From: sug6@amber.uucp (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Clinton Tax Numbers
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:03:45 GMT

thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>>Clinton says he's only going to raise taxes on families whose incomes
>>are in the upper 2% -- those making over $200,000.  Bush says Clinton
>>can't possibly raise his $150 billion by only taxing the upper 2%.
>
>He's right.  Clinton can't.  Of course, Clinton never proposed to do so.
>First of all, the $150 billion is over four years.  Second of all, that
>figure doesn't include $105 billion in tax cuts.  Finally, much of the
>money comes from taxing foreign corporations, and closing loopholes that
>allow tax credits for sending jobs overseas.

  Yes.  I think Clinton claims he will get something like (and I can
look this up but my memory is likely very close) $35 billion from foreign 
corporations.  This is considered extremely unlikely.  It is rhetoric.
The IRS/treasury/economist/and periodicals I've read point
out that the money to be acquired there is more like $1-2 billion.

  Clinton's numbers are very fuzzy.  Also, the top 2% does not equal
those making over $200,000.  Clinton uses these interchangeably, but it
just isn't true.  The treasury department points out that the top
2% for _families_ is $64,000 (and lower for single tax-payers of course).
This was one flaw with the previous person's post.  The numbers are
even worse than he pointed out. 

  Also, Clinton does have a variety of other taxes rather than just
federal income tax in his plan.  An economist (from U of C, I believe)
added up all the additional taxes in the Clinton plan and came up
with $150 billion/year.  When he went to the Clinton campaign and
mentioned this, they told him they had been using $190 billion/year.
But, you must remember economists consider new regulations taxes,
they do not ignore the 1.5% payroll tax increase for training, the
elimination of interest deductions on houses over a certain value, etc.
He's never mentioned how he will pay for his health care proposal. (Or
even specifically what his proposal is. I wish he would adopt the APC
plan, but he is straddling two divergent views of his party.)

  [P.S. Note: the 1.5% payroll tax alone according to my quick
calculation is $90 billion/year.]

  Now, that being said these taxes do have some benefits.  The payroll
tax would pay for training and while _I_ disagree with its parental
nature, others may not.  Many of the additional regulations would (I think) 
lose in any unbiased cost/benefit analysis, but I know not everyone agrees
with me, etc.


  In short, though, Clinton's numbers are very fuzzy and he is pushing
some populist notions to get elected (tax the rich, get those nasty
foreign companies).  This being said, Clinton is a very sharp 
individual.   I suspect he knows where his proposals are fuzzy and
where he is pushing populist bunk.   What he does in office may or may
not resemble what he says on the street.  My guess would be that
he will increase taxes on nearly everyone to pay for education and
infrastructure.  This is based on the fact that he raised _sales_ tax
in Arkansas to do the same (a regressive tax).  Then again, in Arkansas
he _had_ to balance the budget.  He has no such need in the federal
government so he may just let the deficit and debt and uncontrolled
growth in mandatory spending continue.  It is really hard for me
to tell.

Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent				E-mail me if you really want  
sug6@amber.uchicago.edu 		a response.  My USENET reading
(708) 447-1771				is haphazard at best.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns