3 Families Willing to Play by the Numbers : Incomes: Retirees, doctor and middle-class pair expect to feel sting of Clinton plan but say it’s worth it.

When President Clinton announced his new economic program Wednesday, the first thing that retirees Don and Charlotte Cleland did was to rush to their calculator to figure out how much it would cost them.

The result was just what they expected: After all was said and done, the higher taxes and the increase in federal Medicare premiums would take about $800 a year from their available spending money--a total that the Clelands view as pesky but not all that troublesome.

Moreover, contrary to some popular perceptions, the former Dade County schoolteachers--he is 67 and she is 70--say they see the extra cash as a necessary contribution to getting the country back on track.

“It’s high time” that the government began addressing some of the social problems that the nation has amassed, Don Cleland says. “I’d send them even more money if I felt like everyone else was doing it.”

The Clelands aren’t alone, either in their assessment of the impact of Clinton’s proposed tax increases or in their willingness to pay their fair share if that is what is required to get the country moving again.

Although some economists--and many special interest groups--are predicting serious consequences if Clinton’s program is enacted, many rank-and-file Americans appear ready to accept the burden uncomplainingly, and they expect little apparent impact on their lifestyles.

Upper-income Americans--who would bear proportionately heavier burdens if Clinton’s proposals are enacted--may be more stringent in demanding that their sacrifices ultimately bring the expected results.

In Westport, Conn., accountant Sonya Clark muses that “if Clinton would pin down where he is going to cut spending, many higher-income people wouldn’t mind paying a little more in taxes” as part of the trade-off.

But Clark warns that if Congress raises taxes without enacting the other reforms, upper-income voters are likely to be angry--and they will take it out on all guilty incumbents in the next election.

To see how Clinton’s proposals would affect individuals, Times reporters talked with three American families--the Clelands, a physician and his family and a middle-income couple--about the effect of the President’s program and what it would mean to each of them.

Here are their stories:

The Physician

On paper, at least, Nikhilesh Agarwal may be just the sort of taxpayer that President Clinton’s strategists had in mind when they shaped the Administration’s economic program so that “the wealthiest” bear the brunt of the burden for paying for it.

Agarwal, a 44-year-old York, Pa., physician, is lucky enough to be in the top 1% of the nation’s income-grouping, with a six-figure salary that probably would be the envy of most other Americans. As head of the local hospital’s trauma unit, he works hard for what he earns.

By any calculation, that makes Agarwal--who is married to a part-time nurse and is the father of two--unlucky enough to be especially hard hit by the President’s new tax-increase proposals.

If Clinton’s plan is enacted, the new 36% top bracket will cost Agarwal an extra $5,000 in taxes, beginning in 1993. The plan to impose a 10% surtax--dubbed a “millionaire’s tax”--on the portion of his taxable income that exceeds $250,000 a year will cost him $4,000.

Increases in the “alternative minimum tax”--along with an extension of soon-to-expire limitations on the personal exemption and itemized deduction categories--will cost him $3,000. And higher hospital insurance and energy taxes will sap another $3,000 from his available income.

The total tab in increased taxes: $15,000.

But that--almost literally--is only the half of it. Agarwal figures that the new limitations that Clinton is proposing on what Medicare is willing to pay physicians--and on how much it is willing to offset inflation--will reduce his gross income by about $10,000 a year.

And if Clinton succeeds in pushing through his national health insurance plan, the move to “managed competition”--in which the government bids for services in an attempt to hold physicians’ prices down--ultimately could slash those earnings even more.

To be sure, even if Clinton’s program is enacted intact, it’s unlikely that Agarwal will have to pay a full $15,000 in additional taxes. For one thing, there would be some offsets: Agarwal could reap a $7,000 tax break on new equipment he is thinking of buying.

And Thomas L. Kwako, the Bethesda, Md.-based tax lawyer and accountant who serves as Agarwal’s financial adviser, says he’s likely to recommend that Agarwal shift more of his investments to tax-exempt bonds--and contribute more to charity--to help cut his tax liability.

Yet, while the overall double-edged bite would still be substantial, Agarwal says he isn’t complaining and probably won’t have to trim back his lifestyle very much in order to meet what Clinton calls his “contribution” to the new recovery effort.

“I voted for Clinton, and I don’t really mind that the taxes are going to go up,” he says. “I know something needs to be done, and I’m willing to do my patriotic duty to do my fair share.”

Indeed, what worries Agarwal the most is that Clinton will succeed in raising taxes but will not be able to tackle the bloated federal programs and needed reforms that he has pledged to attack, particularly in overhauling the nation’s health care system.

“My concern is that he (Clinton) so far has not demonstrated a convincing resolve to address the bureaucratic waste that (former independent candidate) Ross Perot has talked about. If these problems are not addressed, it will be a failed presidency.”

Middle-Income Couple

Royce Craft and Linda Davis haven’t had time to figure out precisely what impact President Clinton’s new economic program will have on their lives, but from everything they’ve read and seen, they aren’t expecting it to be anything onerous.

With his income of about $40,000 a year, the southwest Chicago blue-collar couple doesn’t earn enough to be hit hard by Clinton’s new tax-increase proposals. They’ll have higher gasoline and fuel costs, but even these are apt to be relatively modest.

Although Craft, a 46-year-old truck driver, already is struggling to pay his charge-account bills and to keep up his alimony, he believes the tax hikes are needed to help improve the long-term health of the country and the job prospects of fellow African-Americans.

Davis, a 42-year-old homemaker who shares an apartment with Craft, agrees. “So we sacrifice $10 here and $20 there. It’s not really that big a thing. So we won’t go to Europe. . . . I’m willing to sacrifice.”

For Craft and Davis, the promises that Clinton has made to boost funding for job creation and social programs far outweighs the President’s call for higher taxes. “It’s not just for me, it’s my kids, my grandchildren,” Craft asserts. “We’re mortgaging our future (now).”

At least for the moment, both Davis and Craft are being patient. “It’s not going to happen overnight,” Craft acknowledges of the improvement he expects, “but this is a start. In 1996, we’ll know if we made the right choice . . . we just have to try.”

The Retirees

Technically, the $800 that the Clelands will have to pay if Clinton’s new economic proposals are enacted doesn’t represent their entire burden. It’s just the extra income taxes that will result if Congress agrees to increase the portion of Social Security benefits that are subject to taxation.

The Clelands have a combined annual income of about $43,800--$2,500 a month from the teachers’ pension fund, $750 in Social Security and $400 from renting out a garage apartment. Clinton would tax 85% of their Social Security payments, up from only 50% now.

If Clinton’s entire program is enacted, eventually, the Clelands also would be hit with slightly higher Medicare premiums, larger co-payments for physician and hospital care and the President’s new energy tax. Add a few hundred dollars for these, and the tab is $1,000 or so.

Even so, the Clelands say that paying the extra fees and taxes won’t force any immediate change in their lifestyle and may even help ease the burden later, particularly if a new national health insurance program is enacted.

Charlotte Cleland suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, and her husband says he may not be able to afford to care for her by himself much longer.

Like many others, Don Cleland scoffs at suggestions that Americans will balk at Clinton’s call for higher taxes.

“I think the public is more ready to give him a chance than the pundits (are),” he says. “These sound to me like the sort of changes we need. I feel like we’ve finally begun to move in the right direction.”

Special correspondent Clary reported from Miami, and Times researcher Shryer reported from Chicago. Times staff writer Art Pine, reporting from Washington, also contributed to this story.