and Ann Morse 1995. "States Sue Feds to Recover Immigration Costs." NCSL Legisbrief, January, 3(1). Washington, D.C.: National Conference of State Legislatures. Espenshade, Thomas J. 1996. "Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants and the Shrinking Welfare State." Working Paper No. 96-1, Office of Population Research, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.
OCR for page 118
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration Espenshade, Thomas J., and Vanessa E. King 1994. "State and Local Fiscal Impacts of U.S. Immigrants: Evidence from New Jersey." Population Research and Policy Review 13:225–256. Federal Highway Administration 1991. Highway Statistics 1990. Thomas D. Larson, Federal Highway Administrator Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Fix, Michael, and Jeffrey S. Passel 1994. Immigration and Immigrants: Setting the Record Straight. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Forsberg, Mary E. 1995. State Aid Programs for Municipalities, 1989 and 1990. Trenton, N.J.: Office of Legislative Services; Revenue, Finance and Appropriations Section. Data File. Forsberg, Mary E., and Martin Poethke 1994. "Summary of State Aid Programs for Municipalities: Senate Bipartisan Task Force on Municipal Air Reform." Office of Legislative Services, Trenton, N.J. Friedberg, Rachel, and Jennifer Hunt 1995a. "Immigration and the Receiving Economy," Paper prepared for the SSRC Conference on America Becoming/Becoming American, Sanibel Island, Florida, January 18–21, 1996. Friedberg, Rachel, and Jennifer Hunt 1995b. "The Impact of Immigrants on Host Country Wages, Employment and Growth." Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(2):23–44. Fullerton, Donald, and Diane Lim Rodgers 1993. Who Bears the Lifetime Tax Burden? Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Garvey, Deborah L. 1997. "Immigrants' Earnings and Labor Market Assimilation: A Case Study of New Jersey." Pp. 291–336 in Keys to Successful Immigration: Implications of the New Jersey Experience, T.J. Espenshade, ed. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press. Huddle, Donald 1993. The Costs of Immigration. Washington, D.C.: Carrying Capacity Network. Isbister, John 1996. The Immigration Debate: Remaking America. West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian Press, Inc. Metcalf, Gilbert E. 1993. "The Lifetime Incidence of State and Local Taxes: Measuring Changes During the 1980s." NBER Working Paper No. 4252, Cambridge, Mass. New Jersey School Boards Association 1990. 1989–90 Cost of Education Index and Users' Guide. Trenton, N.J.: NJSBA Information Systems. Computer File. O'Connor, Linda 1995. Enrollment of Undergraduates in New Jersey Colleges by County of Residence. State of New Jersey, Commission on Higher Education. FAX and personal communication, August 30. Pechman, Joseph A. 1985. Who Paid the Taxes, 1966–85. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Public Law 1990. c.61, s.2 (New Jersey Statutes Annotated c.54:4–8.58). Rothman, Eric S., and Thomas J. Espenshade 1992. "Fiscal Impacts of Immigration to the United States." Population Index 58(3):381–415. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 1990. 1990 New Jersey Legislative District Data Book New Brunswick, N.J.: Bureau of Government Research and Department of Government Services
OCR for page 119
The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration Smith, James P., and Barry Edmonston, eds. 1997. The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. State and Local Coalition on Immigration 1994. "Three More States Sue Feds for Costs of Immigration." Immigrant Policy News…The State-Local Report 1(2), November 9 Washington, D.C. State of New Jersey 1989. State of New Jersey Budget: Fiscal Year 1989–1990. Trenton, N.J.: Jim Florio, Governor State of New Jersey 1990a. Annual Report of the Division of Taxation, Fiscal Year 1989. Trenton, N.J.: Department of the Treasury, Division of Taxation. State of New Jersey 1990b. Instructions for Preparing NJ Form 1040. Trenton, N.J.: Department of the Treasury, Division of Taxation. State of New Jersey 1990c. Fifty-Second Annual Report of the Division of Local Government Services, 1989. Trenton, N.J.: Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Government Services State of New Jersey 1990d. Owner Occupied Housing: Statistics from Homestead Rebate and Income Tax Data Match for 1988. Trenton, N.J.: Department of the Treasury, Division of Taxation, Office of Tax Analysis State of New Jersey 1991a. Annual Report of the Division of Taxation, Fiscal Year 1990. Trenton, N.J.: Department of the Treasury, Division of Taxation. State of New Jersey 1991b. State of New Jersey Budget: Fiscal Year 1991–1992. Trenton, N.J.: Jim Florio, Governor. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1986. Consumer Expenditure Survey, 1984: Interview Survey and Diary. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. General Accounting Office 1994. Illegal Aliens: Assessing Estimates of Financial Burden on California. GAO/HEHS-95-22. Washington, D.C. U.S. General Accounting Office 1995. Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely. GAO/HEHS-95–133. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Treasury 1987. Instructions for Preparing Form 1040. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vernez, Georges, and Kevin McCarthy 1995. The Fiscal Costs of Immigration: Analytical and Policy Issues. DRU-958-1-IF. Center for Research on Immigration Policy. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation. Vernez, Georges, and Kevin McCarthy 1996. The Costs of Immigration to Taxpayers: Analytical and Policy Issues. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation. Yinger, John 1982. "Capitalization and the Theory of Local Public Finance." Journal of Political Economy 90(5):917–943.
Representative terms from entire chapter: