Hillary Paid 35% Taxes and Gave 11% to Charity -- Bernie? Not so Much

[Haveadream]

Last year, we paid an effective federal tax rate of 35.7 percent and a combined federal, state, and local effective rate of 45.8 percent. We contributed 10.8 percent of our income to charity. In 2013, the numbers were similar. We paid an effective federal tax rate of 35.4 percent and a combined rate of 44.6 percent, and donated 11.4 percent of our income to charity.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tax-returns/

Sanders return shows federal tax rate of 13.5 percent in 2014
Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, and his wife, Jane, had income of $205,271, according to the tax return. They made charitable contributions totaling $8,350.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-taxes-idUSKCN0XC2UF

[bkkyosemite]

1. The difference in income between the Clinton's and Bernie is astronomical.

[SusanCalvin]

77. Bingo. nt

[Human101948]

126. Was that charity the Clinton Foundation by any chance?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[JackRiddler]

142. Here it is as a graphic:

Do they really want to keep talking about this?

[realmirage]

154. I guess you don't understand how percentages work.

[JackRiddler]

155. I guess your weakness is in absolute sums?

I'd say the ratio of bullshit in the Clinton vs. the Sanders campaign is also at least 200:1, but it's true that Clinton is therefore in a higher marginal bullshit-tax bracket.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

2. hey - smart one - what did each of them net???

half the people are below average

[dogman]

3. David was smaller than Goliath.

Hillary made more from one speech than Bernie made all year. Another silly post.

[kcjohn1]

4. Huge difference between $200K and $28M

Her income exceeds that of Sanders by more than a factor of 100x.

She is in the 0.01% and should be paying more than 35% in federal taxes.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Math is hard.

[ibegurpard]

71. Unless you're trying

To convince people a contest is over when there are still millions of votes to be cast...
God these morons...

[beam me up scottie]

75. Some of it has to be performance art, no one can be that outrageous.

Demanding Bernie release his tax returns after he already released them?

Indignantly declaring that the thousands of dollars he donated to charity isn't enough while supporting a woman who deducted millions she donated to her own family foundation?

Screeching about Bernie's modest house and condo when Hillary lives in a mansion in Chappaqua and rents another in the Hamptons for 50K/week?

[Art_from_Ark]

96. They complain about the speck in Bernie's eye

while completely ignoring the log in their own eye.

[beam me up scottie]

97. They sound like Republicans who constantly find fault with Obama.

Nothing either of them do is ever good enough.

[laserhaas]

119. Where a foundation pays zero, zip - nada

just sayin....

[TM99]

5. Well the Sanders don't own

a foundation in their name which they can funnel and launder all of their 'charitable' giving to.

But you are right damn it! NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH. BERNIE! You must be better than everyone. You have a perfectionistic strawman image to live up to your worthless ass.

[Meteor Man]

6. Total Income?

Jane and Bernie had $205,271 in taxable income.

What was Bill and Hillary's taxable income?

[questionseverything]

20. actually they had $140,994 in taxable the 205 number getting tossed around is agi

clintons' taxable was $22,787,248. (after they gave 3 mill to the foundation)

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/-/Bernie%20Taxes%20Full.pdf

http://taxhistory.org/thp/presreturns.nsf/a81ffa04b09bf63e85256e4100705e33/07e13291870d475885257e93007b1015/$FILE/HR_Clinton_2014.pdf

so clintons had taxable income 161 times higher than bernie's

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Watermelons are bigger than cherries.

The Clintons paid more tax and at a higher rate because they made vastly more money than Bernie. That's the way a progressive taxation system works.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Ah the old he's "cheap" allegation, I was wondering when it would appear.

How much did you donate?

[AgerolanAmerican]

101. yeah we're up to anti-semitic dog whistles now

The level of desperation escalates by the day... their internal polling must look really, really bad.

[Matt_in_STL]

9. When did people get so clueless about progressive tax rates

Everyone who posts this meme of Bernie having a lower tax rate than Hillary is a questionable "Democrat" at best as progressive tax rates have been a pretty big part of the Democratic platform for years.

[Loudestlib]

10. It's called a progressive tax system.

I'm not surprised that Hillary's supporters don't understand it.

[QC]

58. Conservatives have always hated progressive taxation.

They consider it communism.

[onecaliberal]

11. She made 28 million. Republicans aren't the only one who lack critical thought process.

[Meteor Man]

13. Total Income?

So their joint taxes paid from 2007-2016 was $43 million. Let's round that to an average of $5 million per year paid in state and federal taxes combined.

Correct?

[Meteor Man]

18. State taxes

And add $13 million paid in state taxes. Total combined taxes paid $56 million.

[FlatBaroque]

14. She took the money out of the government pantsuit

and put it into the Foundation pantsuit. It's called money laundering. Scrub-a-dub-dub

[morningfog]

15. Lol!

[angstlessk]

16. A relative question...what if Hillary stopped telling them to breath in?

Would they know how on their own?

This is just a question.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. AGI: 27,946,490 vs 205,271

Here is the thing - the Clintons are part of the 0.01% - the global elites who are running the planet for themselves. Sanders is one of us. I know you don't get it, you can't see it, you are blinded by your partisan view, but those are the plain facts. You don't pay 35% on an agi of 200k because despite 35 years of Reagan-Thatcher economic policy, we still have a progressive tax system, so for those of us not in the 0.01%, our effective tax rate is going to be way lower than our marginal tax rate. If you don't understand the difference, google is your friend, but when you are so fucking rich that your marginal and effective tax rates are essentially the same, like the Clintons, you are living in a different world than us ordinary working stiffs.

[renate]

110. your user name is quite appropriate :)

The comparisons are beyond absurd.

[hobbit709]

19. Which charity besides her own tax dodge foundation?

[questionseverything]

24. 3 mill to slush fund 22 grand someplace else

http://taxhistory.org/thp/presreturns.nsf/a81ffa04b09bf63e85256e4100705e33/07e13291870d475885257e93007b1015/$FILE/HR_Clinton_2014.pdf

pg 3 lists the charity giving but does not say to whom but i have read many articles that use the 3 mill to the foundation

see statement is on the form but i don't find a statement...turns out they might be incomplete

[JudyM]

69. ^^^yep, right there^^^ Hopefully the media will notice and call her out on her arrogant fake-out.

[delrem]

105. A lovely thing about the Clinton Foundation tax dodge,

is the Clinton's get to decide where the money is spent.

They can take the US gov't's no-bid model and put it on steroids, all for charity, and all's good.

[Iliyah]

21. Excuses. Working class pays well over 13% and it ain't effing fair

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Not in effective federal tax rate. Please educate yourself.

[mythology]

36. That in large part depends on deductions

Particularly the mortgage deduction.

I paid a substantially higher rate than that and make substantially less money. That will change next year as I am in the process of buying, but the average person pays more than 14%.

That said, I don't fault Sanders for taking the mortgage deduction and think in large part this whole tax release thing is overblown. I'm still not entirely sure why it's become standard to release 5 or more years of returns. It's not like anybody just scraping by is running for president.

[Haveadream]

39. Thank you for your response

Yes, the average person does pay more. The additional amount in the Sander's plan will be a hardship for many.

[sl8]

51. I think the average was 12.9% in 2014

If I'm reading Table 2 correctly, the average (all quintiles) effective federal individual income tax rate in 2014 was 12.9%:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/108th-congress-2003-2004/reports/08-13-effectivefedtaxrates.pdf

Let me know if you interpret the figures differently.

[Haveadream]

76. That rate is too low for that income, imo

[dsc]

132. I just looked at my return

I pay 11 percent (a bit over 5300 on a bit over 49000). I admit that having no children and no mortgage makes my rate higher than for many other people who make 50k but the fact is I pay nearly as high a percent as they did despite having less than 1/4 the income.

[Warren Stupidity]

133. Yes married people get a marriage benefit, especially if one of them has little or no income.

Home mortgage deductions are another benefit. That is the tax code. Has been for a very long time.

[dsc]

135. but that isn't what you said in your frankly very snotty post

you said that a person who claimed that many working class people pay close to or over 13% should educate themselves on taxes. The fact is I paid 11 on an income considerably lower than theirs. I would imagine of I made even half their income I would be paying a good bit more than them by percentage. The fact is their rate does seem a tad low to me. They have no children and she does make money.

[Warren Stupidity]

136. "working class pays well over 13%"

was horseshit. You know that and I know that. Single non home owning workers in certain tax brackets pay an effective rate over 13%.

Here perhaps you can process pictures:

http://mercatus.org/publication/updated-average-effective-federal-tax-rates

You'll have to do your own search for the 2014 data I don't have the patience for this horseshit. Your candidate is so fucking rich her effective tax rate and her marginal tax rate are the same and her "charitable donations" were almost entirely to her tax shelter trust.

[dsc]

137. I would be paying 13% at less than 70k

and yes Virginia, I work for a living the last time I checked. A school teacher with a decent amount of experience in a state that pays decently would be at that income.

[NurseJackie]

23. Wow! She's rich-rich-rich! :-) But she pays her fair share AND ...

... manages to give a to charities too. Nothing wrong with being wealthy. What's wrong is gaming the system and pretending that you don't.

I'm very proud of her accomplishments! She deserves her success in life!

[Haveadream]

42. Thank you for your post

I agree with you!

[Seeinghope]

44. Wow!!!! How much did "The Clinton Foundation" get this last year?

You know a wealthy person's slush fund.

[Haveadream]

47. Bill and Melinda Gates are Big Donors

I don't know how much they gave but it was substantial. I hope partisans don't start maligning them, too.

[QC]

59. I've been maligning them for years

for the enormous damage that they have done to public education.

We would be better off if our robber barons would just collect race horses and Faberge eggs like the old ones instead of wrecking things they know nothing about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/09/06/charter-school-law-funded-by-bill-gates-in-washington-state-ruled-unconstitutional/

[Haveadream]

60. Thank you for sharing that

It looks like they wanted to have it both ways; the investment, control and perks of a private school and the infusion of funds from the public without oversight. The fact that it had to go to the SC bothers me more than the initial fault because it means that they were trying to forge a new special status for themselves with public funds. I suspect the initial intention was good but keeping under their control makes it a private entity.

[QC]

61. Charters are basically publicly-funded private schools.

In many places they are used as a covert means of resegregating schools.

[Haveadream]

65. As long as the states are able to determine policy

it leaves the schools vulnerable to private community interests. Which is why the RW likes them so much.

[Seeinghope]

62. Clinton charitable contributions: $3,022,700 of which $3 million went to Clinton Family Foundation

[EndElectoral]

130. Are you serious, and the op writer posted this?

[David__77]

66. I agree that there's nothing wrong in using all legal tax advantages.

I also think there's nothing wrong with donating something or with donating nothing to charity. If someone violated the law, I would think there is potentially a problem with that.

[Cha]

100. Yes, Hillary does deserve her success in life.. and she gives back tremendously.

Thank you, Jackie~

[Admiral Loinpresser]

151. 35% is not her fair share.

You may believe there is nothing wrong with being worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but there is a socialist Jew who used to live in Israel who disagrees. Make that *two* socialist Jews who used to live in Israel.

[Haveadream]

25. Clinton's Tax Plan is Better Than Bernie's

and not as hard on lower income earners.

Clinton has campaigned on things like universal pre-K, guaranteed paid family leave, a significantly higher minimum wage, debt-free college tuition, and, to fund much of it, higher taxes on the wealthy.

And that tax plan is very progressive. On Thursday, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center released an analysis projecting that Clinton's plans would haul in more than $1 trillion in extra federal taxes over their first decade. More than 77 percent of that money would come from the top 1 percent of taxpayers; more than 50 percent would come from the top 0.1 percent.1 That may not sound like soaking the rich to your typical Bernie voter, but keep this in mind: The expiration of the Bush tax cuts for top earners, which required a fierce political showdown back in 2012, was only projected to bring in about $624 billion over a decade. Hillary's plan is far more ambitious by comparison.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/03/04/hillary_clinton_s_tax_plan_is_really_progressive.html

[Avalux]

26. And the obfuscation continues.

But hey - knock yourself out!

[Csainvestor]

27. Sanders effective tax rate will be much higher

Once you add in state taxes.



This is a stupid comparison.

[Haveadream]

29. Sander's Tax Rate will Penalize Lower Income Earners

He admits it

[Mike__M]

28. Lotta comics on DU tonight!

[CentralMass]

30. She deducted! 1.2 million in medical expenses.

[Hiraeth]

156. oddly, I find that fascinating. Would love to see that portion itemized. Maybe, because I am in

a medical career but, Dang! That is a lot of money spent on health care. wtf

[jillan]

31. Oh NOES!!! Hillary has more money than Bernie!!!

This is getting a little too cray for me....

[Politicalboi]

32. Pathetic

Are the Clinton's 5 shell companies part of their taxes? Give it a rest. Bernie didn't have to hire a CRIMINAL attorney like Hillary Coattails did. Bernie doesn't make millions of unearned money like the Clintons do. He can't be bought like the Clintons can. They are both disgusting.

[katsy]

33. For married filing jointly

On a gross income of $205k in VT, the effective tax rate would be 18.87% before deductions.

Use a tax calculator.

[Haveadream]

34. For Many Low Income Earners

Bernie's tax plan is too high. The sometime-in-the-future medical insurance offset which would not have materialized is not enough to make the higher taxes manageable.

[sadoldgirl]

37. Your OP does not state how much of their

charity contribution is going to the Clinton foundation,
which is totally controlled by the Clinton family, and is
questioned about its uses.

[UMTerp01]

35. Umm...Hillary made WAY MORE MONEY than Bernie

When you get paid $200,000 for a single speech and you have done multiple speeches and you are worth millions I hope your ass would give a bunch to charity.

I make a six figure salary (less than Bernie) and I gotta be honest...$205,271 is a great salary, more than most people make, but its not THAT much, which is why I don't understand how most people do it in terms of low salaries, and which is why its a travesty that most people think $205,271 is big time. Its really not. It lets you live comfortably if you manage money right, but its by no means big time money.

[eastwestdem]

38. He looks very rich from my point of view...

It does make it harder for the middle and lower classes to feel a kinship.

[Haveadream]

41. Exactly

and his proposal makes it that much harder.

[LadyHawkAZ]

64. "I don't think the guy making $200k understands me

Therefore I will vote for the one making multimillions"

I'm not sure I can follow the logic.

[eastwestdem]

70. It's just another rich politician trying to appeal to the underclass because they need votes

It makes it harder to figure out which is being genuine. They have both done good work for the middle class, which is why I am a Democrat, but at least Hillary has been straightforward on this issue for many, many years and has used much of her money for charity. From listening to his speeches, I really thought that Sanders was 'one of us.' It just seems like he was trying to play us.

[ibegurpard]

73. us?

You and whom?

[RichVRichV]

79. You do realize the base pay for a US Senator is $174k a year?

That's where most of his money comes from. By your definition anyone elected to the US Senate automatically and instantaneously becomes just another rich politician regardless of what views or policy they may hold.

[LadyHawkAZ]

83. A taxable income of 22 MILLION is genuine and relatable vs. a taxable income of 140K is insincere

and hard to relate to?

3 million out of 27 MILLION in income (to her own charity) is "much of her money"?

Hmmm....

[dana_b]

91. and 5 shell offshore accounts that

are used to wash the CLinton Foundation money.

But that is soooo much more honest and easy to relate to than a guy and his wife who live on their salary.

[ibegurpard]

67. lol

No one's buying your bullshit

[Punkingal]

78. If he looks very rich, how would you describe Hillary?

[Dragonfli]

157. .

[Motown_Johnny]

40. You can amend tax returns going back 2 years.

Show me stuff old enough to not be amended and we can talk.

[eastwestdem]

72. Also, signed tax returns would look a bit more legally binding. nt

[Seeinghope]

43. How much did "The Clinton Foundation" receive in donations?

Clever way to hide income.

[arcane1]

45. What a sad attempt at gotcha.

You folks must be really hurting.

[LexVegas]

46. I make less than Bernie, with 3 kids, and pay more in taxes. nt

[Haveadream]

49. IKR?

HRC's tax plan is better for people with a modest income. Her plan is much harder on the 1%. So it will work right out of the gate.

[Seeinghope]

48. You get tax breaks for giving to charities right?

[RedCappedBandit]

50. The super wealthy need to be taxed at a far higher rate

And this country needs a president who acknowledges that.

Philanthropy is not enough to fill the gaps in government funding. It's interesting that the super wealthy use their charitable contributions to excuse their low tax rates which are the direct cause of inadequacies that exist in the government's ability to fund critical programs.

[Haveadream]

53. I completely agree with you

Yes, they use the loopholes to the detriment of the people who need help the most. That said, I am not against charity, ever. I wish more people were more generous, particularly the rich but statistics show they are by and large not, with few exceptions. Taxes are a very good way to force charitable giving from those who can best afford to do so.

[RedCappedBandit]

55. Charity is good,

And I believe as you suggested working people prove to be more generous, statistically.

Taxes are necessary to force the super wealthy to pay their share back to society.

[Haveadream]

57. Yes, they are

Otherwise, many will never do it.

[jfern]

54. Of course poorer people tend to pay a lower percentage in taxes, and can't afford

to give as much to charity.

[Haveadream]

56. That is true

Sometimes it seems that those who can least afford it are giving the most.

I remember being so disgusted with Bush 1 and his "1000 Points of Light". His idea was that if everyone was simply more charitable, it would make up for the shortfall in programs for the needy. Those of us working in the trenches were burning as brightly as we could but no amount of our wattage could make up for the devastating poverty. It has to change by a lot!

[Seeinghope]

63. Clinton charitable contributions: $3,022,700 of which $3 million went to Clinton Family Foundation

A great way to donate to yourself AND get a tax deduction!

[Chezboo]

84. Sickening. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Progressive Taxation... look it up

[jillan]

74. ^^^this^^^. It's unreal how hard they are trying.

[Haveadream]

81. Bernie has said he has a modest income

That is actually not the case. His income is higher than 95% of the people and his tax rate lower than many who make less. He is able to claim deductibles poorer people cannot. He gives merely 4% of his income to charity. The explanation that he is just like regular folks is not true. His proportional tax relative to Hillary's is explained by the progressive rate but his characterization of himself and his contributions to charity are not. Further, his tax plan will burden low income people, those who make far less than he does and cannot afford to do so. Hillary's does not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Here is the top 50 in the House

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth

this is a tad dated for the Senate

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/top-10-wealthiest-senators/

And here you go via roll call

The only current member jockeying for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, has a minimum net worth of $163,000. The two-term senator and former congressman is No. 340 on the Wealth of Congress Index and is third among all senators pursuing the White House.

- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/politics/senators-running-president-trail-congressional-colleagues-net-worth/#sthash.Bv4Xl9uM.dpuf

He is not that strange or out of order for somebody who has worked all his life in public service

Now do you want to compare that to the $111 MILLion the Clintons claim? Really?

It would be funny if it wasn't tragic... actually.

[Haveadream]

85. To people who are below the poverty line

his net worth and income are massive. The tax breaks he is able to afford are massive. The comparisons are for the way it has been characterized and his tax returns, his properties, his lack of charity, his investments on Wall street make him seem disingenuous. Hillary is not pretending to be poor. The fact that Bernie thinks he is, is disturbing and out of touch. Hillary also has a tax plan that is less burdensome on low income people which speaks to the realities they face day to day. His health plan has no hope of realization in the short term so the poor will be left sicker and poorer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. I cover poverty issues

so don't even start on that one.

For DC standards, he's poor.

So quit changing the goal posts.

By the way, his net worth is up there, but hers is part of the 1 percent. His is not. Stop pretending otherwise.

You might want to watch this

And by the way, people who live in poverty KNOW about these issues. Again I cover this shit.

Miranda started by stating, “I am a union member, and I clean the offices of companies that have many millions. While they make millions of dollars a year, my coworkers and I make $10.33 an hour. It is not fair since our pay is not enough to pay rent, or food, or anything.”

https://reportingsandiego.com/2016/04/14/fight-for-15-and-a-union-down-broadway-to-city-college/

Yeah, people who are like Marisol Miranda have more in their heads than just take home pay by the way.

Here is more.

Miranda gave the reason for the route. At the former NBC building, Paragon, according to her, “keeps oppressing the workers.” She added that ABM is the largest cleaning contractor and also the company with the most cases of sexual assault. These are the companies that we are negotiating a new contract with. They saw us fighting in downtown. We will continue to fight until those companies grant us what we deserve.”

There were also stories of wage theft, and well as other abuses.

So please don't even try to compare what Sanders is making, compared to what Clinton is making. The people who clean those offices are talking of people like CLINTON (and Cruz, and Trump) not Sanders.

[Haveadream]

95. I think we have the same goals

or at least I hope so. The reality is that there are those who find Bernie to be disingenuous and to mischaracterize and romanticize himself, his record and his plans. And, there are those who feel that way about Hillary. I frankly do not care whether Bernie or Hillary are richer than God. Many, many people feel Hillary's understanding and policies will be better for those who are most vulnerable. That is just the case. I happen to be one of them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. Look I trust polititians as far as I can throw them

But her negatives, are through the roof. Before you bring trump...by the way, and I believed he was going to be it...brokered convention...so whoever the Dems nominate will not run against trump. But you find Sanders disingenuous...I find all. But I don't go around making shit up.

You want to discuss poverty, lets

You want to discuss housing issues, lets.

But I don't honestly believe that is your objective here. You don't need to vote for him...or her for all I care.

[Yurovsky]

80. The Clinton slush fund gives her access to hundreds of millions, TAX FREE...

she is basically stealing bread out of the mouths of the hungry and forcing people to go without life--saving medicine or other medical care because she wants to live like a rockstar with a tax-free scam of a charity.

There is no way you people can take the stench out of that. Either you support such tax scams or you don't. You can't be for tax fairness and be a Hilllary supporter. Oh, I guess you can, it just means you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

I guess paying 35% of the small percentage that you actually claim makes her feel like she's really doing her part. I'd agree if she claimed it ALL, or at least saw to it that the CGI sent most of its funds on actual charity, instead of for private jets for the Clinton inner circle and sweetheart do-nothing jobs for friends of Hill & Bill.

[COLGATE4]

88. Do you have even the slightest idea of what's involved

with a Foundation? Neither she nor Bill have 'access to hundreds of millions, TAX FREE'. For a Foundation to pass IRS muster they have to follow very stringent rules about how and when the disburse monies. But it's easier to post bullshit based on a total lack of (or interest in) facts.

[Seeinghope]

94. Otherwise known as cClinton's slush fund?

Being an officer in a foundation pays you a salary and it could pay a very high salary if it chooses.

How about the Foundations Dealings. When "Clinton Foundation Donors got Weapons Deals Hillary Clinton's State Department"

Foundations can and are used and manipulated by the wealthy.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

[COLGATE4]

116. Please explain to me how you think this works.

Following your scenario, Hillary gives a speech, gets paid $XXX. She doesn't want to pay tax on it so instead she donates it to her Foundation. Then she gives herself a very high salary from the Foundation. Which she has to pay tax on. Seems like a whole lot of effort for nothing. And please spare me the 'Foundation Donors got weapons deals' RW crap. Correlation does not equal causation. Until someone shows me some actual proof that there is a direct connection it's just innuendo and slander.

[Seeinghope]

125. Keep you eyes closed closed and live in the dark. It is common knowledge if you do some reading

I stopped listening to the people that do these things and have something to hide a long time ago. Apparently you have not.

[Seeinghope]

128. Do your own research. "The comfort of the rich depend on the abundant supply of the poor"

The ignorance of so many followers depends on their lack of motivation to research for themselves....with an open mind.

[COLGATE4]

141. So the answer is that it is just another

gratuitous slander without any proof. BTW, "it's common knowledge" doesn't constitute any kind of proof I'm aware of.

[Seeinghope]

146. Oh, O.K. You are with the Clintons in Person observing all of their financial transactions.

You are with the Clintons while they handle the Clinton Foundation business too! Lucky you!

One question though, how are lawsuits handled in Court if there is not eye witness testimony? Since research and reading don't count as evidence according to your standards?

I did my research. You do yours. I know what my research says and who my resources are. They are not right wing rags. (Just to put that in)

[COLGATE4]

150. More than 89% of Clinton Foundation funds (by audit)

go out to other charitable undertakings. Assuming that the remaining 11% is for administrative expenses (a very low figure for most charitable foundations), where's all the goodies the Clintons are accused of getting? Rather hard to find.

First, eye witness testimony (TV shows excepted) is probably the worse evidence there is. Eye witnesses are generally unreliable even when their testimony is preserved early in the game. The more time that passes from the event the more unreliable eyewitness testimony becomes. Look at all the instances where DNA has cleared people in prison for life (or on Death Row) who were sent there solely based on eyewitness testimony. Hard science, like forensic evidence is the gold standard for evidence. Eyewitness testimony, kind of tin.

Second, research and reading in court only counts for zero since it is inadmissible hearsay. The major exception to this (there are some minor, highly technical exceptions but those are only relevant to trial lawyers) is when a person has been qualified as an expert witness. But to be qualified as an expert the party proposing to use the expert must first convince the court to let him/her testify as an expert. If the person testifying is not qualified as an expert, then he/she is not permitted to talk about what (s)he read or researched.

Finally, all the legalese aside, I asked you for some evidence. So far I have seen exactly zero. "I know what my research says" is not evidence, except being evidence that there's nothing behind the statement.

[Yurovsky]

98. Your arrogance & condescension do little to bolster your argument...

And for the record, yes, I do understand how foundations work. I've spent a fair share of my adult life working with many LEGITIMATE foundations focused on doing actual charitable or academic work. And I understand that they run the gamut from transparent to secretive, from serving to the betterment of humanity to serving the interests of a chosen few. I understand the IRS requirements, but I also understand the IRS is grossly understaffed, and politics also plays a role in whose ox is gored.

You may choose to ignore the facts, but they are facts nonetheless. When the Clintons have an associate in need of a revenue stream requiring little or no work, they crack a hammer on the CGI piggy bank. Sidney wants a job at State but Barry says "no"? Why, put him on the CGI payroll! Huma's hubby gets into hot water sexting pee-pee pics and loses his sweet House gig? Why, give Huma another title & a paycheck to go along with it! And who the fuck wants to fly coach like Jimmy Carter? That's got "loser" written all over it... chartered jets are the only way to fly if you're going to globetrot and shake down foreign political and business leaders! And since it's free, that means there's more cash in the "personal finance" account to buy another 30 or 40 snazzy pantsuits in every color imaginable! And sensible shoes to be worn once before being tossed to the adoring peasants who will vote for me because, well, they're old and not real smart and somehow think Hill & Bill give a rat's ass about them when they are 30,000 feet in the air sipping Cabernet and negotiating the next big windfall from some corrupt government in the developing world who wants in on the jet-set CGI lifestyle, and thinks the ROI from CGI far exceeds anything outside of maybe Hillary's magic touch in futures trading...

Sorry, it's corrupt to the core, and anyone who isn't licking dogshit off HRC's sensible shoes understands that. And by cloaking it within a tax-exempt foundation, they get to party like its 1999 while simultaneously ensuring that none of that money is taxed and put to use, gee, I don't know, feeding the hungry or housing the poor. And if you surround yourself with enough layers of well-connected lawyers, you don't really have to concern yourself with whether it's right or wrong. As long as nobody is convicted of anything, it's all good, right?

I don't know how some of you people sleep at night.

[COLGATE4]

115. I don't know how you sleep at night with all that

pent-up hostility. Not good for your blood pressure.

[fun n serious]

89. Prove it

put up your spew

[senseandsensibility]

87. OMG

[SunSeeker]

90. CBSNews Headline: "Taxes Show Bernie Sanders gave 4 percent of income to charity in 2014."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-2016-taxes-show-bernie-sanders-gave-4-percent-of-income-to-charity-in-2014/

The Clintons gave 10.8% of their income to charity--that's on top of all the work Bill does with the Clinton Foundation helping poor people around the world. Bernie "Moral Economy" Sanders gave less than half that percentage--only 4%. Yep, people are noticing Sanders' hypocrisy.

[LadyHawkAZ]

93. People are noticing hypocrisy, certainly

Wasn't there a story in some book about a widow's mite?

[Cha]

99. 4%! Could they afford it?!

[frylock]

143. What a cheap skate.

[SunSeeker]

144. Not a cheapskate, but a hypocrite.

While he appears loathe to donate to the poor, he is quite generous to his relatives.

[SHRED]

92. Hillary is part of the ruling class

That fact escapes you apparently.

[Firebrand Gary]

102. What a crock! We paid 30% in taxes last year!

Flipping gross! This guy is a fraud!

[Live and Learn]

103. I claim zilch for charitable contributions but I guarantee that I donate a larger share of my income

than the majority of people on du and a hell of a lot more than Hillary.

You see, I donate to real people in need and not to charitable 'CORPORATIONS' with high admin costs that are set up to provide high paying jobs for their founders relatives and friends.

Unfortunately, the only way to claim charitable giving on one's taxes is to donate through one of the scam charities like the Clinton Foundation.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

104. He's completely clean. Your candidate is the worst of the worst of corrupted world-wreckers.

Did you hear that? Completely clean, and all you're left to do is caterwaul and make a spectacle of yourself.

[ALBliberal]

106. So in your view someone earning 30000 should be taxed at 35%

And pay $9500! In your view it's the same as someone earning 3 million paying 950000! One is left with $21500 the other with TWO MILLION ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.

All the same to you!

[Haveadream]

108. No

I'm saying the constant portrayal of him a a "poor" person of the people is grossly overstated and the proportion he pays in taxes on his income and investments, due to his accrued wealth, is smaller than many people who make less. So, what I am saying is actually the opposite. He also gives virtually nothing to charity, despite being richer than 95% of people. Hillary earns a lot but her contributions are also.

[ALBliberal]

112. Should he deny his Senate salary? Should he compute his taxes in a matter

Inconsistent with law? Is it a problem to have a mortgage and itemize? What's wrong with contributions of 8500?

Maybe it's just me being a CPA with taxes buzzing in my head. His return is so normal for a middle incomer and really close to what Biden put out but I believe Biden's contributions were strikingly less.

He keeps two homes they have kids and grandkids. He never said he himself was poor! When did he say that? He can advocate for the poor without being poor! FDR ... RFK...Obama even! Obama had a very humble beginning as did Bernie.

End of rant.

[beam me up scottie]

113. Righteous rant!!! Bravo!

[Haveadream]

114. There is nothing *untoward* about his return

No one is accusing him of that. Most people do not need to be congratulated for that. And using Biden's example of giving less as a defense doesn't make either of them look more altruistic or caring about those in need. Obama's platform was not a crusade to pillory the rich and give to the poor. Bernie being in the 1%, investing in Wall Street and not giving to the needy does not help credibility as "one of the people" and "disgusted by enrichment with big money". From their perspective, he has done quite well with the very things he is decrying. It makes him seem like a hypocrite.

There is no doubt he resonates with *some* in the middle class but once that income level drops down, he just seems like another rich politician with an image and something to sell. Perhaps him being placed on a pedestal has hurt him more than helped. I can tell you for certain that he seems, to many people who are poor, to be just another 1% guy, albeit with some promises and vague plans. And many of his supporters seem to be from the same demographic.

There are many, many people who feel that way about Bernie. That is one of the reasons people aren't voting for him. They just are not buying it. That is why he is losing and will continue to. If for no other reason but pure political pragmatism, it would help his campaign to understand how some of the demographics he is trying to reach actually feel.

It isn't about an argument of right or wrong. It is one of perception.

[ALBliberal]

117. The perception is that he makes 250k a year

Equal to one speech. I don't know who the hell you know that's poor but I was raised poor and he resonates quite well with the poor and middle income people. Even if he loses he's changed the economic discussion in the country forever more.

Your whole line of thought here is disengenous and it seems this OP and these ridiculous other threads that compare tax brackets and contributions of millionaires to middle incomers and poor is meant to misinform the general electorate and those not financially savvy about taxes.

Say what you want about Bernie but he is not disingenuous and people know it and that's why he's already out performed every bench mark and expectation of this primary.

[northernsouthern]

107. Great find!

So how much did she make for one of those peaches again? Was it...
A. Not much
B. A little bit above market
or
C. More than Bernie made in the entire year.


$1,051,606
+$1,217,250
$1,268,856

She alone made more than %600 more than them, and only paid 14% more in taxes? Sounds a bit unfair.

His base tax rate should be around 28%
Her's should be around 39.6%
They both paid under.

Also her Shell Company and her unclaimed income will change it a bit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/hillary-clinton-tax-retur_n_95127.html
also
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foundation-speaking-fees_us_56d0b8dee4b03260bf76d186

http://taxfoundation.org/article/2016-tax-brackets

[ThePhilosopher04]

109. How much of that 11% was to themselves via the Clinton Foundation? That doesn't count.

[Haveadream]

111. Of course it does

And hurling accusations doesn't make it so.

The constant drumbeat of corruption wears thin when it is Bernie himself who is leading the righteous brigade to stop it. It is unthinkable that he would be running against someone for the Presidency and NOT pull out all those "facts" if it were so. He, of all people, would be all over it.

[ThePhilosopher04]

139. No it doesn't. It may count "legally" but we all know it doesn't pass the smell test.

[workinclasszero]

118. But..but...

Bernie cares so much for us little people.

Revolution?

[polly7]

120. If they funnel their money back and forth through their Foundation,

how does anyone know what they really give and should be claiming?


Some people I know, including myself, give all year to charitable causes and never claim it on my income tax. If it's a larger one I might, if I get a receipt for it ... but otherwise, no.

[panader0]

121. Which charity? The Clinton Foundation?

[Fast Walker 52]

123. LOL-- probably!

[Fast Walker 52]

124. what does effective federal tax rate mean?

[stillwaiting]

127. She needs to release the fucking transcripts. nt

[KPN]

129. It's called a "progressive tax system". Got a problem with that?

I'm getting really turned off by Hillsary people right about now -- so much so, I'm beginning to thinkthat if she wins the nomination the Dem Party is a lost cause as far as I'm concewrned.

[FlatBaroque]

131. Still HaveADream or did this thread turn into a nightmare?

[djean111]

134. She gave most of that money to her own foundation - and she and Bill and Chelsea drew salaries,

plus it spent many millions of dollars on air travel. Hillary, basically, donates to Hillary.

[Surya Gayatri]

138. K& R. Bernie doesn't open his pockets very wide, does he?

But then, he DOES have lots of incidental expenses maintaining two homes, commuting back to Vermont, etc. etc.

[Vinca]

140. Good lord . . . everything is relative.

Bernie's a peasant by political standards.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

147. Her effective tax rate should be almost double what it is. n/t

[Haveadream]

148. I agree

And arguably much higher than that. Like 90%. And for Bernie, much higher than 13%. As for the lower income people, no. Small struggling businesses, no. Students on limited incomes, no. Fixed income elderly, no. People with medical debt, no. No, no, no. There is nothing progressive about the progressive tax rate as it is currently applied, nor in the way Bernie intends to change it because it continues to burden those on limited incomes. I would go much farther than either of them has and leave those who are struggling out of it.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

149. +1 n/t

[tirebiter]

152. So What?

I came into this dogfight ambivalent and moved towards Hillary but this is not the reason why.

[HassleCat]

153. That's the difference between middle class and rich.

Middle class people actually feel a little pain when they come up with a percent or two for charity. I know this because I gave 2 percent when I worked for the federal government. I was a CFC Double Eagle, for those of you who know what that means. I sometimes wished I had a few of those dollars to spend on something else, but I kept on going. If I made as much money as the Clintons make, I wouldn't pause for a second before writing big checks to charities.

By the way, your post does the typical apples vs. oranges we see from Clinton supporters. It cites a combined tax rate for the Clintons and the federal tax rate for Sanders, so I'm thinking we should dismiss your post as an attempt at deception.

I wonder if the Clintons are able to count charitable deductions when they give money to their own charities. Does anyone know?