Much of middle America isn't going to like this. Their beer will cost more and so will their cigarettes and gasoline for the pickup.

But if they are unhappy, these folks can take comfort from the fact that the two-career couple in their uptown condo also will feel the tax collector's bite if the budget package fashioned over the weekend by congressional and White House negotiators becomes law.

The prosperous couple's next Mercedes would cost more and their wine tab would go up. Their payroll taxes also would rise and their deductions would be trimmed under the terms of the package.

In both cases, however, if the people don't smoke, don't drink and don't drive a lot, the impact of this new budget plan will fall much more lightly upon them. That is what makes the new plan most unusual by traditional standards. While it does fall more heavily on the well-to-do, much of its impact depends on the lifestyle of the individual taxpayer rather than his or her economic situation.

For example, heavy smokers and drinkers would see the price of their habits rise, but abstainers would feel no impact. Long-distance commuters and drivers of gas-guzzlers would be hit hard, but in-town dwellers and drivers of fuel-sipping economy cars would get off easy.

The combination will make it difficult for many people to figure out just what size tax increase they face because the calculations depend on how much of the taxed items they consume.

"I guess that's the biggest question mark -- how much additional tax am I really paying?" said Stephen R. Corrick, a tax partner at Arthur Andersen & Co. here in Washington. "There's a nickel here and 16 cents there and that limitation on itemized deductions. That will have some effect but not like a higher {overall tax} rate. Maybe that's the point of this whole exercise: to raise $130 billion without anyone really knowing how big a hit they're taking."

Most significant of the proposed "lifestyle" tax boosts are:

A 12 cents-per-gallon increase in the tax on gasoline, phased in between Dec. 1 and July 1, 1991.

An 8 cents-per-pack boost in the tax on cigarettes, beginning Jan. 1 and fully implemented in 1993.

A 22 cents-per-bottle increase in the tax on table wines, a 16 cents-per-six-pack boost for beer and a boost in the tax on hard liquor that will work out to about 24 cents on a 750-milliliter bottle.

A new 10 percent luxury tax on a variety of expensive items.

In all, the budget negotiators are counting on these taxes, including a tax on motor fuel, to raise nearly $75 billion over the next five years.

The items that are aimed at the well-to-do:

A complicated formula to reduce the itemized deductions of taxpayers whose adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000. Under this formula, to the extent that adjusted gross income exceeds $100,000, deductions must total more than 3 percent of the excess before they become effective. For example, if a taxpayer had adjusted gross income of $130,000, he or she would lose $900 worth of deductions ($130,000 minus the $100,000 threshold leaves $30,000; 3 percent of $30,000 is $900). Only itemized deductions in excess of $900 would be allowed.) This system is much like the ones that apply now to medical expenses and miscellaneous business expenses, and the thresholds on those items would remain, so deducting them would require them to exceed both requirements.

An increase in the ceiling for collection of the Medicare component of the Social Security payroll tax. This tax is now a 1.45 percent levy collected on incomes up to $51,300, but the agreement would extend the tax up to incomes of $73,000. This would add roughly $300 a year to the taxes of any worker earning $73,000 or more.

Workers earning between $51,300 and $73,000 can get an idea of their new liability by subtracting $51,300 from their wages and multiplying the result by .0145. For example, a worker earning $65,000 would pay about $198 more next year under the plan. (The figure is not exact because the $51,300-wage base is adjusted each year and next year's figure is not yet known.)

Some targeted industries warned that the cost to consumers will be sharply higher than the tax increases published in the budget package.

Because the taxes are assessed at the producer level, they tend to be treated as part of the base price and are marked up further by wholesalers and retailers. The Beer Institute calculates that this effect will cause the price of a six-pack of beer to rise 22 cents when the tax increase is only 16 cents.

Wine industry representatives said they feel particularly victimized because the budget package switches from the traditional method of taxing wine by the gallon to taxing it by the bottle.

"We have never been taxed by the bottle before," said John De Luca, president of the Wine Institute, a trade association of California wineries. He charged that it "was done to obscure the size of the increase" which he put at 647 percent from the current 3 cents a bottle to 25 cents.

De Luca said that the tax would add 50 cents to the current $2.89 average retail price of the 750-milliliter bottle cited by the negotiators. But he said most of his members' volume is in larger containers, whose prices would jump more sharply. A three-liter bottle currently retailing for $5.99 would jump to $8, he said.

The impact of the gasoline tax increase would vary greatly with the amount of driving a taxpayer does and what kind of mileage his or her car gets.

For instance, the motorist who drives 15,000 miles a year in a car that gets 25 miles per gallon would pay an extra $72 a year when the 12-cent increase is fully implemented. Driving 40,000 miles in a 12 miles-per-gallon car, however, would cost $400 extra annually.

A pack-a-day smoker would not be hurt too badly. His or her year's supply of 365 packs would cost $29.20 more under the plan.

The package had accountants and tax lawyers poring over its provisions in search of ways to minimize its impact. However, most said the pickings seemed slim.

Carl W. Duyck of Price Waterhouse in the District noted that the restriction on deductions apparently will not become effective until next year, creating added incentive to accelerate deductions. Where possible, he suggested deductible items that can be paid this year or next year should be taken this year -- assuming the package becomes law, which is not a certainty.

William G. Brennan, an accountant with Ernst & Young in Washington, said the plan would create "more incentive than in the past for determining what are my expenses and getting them paid." It's only a proposal, he added, but "it's not going to be good news no matter how you cut it."

Duyck also expressed concern about charities. Since adjusted gross income is difficult to predict for many people, he worried that they may become less willing to make large gifts if they are not able to calculate the value of their write-offs precisely.