From: mancini@fysik.uu.se (Derrick C. Mancini)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: CLINTON:  127 (or 8) tax increases revisited
Followup-To: alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Date: 26 Jan 1993 18:38:40 GMT
Organization: Fysikum, Uppsala Universitet
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: usx221.fysik.uu.se

In article <C1GrvG.2Mz@rice.edu>, byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
wrote:
> 
> Anyone remember a few months ago when the Bush camp pointed out the
> propensity of Clinton to add consumption taxes?  Remember when I
> pointed out that he even raised taxes on groceries?  Well, he's
> at it again ...
Yes, I think it is fair to say that Clinton is and has been open to
the use of consumption taxes.

> Despite his campaign promises, he will raise taxes on the middle class
> and poor, not only the rich.  And what about those campaign promises?
Actually, I am not quite sure he wasn't referring specifically to
income taxes during the campaign, since he also suggested things like
a gasoline tax, which is a consumption tax.

> No one seems to be holding his feet to the fire on the middle class
> tax break.  Now he says he realizes they weren't realistic.  Are we
> (you saps who voted for him) to believe that he didn't see the
> fantasy of it back in October?  Perot and Bush pointed out that
> it wasn't realistic, and look what happened to them.  The reason
> they call him slick Willie is because people like those who
> voted for him are letting him get away with totally going against
> his campaign pledges, just about every one except gays in the
> military!  Do you think Bush would get away with it?  Of course,
> we know the answer:  He didn't. 
Maybe your premise is wrong, then.  People did not vote for Clinton
because he would provide a middle class tax break.  And people may
be willing to put it off, as well as accept consumption taxes, because
they agree it is necessary to reduce the deficit.  If Perot and Bush
supporters knew it was not realistic, and Clinton supporters did not
consider it of central importance, then few would worry if such a
tax break did not materialize.

> P.S.  I'd really like some economist(s) to explain to everyone here
> how comsumption taxes are regressive, that is, the poorer someone is,
> the bigger percentage of their income they pay in consumption tax.
> The more any government comes to rely on consumption taxes, the lower
> the percentage the rich will have to pay.
Not if we simultaneously raise income taxes on the wealthy.  I think that
is
part of the plan.  But you are correct, consumption taxes are often
inherently regressive.  I think people realize this.  They are also
complex to administer and can be inflationary.  On the other hand,
US consumption taxes are relatively low and income taxes relatively
high compared to other industrial economies.

> Old Republicans should love Clinton now!
Evidently not, considering the postings.  Rather, Repubs are some of
the biggest complainers.  Clearly your analysis must be missing something
since it doesn't explain what is going on.

> -- 
> Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
> Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
> Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
> XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 
Actually, I would like to know more about your project, if you don't
mind not discussing politics.

Best regards,

Derrick C. Mancini
Fysiska Institutionen  -  Uppsala Universitet
Box 530  S751 21  Uppsala  Sverige
mancini@fysik.uu.se
---------------------------------------------
"Are we having fun yet?"  -  Zippy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.reform:225 alt.politics.usa.misc:944 alt.activism:21354