From: laird@think.com (Laird Popkin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton Tax Numbers
Date: 16 Oct 1992 23:57:45 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: django.think.com

In article <1992Oct16.183219.10093@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.164709.12355@ll.mit.edu> ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba) writes:
>
>>|> below Clinton's 200,000). Applying Clinton's tax plan to the top 5%
>>|> will only yeild $21 billion in new taxes.
>
>>   $21 billion/year * 5 years = $105 billion.  
>
>And over ten years it is $210 billion. So what?
>
>>Plus, he expects to get a
>>similar amount, if not much more, from making foreign corporations pay up
>>their due, and close some other glaring loopholes.  
>
>He is overstating the amounts but fine, toss it in as well. It is still
>far far short of his promise.
>
>>The $150 billion in
>>new spending and tax incentives (like *targeted* capital-gains cuts) are
>>for 5 years (or maybe four).  
>
>This is incorrect. Clinton is promising new spending of $150 billion per
>year. In addition, he is promissing to cut the deficit in half. Doing
>this will cost another $150 billion per year. Even using Clinton's
>rosy numbers on foreign companies and assuming he breaks his promise
>and taxes the top 5% instead of 2%, he is still a quarter trillion
>$$ short. Where does the rest of it come from?
>
>But please remember that the figures are annual figures, not figures
>over 5 years. 
>
>This estimate also ignores the fact that for every $1 in new taxes
>collected over the past 12 years, Congress spends an additional $1.25 
>so Clinton's tax plan will add another $50 billion to the deficit.

This is a sneaky attempt to mislead people, buddy!  You can perhaps say
that for every $1 in new taxes, Congress *has spent* $1.25 more, but you've
hardly established a link between the two, simply made an assertion.

>Using higher taxes to reduce the deficit is like using gasoline to put out
>a fire.

Well, when Reagan *cut* taxes in order to reduce the defecit, guess what --
tax revenue dropped, and the defecit skyrocketed!

>>The numbers are a tad optimistic overall,
>
>Come on now, they're freaking impossible.
>
>>on the whole the plan is by far the best shot.
>
>Bush's proposed federal freeze in our best shot. If government spent no
>more today than it did in 1986, there would be no deficit today. If we
>simply freeze total spending today, we will have a balanced budget
>in 5-8 years.

The "federal freeze" is meaningless.  All Bush has said is that he vaguely
supports some sort of undefined "flexible freeze", meaning that he can say
that he's declared a "freeze" and it's up to Congress to make all of the
cuts to hit his target, and take all of the heat for cutting programs.
That's bravery and leadership for you...

>Bush's proposed 10% box on your income tax form is another way. The WSJ
>has reported that if everybody checked that box every year, the budget
>will be balanced in 7 years.

That's another really brave move -- he's allowing every individual to
choose to reduce their income tax (as far as government spending goes) by
10%, without proposing *any* cuts to pay for the revenue drop.  Again, he
makes a noble sounding speech, but leaves it to Congress to make all of the
cuts, and take all of the heat, while he would get the credit.

>>   Hell, even my father-in-law, who hasn't voted Democratic since Kennedy,
>>is voting for Clinton.  
>
>Ask him to do the math and see if it still looks like a good idea. I wonder
>how he will feel when he sees his higher taxes going to pork for somebody's
>district with no reduction in the deficit?

Well, independent analysts have looked at the three plans, and concluded
that Clinton's would reduce the deficit slightly, Bush's would increase the
deficit, and Perot's would reduce the deficit but the impact of higher
taxes and lower spending during a recession would be dangerous at best.

Personally, I applaud Perot for having the guts to outline his plan, but I
don't think that he'd make a good president at all.  Luckily, his presence
has gotten Clinton (and to a lesser extent, Bush) to address the deficit,
and perhaps that will do some good.

>>He wants his daughter to be able to get a job once she finishes college
>
>I think he is in for a rude suprise.

I think not.  The US is not in great shape right now, but with more
intelligent incentives for investment, rather than blanket cuts on taxes
for "the rich", and an emphasis on investment in our infrastructure (which
has decayed under Reagan and Bush, as the result of their slashing federal
funds which go to the states) and education (ditto) things look pretty
promising, particularly since most of the changes can be made by spending
money more wisely, as opposed to spending more money (IMO, of course).  The
4 trillion dollar debt is pretty ominous, but if the economy perks up, and
spending can be controlled (as it is in Clinton's plan, of course) we
should be able to eliminate the deficit within a decade or so, and then
start making a dent into the debt.

It's educational to look at what the budget would look like without
interest payments on the national debt.  Basically, the budget would just
about be balanced, so if Reagan hadn't ramped up spending while cutting
taxes, we'd actually be in pretty good shape.  Ah well, it's too late to
shoot the old codger... <joke!>

>  Allen

>-- 
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
>|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
>+----------------------191 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+


-- 
- Laird Popkin, Thinking Machines

Connection Machine: Massively parallel supercomputer.  Also a cool black
cube with more blinking lights than you can shake a stick at.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton