The Clinton Taxes: Here are the Numbers

[berni_mccoy]

Note 2007 is an estimate based on a statement from the Clintons.

Original data can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23959987
Links to each year, 2000 to 2007 available at the bottom of the article.

As you can see, their average tax rate is 29.46%, far below the highest bracket of 35%.

Also, average % to charity is a good 8.46%. However, that jumped considerably in 2004. Average before 2004 was 5.27%. Average after 2004 was 11.66%, apparently after she decided to run for President.

[msongs]

1. obama's DU hypocrites are already whining about the returns they DEMANDED be released

first they demanded clinton's head in a box because she would not release them, now they are whining because they WERE released.

Msongs

[Maddy McCall]

3. Yes, and the Clintons are "too rich."

I swear, it just gets more ridiculous here.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. For career politicians?

Yes. They're too rich.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. and horror of horrors - she released them on a FRIDAY!!

What kind of fucking whore does that?!

[Maddy McCall]

6. an ignorant white fucking whore, that's who!

:grr:

[MonkeyFunk]

Ooh! I hate them SOO much!!

[Maddy McCall]

16. Thoses rich...ignorant....people!

Who do they think they are? Donating all that money to charity!

Pshaw!

[MonkeyFunk]

23. The AUDACITY!

You know they just did it to make Obama look bad. Racist fuckers.

[Maddy McCall]

28. They didn't give ME any money!

I hate those benevolent fuckers with all my heart!!

[joshcryer]

29. OK now you're just getting me riled up.

Hah :blush:

[cbayer]

9. There's even one whining that they were released on a Friday afternoon

Like that's some kind of nefarious deed.

They are just upset that there is not much in there to exploit. They are rich. They give to charity. Oh NOESSSSSSS!

[PoliticalAmazon]

43. No whining. Just statement of fact: people like Bush Jr release info...

...on Fridays that they want buried over the weekend and forgotten on Monday, lost in the 24/7 news cycle.

Just more calculation on the part of the Clintons. You think that's cool, great. She's the candidate for you.

But for me, I want a little more ethical behavior than what she has shown. She obviously wants as little review and attention to her records as possible, and used this tactic to accomplish that.

Why? What does she have to hide?

I'd like to know the name of the international companies that paid for her and WJC's services. I am pretty familiar with the Indian corporations who solicit outsourcing. I want to see how whored-up the Clintons are with these folks.

[Maddy McCall]

45. God god, she just released 30 years of tax returns...

and you are griping because she did it on FRIDAY?

Idiocy at DU never ceases to amaze me.

[cbayer]

50. I think she could rescue you from a burning building

and you would fault her for not letting you pack a suitcase first.

Nothing is going to be buried here. There's more people watching the 24/7 news on the weekends than during the week. You think the weekend is going to stop people who want to get the dirt on her from working to find it?

The outrage here is that there is nothing. She promised the returns by 4/15 and released them on 4/4. They show that she is rich and generous.

BTW, calling them "whored up" is really classy. Is that the language you think Obama would use? I don't.

[roguevalley]

59. I've seen whore in this thread but Hillary people are using it. sad.

[cbayer]

62. That's just Maddie making a point.

I love her, really.

Sometimes you have to push the envelope to make your point.

Chris Rock is one of my favorite comedians.

:hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

67. You don't know what a Friday newsdump is

This just makes you look dumb.

[babylonsister]

17. And you're whining about Obama and his supporters, like you always do.

Notice a double standard there? :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

2. She announced her run for President in 2007.

[berni_mccoy]

5. Her campaign started in 2006 before a formal announcement.

And if you think she hadn't planned on running before then, you are truly naive.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. and how does that translate

to a 2004 start date?

You're not very good with numbers, are you? Do you still maintain that they gave 1% of their income to charity?

[berni_mccoy]

13. You're right. I changed the wording.

[davidpdx]

36. Welcome to the bottom 20

and my ignore list

[MonkeyFunk]

38. You're ignoring me

cuz I can do math? That's a new one.

Bye!! :hi:

[MethuenProgressive]

7. $10,237,741.00 to charity! God bless them both for their generosity!

The Obamas have been very generous too!
peace!

[berni_mccoy]

19. Yes, the Clintons have certainly been above average givers.

[Texas Hill Country]

22. hell yeah!!! and they opted for the full 33% taxes instead of taking all the write offs!!! nice.

[berni_mccoy]

26. Um, no they didn't.

[bhikkhu]

57. The Clinton Foundation - they gave it to themselves!

Though in fairness, where it went from there may be a heartwarming story...anybody know?


Edit to add - apologies for the leap to skepticism. A little research,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Clinton_Foundation,

and it seems to be a large operation, with many donors and many worthwhile projects.

[Blue Diadem]

58. They only disbursed about 1/2, ending amount in 2006

was over $4 million. That doesn't include any of the $3 million donation from 2007.

I can only give the amounts disbursed from 2002-2006 as those are the only years the foundation center displays.

2006- $1,274,900
2005- 549,000
2004- 221,000
2003- 313,000
2002- 170,000

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php

Type in Clinton Family Foundation to get their 990 PF's.

Near the end of each it shows the distribution and names of those who received grants or contributions.

It looks like many good worthwhile causes.

[blogslut]

8. I am so clueless on this stuff

How come their highest income for is for 2007 but they paid 25% in taxes?

[berni_mccoy]

11. 2007 is only an estimate. It's based on what they withheld. Actual taxes will likely be higher,

but not by much.

[blogslut]

15. thank you

[MonkeyFunk]

12. probably capital gains

which are taxed at much lower rates than ordinary income.

[blogslut]

14. thank you

n/t

[Taxmyth]

18. Deductions, the taxpayers friend

Get as many legitimate ones as you can and the percentage of tax you pay comes down. Tax credits are even better!

[berni_mccoy]

21. It looks like they got a much better Tax Attorney in 2004 LOL!

Their percentage went down while their income went up.

[blogslut]

24. As I said, I'm pretty clueless

It wasn't until this century that I even made enough income to rise above the poverty line. Actually, I'm still poor enough to qualify for that Tax Freedom dealio - where you can file online using software without a fee.

[onenote]

20. and here is a similar chart for obama

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html

I'm an obama supporter, and I'm appalled at the stupid crap being thrown around here about the Clinton's tax returns and charitable giving. SOme of my fellow supporters are twisting themselves into knots just to find something stupid and small to say.

Well, I'm not going there. My hat is off to the Clintons for their generosity. A lot of the money they've donated to their foundation has not yet been distributed, but it will be available for good works for years to come -- a lot better use of it than simply passing it along as an inheritance.

And for what its worth -- I can play games with numbers too: In 2000 the Clintons still gave nearly 10 percent of their income to charity, even though they were still dealing with the phenomenally high legal fees incurred during their time in the White House.

[MethuenProgressive]

25. Thanks for the excellent post!

Peace!

[MonkeyFunk]

27. According to that chart

their charitable contributions went up when he started planning his run for the presidency, right?

[berni_mccoy]

30. Or, there is a correlation to increase in income.

Clinton's income was pretty high right from 2001. Obama's was not.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. And the Clintons had millions in legal bills

to pay after they left the White House.

Face it - you haven't got anything to attack the Clintons on here, so you're just thrashing.

[berni_mccoy]

35. I'm not attacking anyone. I've even said their giving was good. What is your problem?

[MonkeyFunk]

39. the problem

is that I'm laughing too hard watching you guys try to find something meaningful to object to.

You guys were salivating for MONTHS over these tax returns, so sure that they were hiding something shameful and disgraceful. Now the best you can do is "OMG! She released them on a friday!!"

:rofl:

[berni_mccoy]

40. The problem was that she wasn't releasing them when everyone else did.

And I don't think you'll be laughing when she hasn't won enough delegates or popular vote after the primaries.

[Maddy McCall]

46. She released 30 years worth...

So your complaints really look contrived.

[berni_mccoy]

51. 30 years of returns that don't matter?

WTF? Got a link for your nonesense or is that what you are just spouting?

[Maddy McCall]

32. Doesn't matter. He had student loans to pay off.

:eyes:

[ProSense]

47. What was Hillary's excuse when she gave $115K on $9.5 million income?

[pompano]

31. Imagine that....

The day one shows a combined income of $ 109 million the M$M starts running with ad-nasuem a notion of a "poverty czar" ????

Coincidence, I tell ya, COINCIDENCE!!!

Who could have ever seen that comming?

:rofl:

[backwoodsbob]

34. I'm an Obama Supporter and from what I see...

there is no *there* there.Things are pretty inline and up and up from what I see.

109 large is a LOT of money but not unheard of in there position and they DID GIVE alot to charity.Nothing to see from what I see.

Good job on the charity Bill and Hillary and lets get back to the campaign people.

[onenote]

37. I'm with you 100 percent.

I really am sickened by the crap some of my fellow Obama supporters are spewing today.

[pompano]

53. No crap about it.

8 Years as the First Lady....No Poverty Czars?
All those years in the Senate...No Poverty Czars?

The day one releases a earning statement of the obscene profit of $109 million...We need a Poverty Czar? Bait and Switch. Don't look here, look there.

But, I guess I am just cynical of multi million dollar politicians that really and truly have a whole lot of problems with the truth sometimes. Silly me.

[onenote]

64. "profit" of $109 million? So now whatever one earns is "profit"?

Interesting view of the world. You view everything you earn as "profit"...

And what makes it "obscene", exactly? Is it more or less obscene than what Bill Gates earns in a year or George Soros? Where is the dividing line between decent, indecent, and obscene?

Hmmmm.

[pompano]

69. Perhaps...

You are right. I tackled the thought about using the word "profit" and wondered if it was really an appropriate use of language? Laziness of typing and trying to be nice... I chose that word.

Profit was just a little easier than "net operating costs for the continuous bilging of confabulated lies and ridiculous falsehoods leaving the most experienced BSer standing aghast" then it was shortened to "whopper wages" but without my dentures it sounded like "whopper-wadge-uth" so I simply said profit?

I'll try to be a little more selective with my words next time. :hi:

[PoliticalAmazon]

44. Then why release them on Friday? What is it they are trying to hide? n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

41. In debt to $109,000,000...not a fingernail broken.

:think:

[The Straight Story]

42. What were the charities - were they run by friends of theirs

:rofl:

[bhikkhu]

56. Not friends, themselves! - The Clinton Foundation!

It is really a fairly standard tax-shelter strategy the wealthy use - fold capital into a non-profit entity that you control, to avoid paying taxes on it. Quite different from actually giving the money to someone else. What the Clinton Foundation does with the money is the real issue.

edit to add - the leap to skepticism may be bad form, so I take it back. A little research - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Clinton_Foundation - and it seems to be a huge organization with many donors and many worthwhile projects. The sort of thing a well-liked ex-president with lots of good connections and good intentions would organize...

[onenote]

65. Not the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Family Foundation. And nothing dodgy about it

There are two different charitable organizations in which the Clintons are directy involved. The William J. Clinton foundation, which is the one you cite. My understanding is that foundation is not funded by the Clintons themselves but rather accepts donations from third parties. It is,as you suggest, well regarded for the good works.

Less well known is the Clinton Family Foundation. It is entirely funded by the Clintons themselves and it too is extremely well run -- virtually no operating expenses, so that the disbursements given in a year are almost all for charitable purposes. The giving by the family foundation tends to be in the form of gifts of between $1000 and $100,000 to a variety of recipients -- hospitals, universities, aids research, breast cancer research, churches -- a lot of local Arkansas charities benefit. The reason for setting up a foundation like this is that you can make a large donation to the foundation to fund it, get the tax benefit of that donation all at once, and then it can give out the money over time to a wide variety of recipients. Which is exactly what the foundation appears to be doing.

I'm glad you did a little research and retracted your criticism of the Clinton's giving through a foundation. I wish others would do the same.

[bhikkhu]

68. Thanks. No criticism for doing good.

I have worked with foundations and they can be abused, but they can be very effective as conduits for good work...from your description the Clinton's foundation sounds like a good one.

[shaniqua6392]

48. They were extremely generous with charitable contributions!!

God bless the Clinton's for giving 10% of their income to charity. I wish more people with wealth in this country would be as generous as they have been. Not to mention the millions of dollars that Bill has raised for AIDS, The Tsunami, and Hurricane Katrina victims, etc.

[berni_mccoy]

52. When they had the money and it looked politically good to do so.

[shaniqua6392]

54. You are wrong about that.

The Clinton's have been charitable according to their records which have been available for the last 30 years. They have consistently given between 10% and 14% of their income to charity over this period. If anything, Obama would be guilty of increasing his percentage of giving in 2007 while running for the Presidency. We really should be fair about this. I can tell you don't like the Clinton's, but the facts can not be disputed.

[merh]

55. That donating to charity thing doesn't sit right - I'd like to think it is generosity

but I can't help it. I have huge questions about the Bush/Clinton Katrina Funds, the victims didn't get that money, it went to institutions and schools and universities and churches, hell it went to the catholic churches, tell me when the catholic church has ever been strapped for cash.

That money was given to help victims and far too many still need homes and have had their lives ruined. So yeah, I'm not real convinced about that money to charity.

Remember this

Clintons' Charity Not Listed On Senate Disclosure Forms

By John Solomon and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 27, 2007; Page A01

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have operated a family charity since 2001, but she failed to list it on annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions.

-snip-

The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.

-snip-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601542.html

[onenote]

66. yeah, like it 2000, when saddled with bills and not yet big earnings, they gave 10 percent

Criticizing someone's charitable giving is one of the smallest acts a person can commit. Getting it wrong is even worse. You are embarassing yourself.

[berni_mccoy]

70. Oh, the poor poor Clintons, saddled with bills... More like saddled with Bill's affairs.

[DerekJ]

60. Has anybody seen hardball?!!

Taxes show shady connections to corporations, Dubai, shady characters!!

Raises more questions than it answers.

[DerekJ]

61. link to video

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23943618#23960864

[berni_mccoy]

63. Thanks. That was very interesting.