Hillary Clinton's tax returns.

[obeygiant]

CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/04/clinton-releases-tax-returns/)

Hillary and Bill Clinton Tax Returns
Statement of Jay Carson
Clinton Campaign Spokesman
April 4, 2008

Today Senator Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton are releasing their tax returns for the years 2000 through 2006, and are providing information regarding their 2007 taxes as well.

The Clintons have now made public thirty years of tax returns, a record matched by few people in public service. None of Hillary Clinton's presidential opponents have revealed anything close to this amount of personal financial information.

What the Clintons' tax returns show is that they paid more than $33,000,000 in federal taxes and donated more than $10,000,000 to charities over the past eight years. They paid taxes and made charitable contributions at a higher rate than taxpayers at their income level.

TAXES PAID: $33,783,507

The Clintons paid $33,783,507 in federal taxes - 31% of their adjusted gross income. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, in 2005 taxpayers earning $10,000,000 or more paid on average 20.8% of their adjusted gross income in taxes.

CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS: $10,256,741

The Clintons donated $10,256,741 to charity - 9.5% of their adjusted gross income. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, in 2005 taxpayers earning $10,000,000 or more contributed 3.1% of their adjusted gross income in cash contributions to charity. Information about the Clinton Family Foundation, including a list of charities to which the Clintons contributed through the Foundation, is available online in the Foundation's publicly available tax returns (www.foundationcenter.org).

AFTER TAX EARNINGS: $57,157,297

CUMULATIVE TOTAL(GROSS) INCOME: $109,175,175

Including, among other items:

Senator Clinton's Senate Salary: $1,051,606
President Clinton's Presidential Pension: $1,217,250
Senator Clinton's Book Income: $10,457,083
President Clinton's Book Income: $29,580,525
President Clinton's Speech Income: $51,855,599

SENATOR CLINTON'S BOOK INCOME: $10,457,083

Senator Clinton's book income is comprised of earnings for Living History ($10,267,895), including an $8,000,000 advance, and It Takes a Village ($189,188). The earnings for It Takes a Village were donated to charity. Since the release of It Takes a Village in 1996, Senator Clinton has donated over $1,100,000 to charity.

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S BOOK INCOME: $29,580,525

President Clinton's book income is comprised of earnings for My Life ($23,280,525), including a $15,000,000 advance, and Giving ($6,300,000). The President donated $1,000,000 of his income from Giving in 2007 to charity.

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S SPEECH INCOME: $51,855,599

Is Chelsea still single?

With all that coin I'm wondering why the health insurance isn't paid for her campaign employees.

[Iscariot]

PUNY HUMANS HAVE PLEASED ISCARIOT

CARRY ON

[Sherman Homan]

The Clintons donated $10,256,741 to charity - 9.5% of their adjusted gross income.

It looks like all of that charity money went to the Clinton Family Foundation:

http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/04/clinton_charitable_giving_is_to_clinton_charity
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05clintons.html?ei=5065&en=170b1b4a81cb317b&ex=1208059200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1207401066-w8TxOfXOVrc1p6UNk6Jbfg

[beatzfreak]

CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/04/clinton-releases-tax-returns/)



Is Chelsea still single?



Thats chump change. If you really want to go for the big bucks, Rudy Giuliani has a daughter. And I hear she's single.;)

[Eraserhead]

Good for her to give so much to charity.

[skunk]

Good for her to give so much to charity.Although I find this rather puzzling:The Clinton campaign reports donating $10,256,741 to the CFF between 2000 and 2006. During that time, CFF dispersed $2,530,100 in money to other charities and causes.http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/04/clinton_charitable_giving_is_to_clinton_charity

[zioxide]

Thats chump change. If you really want to go for the big bucks, Rudy Giuliani has a daughter. And I hear she's single.;)

And she endorsed Obama.

[Abstract]

And she endorsed Obama.

Really? Haha, snappity snap!

And I don't really understand how or why HC paid more taxes than others at her income level. Doesn't that just indicate that she has no idea how to handle her finances?

[Sherman Homan]

FTA:
Over the years, the Clinton Family Foundation gave $80,000 to the Clinton Birthplace Foundation Inc.
So the Clinton's gave money to their own charity which gave money to their own charity?!

[pooky]

Really? Haha, snappity snap!

And I don't really understand how or why HC paid more taxes than others at her income level. Doesn't that just indicate that she has no idea how to handle her finances?

I'm pretty sure it means she claimed less in the way of tax deductions.

[stevento]

FTA:

So the Clinton's gave money to their own charity which gave money to their own charity?!

yeah lol

when bill was elected in 1992 he had the lowest personal net worth of ANY president EVER and all types of credit card debt and they racked up $109 M since he left
shows fiscal responsibility and wise financial choice

[CalBoy]

shows fiscal responsibility and wise financial choice

Or $200,000+ per speech. ;)

In any case, this reminds me why I like the Clintons. Say what you will about Hillary and Bill, they are at heart much better than most politicians.

Although the fact that their charity has dispersed much less than it has taken in is a bit troublesome. They need to fire that charity's manager/president and hire someone who can actually deliver what the charity was intended to deliver.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Although the fact that their charity has dispersed much less than it has taken in is a bit troublesome. They need to fire that charity's manager/president and hire someone who can actually deliver what the charity was intended to deliver.

That $10MM originally given was probably intended to fund an endowment, so the amount of monies actually disbursed would be the interest that had accrued on that endowment--a much smaller sum.

[Iscariot]

Although the fact that their charity has dispersed much less than it has taken in is a bit troublesome. They need to fire that charity's manager/president and hire someone who can actually deliver what the charity was intended to deliver.

A financial endowment is a transfer of money or property donated to an institution, usually with the stipulation that it be invested, and the principal remain intact in perpetuity or for a defined time period. This allows for the donation to have a much greater impact over a long period of time than if it were spent all at once.

Also, see Daveman Deluxe's (is that a regular Daveman with all the toppings?) post.

[obeygiant]

Also, see Daveman Deluxe's (is that a regular Daveman with all the toppings?) post.

Im sorry , what?

[Iscariot]

Im sorry , what?

A deluxe pizza is one with all the toppings. So a Daveman Deluxe would be a Daveman with all the toppings. Although I'm unsure how many and what exactly Daveman toppings are. That's up to him to answer!

[Badandy]

And I don't really understand how or why HC paid more taxes than others at her income level. Doesn't that just indicate that she has no idea how to handle her finances?

Or it might indicate that the wealthy actually pay their progressively taxed income more often than people credit them for :rolleyes:

[Iscariot]

Or it might indicate that the wealthy actually pay their progressively taxed income more often than people credit them for :rolleyes:

I know! Gosh, they must just be dying with only $57,157,297 left. That's less than 30 million apiece! Poor impoverished Clintons. :rolleyes:

[Daveman Deluxe]

A deluxe pizza is one with all the toppings. So a Daveman Deluxe would be a Daveman with all the toppings. Although I'm unsure how many and what exactly Daveman toppings are. That's up to him to answer!

Well, my best friend in high school used to say that "Six Davemans makes one Daveman Deluxe". ;)

[zioxide]

yeah lol

when bill was elected in 1992 he had the lowest personal net worth of ANY president EVER and all types of credit card debt and they racked up $109 M since he left
bill != hillary

shows fiscal responsibility and wise financial choice

last i saw hillary's campaign wasn't in the best shape financially

[TheQuestion]

That $10MM originally given was probably intended to fund an endowment, so the amount of monies actually disbursed would be the interest that had accrued on that endowment--a much smaller sum.

The endowment is the gift that keeps on giving, is it not?

[Daveman Deluxe]

TheQuestion: when you're endowed like I am, most certainly. ;)

Financially speaking, you're right as well. For example, Stanford was able to make tuition free for all undergrads whose parents make under $100k/annum by virtue of its eighteen-BILLION-dollars endowment. :eek:

[Badandy]

I know! Gosh, they must just be dying with only $57,157,297 left. That's less than 30 million apiece! Poor impoverished Clintons. :rolleyes:

Boooo, Iscariot, I never said they were suffering. :rolleyes:

I wonder how much of that unaccounted for money was acquired through shady deals?

[Badandy]

Financially speaking, you're right as well. For example, Stanford was able to make tuition free for all undergrads whose parents make under $100k/annum by virtue of its eighteen-BILLION-dollars endowment. :eek:

Tell me about it. I go to the University of Southern California, and the day after Stanford enacted this it was in our daily student newspaper with a USC spokesperson saying that will not happen at USC in the foreseeable future. It's too bad, but our endowment per student is not anything near Stanford's.

Who knows, maybe if we win the National Championship in football a couple more times we might get close.

[Iscariot]

Boooo, Iscariot, I never said they were suffering. :rolleyes:

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were having an off-topic competition :p

[obeygiant]

PUNY HUMANS HAVE PLEASED ISCARIOT

CARRY ON

Also, see Daveman Deluxe's (is that a regular Daveman with all the toppings?) post.

A deluxe pizza is one with all the toppings. So a Daveman Deluxe would be a Daveman with all the toppings. Although I'm unsure how many and what exactly Daveman toppings are. That's up to him to answer!

I know! Gosh, they must just be dying with only $57,157,297 left. That's less than 30 million apiece! Poor impoverished Clintons. :rolleyes:

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were having an off-topic competition :p

well maybe you are having and off topic conversation. lol
Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you're uncomfortable with the topic. :p

Anyway, with all that money I wonder if Pennsylvanians still think she's one of them. (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/03/12/clinton-s-case-in-pennsylvania-i-m-one-of-you.aspx)

[njmac]

Or it might indicate that the wealthy actually pay their progressively taxed income more often than people credit them for :rolleyes:

Or it might indicate that the Clinton's probably did not take advantage of the tax loopholes that many wealthy people use to lower or eliminate their tax bill.

Probably smart politics as opposed to bad tax planning.

[solvs]

No wonder they didn't want to report them until the last minute. And on a Friday. Classy. Wondering what Bill Clinton did to get $15M From Ron Burkle (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/what-did-bill-do-to-get-1_n_95189.html) though? What, you think Bush is the one I criticize?

And where's McCain's tax return?

[CalBoy]

That $10MM originally given was probably intended to fund an endowment, so the amount of monies actually disbursed would be the interest that had accrued on that endowment--a much smaller sum.

Ahh, I didn't know the specifics of the charity.

I am once again pleased with them then. :p

[Badandy]

Or it might indicate that the Clinton's probably did not take advantage of the tax loopholes that many wealthy people use to lower or eliminate their tax bill.

Probably smart politics as opposed to bad tax planning.

Stop believing everything anti-corporatist and socialist talkings points tell you to regurgitate, it actually catches up to you in the real world. Wealthy people not only pay more as an amount than less wealthy people (as they should), but they pay more as a percentage. To keep falling back on the age-old democrat talking points pointing to deductions/loopholes/good accountants as reasons how the rich get off paying taxes is to ignore the fact that they don't get off easy; the rich pay taxes progressively.

[atszyman]

Wealthy people not only pay more as an amount than less wealthy people (as they should), but they pay more as a percentage.

This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html) tends to indicate that they may not be paying more as a percentage.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Is it too much to ask that Buffet be paying in at the same percentage as his receptionist? He or she could probably use the extra money a lot more than Buffet could.

[Badandy]

This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html) tends to indicate that they may not be paying more as a percentage.

That tends to indicate one person is not paying more as a percentage. If you look at the economy as a whole, they do. And if you realize that the economy as a whole includes those exceptions, maybe you'll get a better view for how many of the rich really do pay progressively.

Is it too much to ask that Buffet be paying in at the same percentage as his receptionist? He or she could probably use the extra money a lot more than Buffet could.

To your first question, no, it isn't too much to ask. To your second statement, it shouldn't matter. Just because you think someone doesn't need the money shouldn't be a justification for taking it.

[atszyman]

That tends to indicate one person is not paying more as a percentage. If you look at the economy as a whole, they do. And if you realize that the economy as a whole includes those exceptions, maybe you'll get a better view for how many of the rich really do pay progressively.

Well it all depends on where you define rich. Buffet says he does not use tax shelters or other means to try to avoid taxes. Somewhere those millions are being made up. I'm guessing and only guessing it's probably happening at the border between what is defined as middle class and rich. I doubt Buffets peers are paying much more of a percentage, especially if they are actually using shelters and other methods. Let's not forget that much of the progressive nature of the income tax is done to level out the regressive taxes like fuel and sales taxes.

To your first question, no, it isn't too much to ask. To your second statement, it shouldn't matter. Just because you think someone doesn't need the money shouldn't be a justification for taking it.

True but if we're trying to spur short term economic growth to try to improve the faltering economy, cutting taxes on the rich isn't going to do that. Cutting taxes on the rich means more long term growth, which is not bad, but for short term growth you want money in the hands or people who are going to spend it rather than invest it which means cuts at the bottom since they are most likely to spend any extra money rather than invest or save.

[Badandy]

Well it all depends on where you define rich. Buffet says he does not use tax shelters or other means to try to avoid taxes. Somewhere those millions are being made up. I'm guessing and only guessing it's probably happening at the border between what is defined as middle class and rich.

Well the top 33% of income earned in the country (which is something like 5% of the population) pays 39% of the income tax load. That is progressive, clearly.

As to your point


I doubt Buffets peers are paying much more of a percentage, especially if they are actually using shelters and other methods.

True, but when people refer to wealthy on the forums, they are referring to the upper tax brackets. I doubt they are always talking about those people in the top 10 lists in the world as far as money goes.

True but if we're trying to spur short term economic growth to try to improve the faltering economy, cutting taxes on the rich isn't going to do that. Cutting taxes on the rich means more long term growth, which is not bad, but for short term growth you want money in the hands or people who are going to spend it rather than invest it which means cuts at the bottom since they are most likely to spend any extra money rather than invest or save.

OK, I'll give you that. Being how I am, I'd rather all tax rates were cut and the government was reduced in size drastically.

[leekohler]

A deluxe pizza is one with all the toppings. So a Daveman Deluxe would be a Daveman with all the toppings. Although I'm unsure how many and what exactly Daveman toppings are. That's up to him to answer!

Oh my- please don't get me started. You're naughty. ;)

[atszyman]

Well the top 33% of income earned in the country (which is something like 5% of the population) pays 39% of the income tax load. That is progressive, clearly.

So the top 33% of the wealth pays 39% of the income tax. Which leaves 61% for the remaining 67% of the population. How many of that 67% is living below the taxable threshold?

True, but when people refer to wealthy on the forums, they are referring to the upper tax brackets. I doubt they are always talking about those people in the top 10 lists in the world as far as money goes.

But is it too much to ask those in the 7-10 figure salary ranges pay the same percentage as someone barely making 5-6 figures?

OK, I'll give you that. Being how I am, I'd rather all tax rates were cut and the government was reduced in size drastically.

Most of us would like to see tax cuts and trimming of non-essential government functions. However, no one seems to be willing to suck up higher taxes in the short term to eliminate the national debt and the interest payments we keep increasing, and the debate on what is essential will go on until the end of time. Bush and a GOP congress showed no fiscal conservatism in their last 8 years and McCain is promising more of the same.

It's obvious no one wants to shrink the government from these parties, and only one party in the past 20+ years has managed to balance the budget...

[Badandy]

So the top 33% of the wealth pays 39% of the income tax. Which leaves 61% for the remaining 67% of the population. How many of that 67% is living below the taxable threshold?

No, those numbers are not population statistics. 33% of the income pays 39% of the income taxes. That leaves 61% for the remaining 95 percent of the population or something because that top 33% of income is earned by the top 5% of the population.



But is it too much to ask those in the 7-10 figure salary ranges pay the same percentage as someone barely making 5-6 figures?

No, it isn't Fortunately, it's already been asked, and it's already worked. Progressive taxation works, despite the propaganda many of you have heard that make it seem like loopholes make it so the rich pay nothing.



Most of us would like to see tax cuts and trimming of non-essential government functions. However, no one seems to be willing to suck up higher taxes in the short term to eliminate the national debt and the interest payments we keep increasing, and the debate on what is essential will go on until the end of time.


The reason why no one seems willing to suck up higher taxes in the short term is that they have a feeling that these "short-term" taxes will end up being "long term". Government is like a drug addict with money, they're not going to give it up easily. You'll see all sorts of opposition to repealing those tax increases once they expire.

[themadchemist]

Am I the only one who just can't seem to muster up enough energy to care about candidates' tax returns?

[atszyman]

No, those numbers are not population statistics. 33% of the income pays 39% of the income taxes. That leaves 61% for the remaining 95 percent of the population or something because that top 33% of income is earned by the top 5% of the population.

Sorry, I mis-worded. 61% of the taxes comes from 67% of the income... but how much of that income was generated below the poverty line and thus was not taxable. That question is still relevant. The more money that is not taxed in the poorest brackets pushes that tax burden to the middle.

In a perfect world with no other taxes muddling the equation the upper 33% of taxable income would pay 33% of the tax burden regardless of how many people that was.

No, it isn't Fortunately, it's already been asked, and it's already worked. Progressive taxation works, despite the propaganda many of you have heard that make it seem like loopholes make it so the rich pay nothing.

I wasn't implying that they pay nothing but when they pay only 20% or less and I'm paying 30% or more along with getting hit harder by things like sales tax on the essentials for living there is something that needs to be fixed. 20% of $46 million is a lot of money but why should people like Buffet get away with paying a smaller percentage of their income? Even Buffet admits that it is wrong.

The reason why no one seems willing to suck up higher taxes in the short term is that they have a feeling that these "short-term" taxes will end up being "long term". Government is like a drug addict with money, they're not going to give it up easily. You'll see all sorts of opposition to repealing those tax increases once they expire.

But of course if you're going to cut taxes and claim fiscal responsibility it helps if you don't spend money like it grows on trees. It's not like I enjoy paying taxes, but with over $9 trillion (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) in national debt it seems like maybe a short term tax hike might be in order.

If government doesn't want to give up money so easily why is the prescription for every woe this country has had for the last 7 years been "tax cuts?" and why don't I feel like I'm better off with these lower taxes than I did 7 years ago?

[solvs]

and why don't I feel like I'm better off with these lower taxes than I did 7 years ago?
That's because they obviously aren't working. So of course, we need more tax cuts. Makes perfect sense. Just like how what we're doing in Iraq isn't working, so we have to stay and do more of it. Or how gov isn't working, so we need more of it to not do anything (Bush has actually increased gov for those who don't know), so then we can say we need less of it, because that's obviously working with the VA, EPA, FEMA, HUD, mine safety, FDA, mine safety, and whoever is supposed to inspect toys.