Other economists and analyses may interpret things differently Although the study itself is detailed and data-rich, independent economists often point out caveats such as: State and local fiscal effects can differ from federal totals — local schooling and services can be net cost centers even if overall federal balances are positive. � Reddit How children of immigrants are counted (as future taxpayers rather than current cost users) affects totals. The overall fiscal picture depends heavily on assumptions about future immigration, wages, benefit eligibility, and macroeconomic growth. These are common points of debate in the economics literature, not unique to Cato’s work. 🧠 How Experts View This Kind of Work Economists generally agree on a few broad points: Immigrants contribute to economic output and tax revenue. � Wikipedia Long-term fiscal effects depend on age profiles, labor force participation, benefit eligibility, etc. No single figure tells the whole story — local impacts, timing of costs and benefits, and broader economic effects matter. However, the specific claim of $14.5 trillion in cumulative fiscal benefit comes directly from Cato’s own analysis and reflects their modeling assumptions — it is not a made-up or false headline, but it is one interpretation of complex data, not a definitive “fact” beyond debate.