From: chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher)
Subject: Re: Just to keep things straight . . .
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
	<1992Sep11.195641.17918@iti.org> <CHRISF.92Sep11205523@thor.albany.edu>
	<1992Sep12.182500.12708@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 20:41:07 GMT
X-Posted-From: thor.albany.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep12.182500.12708@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

>   In article <CHRISF.92Sep11205523@thor.albany.edu> chrisf@csc.albany.edu (Slasher) writes:
>   >>In article <1992Sep11.195641.17918@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>   >>   In article <1992Sep9.204037.4477@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pws2n@vision1.ee.Virginia.EDU (Philip Weaver Smith) writes:
>   >>   >Clinton plans to raise taxes on those making over $200K to $250K ( top 2-3% ),
>   >>   >keep them the same for those making between $80K and $200K ( top 20-25% ),
>   >>   >and lower them for those that make less than that.
>   >
>   >>   Clinton's plan will raise maybe $15 to $20 billion (the top 3% earns about
>   >>   $300B and Clinton will take an additional 5%). In fact, it will be less
>   >>   than this since the added taxes will discourage the creation of wealth.
>   >
>   >Your statement that Clinton will raise "maybe $15 to $20 billion" takes a lot
>   >of force out of your arguement.  Got a source?

>   5% of $300B is $15B; basic arithmetic is a source.

>   >>   Clinton's plan promises a quarter trillion $$ is deficit reduction and
>   >>   new spending.
>   >
>   >>   $250 billion - $20 billion = $230 billion.
>   >
>   >>   Question: where does the other $230 billion come from?
>   >
>   >Wow!  You go further than Bush.  He said $230 billion - $150 billion.  Ever
>   >thought of giving some real numbers?

>   Clinton says that he's proposing new spending and has given an amount.
>   If that amount is larger than $15B, the money can't come from his
>   announced soak the rich plan.  Maybe he's planning to soak them even
>   more, or maybe he's planning on borrowing the money, or maybe we're
>   all in for increased taxes.

I have yet to see where the number $230 billion came from; if someone's got a
reference, please respond to this.

I think we have lost the perspective of money and TIME here (no, not the mag);
Clinton's plan, according to what I heard Bush a few weeks ago, called for $230
billion.  Fine - until I hear otherwise, we'll use that figure.  But that's 
$230 billion over five years; a BIG difference from $230 billion a year.  You
didn't list any money that might be saved by proposed military cuts (who said 
all the money would come from one place?).

I disagree with your method of calculating how much taxing the top 2-3% will
raise; using a figure for the top 4% and then subtracting can result in a big
difference (it may be in your favor!).

>   Clinton supporters have been claiming that the increase is in the
>   $200-250B region, so ....

Clinton supporters or Clinton?

>   >>   As you can see, Clinton's plan won't generate the money he needs. He must
>   >>   therefore raise the taxes on the other 98% of us to get the vast majority
>   >>   of the money.
>   >
>   >So you make up some false numbers, then tell us that Clinton must raise our
>   >taxes because of it.

>   No, he just did arithmetic with Clinton's numbers.  If you don't like
>   the results, you need a candidate with different numbers; arithmetic
>   isn't going to change.

He did arithmetic for Clinton's proposed tax increase for one year with
spending over five years.  He also only used one revenue source.

>   -andy
>   --
>   UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
>   ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu

chrisf
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush