So now we know. The Clintons are generous to the tune of 10 million bucks.

[ruggerson]

Not bad for evil whores.

[babylonsister]

1. Nice tax write-off. Anyone who makes obscene amounts of money

should be generous to a fault.

[joshcryer]

4. They paid 3 times that in taxes.

I doubt their writeoffs are that big.

[easy_b94]

5. tax write-off .....Yep

[PBS Poll-435]

8. Didn't really help that much...

They opted for the 30% limitation. See IRC Sec. 170

[Seeker30]

56. Learn how tax write offs work, then open your mouth

Donate 10 million = lose 10 million

Keep 10 million and pay taxes = keep 5 - 6 million

[PBS Poll-435]

64. Common sense.

Thanks!

[DerekJ]

68. Income bracket?!!!

Corporations and individual donate to charity all the time, so they won't fall under certain income bracket. Sometimes keeping 10 million means you have to pay a higher tax on all your money, which means you will lose a lot more than 10 million

[BzaDem]

70. Um, no?

If you hit another income bracket, you only pay that higher amount on the taxes over that bracket. So if you are 1000 over the income bracket, you pay the higher rate only on that 1000.

[AZ Criminal JD]

71. You don't have a clue about taxes

The Clintons, whether they gave 10 million or kept it are far above the maximum tax bracket. They didn't "save" anything by giving away 10 million.

[DerekJ]

72. Notice it was in a fucking question form.

I wasn't making a bloody statement. I was asking a question. The DUer above you answered my question, in nice and decent manner. Learn from him/her.

[AZ Criminal JD]

81. You didn't ask in a "nice or decent" manner

You were trying to imply the Clintons had other motives when they gave to charity. Typical Obama cultist. The words you used in your reply show your "civility".

[flpoljunkie]

74. The $10.2 Mil went to a family foundation, given only way half the money,most since Hil's prez run.

During that time, the Clintons paid $33.8 million in federal taxes and claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05clintons.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1207393537-/o5ua/EZ3hj88DuLNdl38A

[cornermouse]

75. Family foundations that plan to give away money

typically only give away a fraction of their holdings, usually the interest off what the base of money earned, in order to continue operating and helping people over decades rather than being a one-time giveaway. That's fact.

[flpoljunkie]

76. More details of the history of the Clintons' charitable giving...

The pace of the Clintons’ own charitable giving, which peaked last year at $3 million, has not always kept up with their income, and by at least one measure, has sometimes fallen short of the spirit of the 5 percent goal, which is to get money into the hands of charities that do good works.

In 2002, for instance, they reported income totaling $9.5 million and $115,000 in gifts to charity. In other years, they have given much larger amounts to their family foundation, but it has yet to disburse all of the money.

The Clintons took a tax deduction in 2004 for $2.5 million in charitable gifts, $2 million of which went to their family foundation, which as a tax-exempt nonprofit is considered a charity under the tax code. That same year, the foundation gave away just $221,000 to charitable groups, according to its tax return.

A representative of the Clintons said that when they and their foundation filed their 2007 tax returns, the records would show that all of the $3 million they gave to the foundation last year had been passed on to other charities. That will account for more than half of all the charitable donations that the foundation has made since 2001, according to a review of its tax returns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05clintons.html?pagewanted=2&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1207393537-/o5ua/EZ3hj88DuLNdl38A

[cornermouse]

77. As far as this being a sign of corruption, the claim is bogus.

http://www.naccho.org/topics/fundingguide/documents/march_2007/Kansas.pdf

Take particular note of assets/holdings versus distributions/giving.

[FrenchieCat]

2. What charities did they give to? I don't see the itemized listing....

do you have a link to it?

[PBS Poll-435]

10. There is not a Federal Statement

Required for Sec. 170 items.

[jefferson_dem]

12. Nothing is itemized.

Either on the income or the givings side.

They are hoping folks like the OP pick up the "wowie, aren't they such good samaritans" talking point and people are distracted from asking questions about the details.

[ruggerson]

14. I realize how disappointed you are to discover that they are generous

it doesn't fit the whole "they are both monsters" narrative.

In fact, it kind of destroys it.

[jefferson_dem]

16. I don't need the details of these tax returns to know they are monsters.

n/t

[ruggerson]

24. Yeah, that Vince Foster murder

that pushed me over the edge too

[Texas Hill Country]

26. HAHAHAHAHA... tin foil hat please?

[jefferson_dem]

28. Imagine the ghoulishness if she sat down and schmoozed the sleaze who actually accused her...

Ack.

[ruggerson]

38. When Obama went on Fox

to defend the WRight controversy, there were ooohs and ahhhs and "how brave he is" comments from the Obama supporters here.

Fox has demonized both Obama and Clinton.

I thought it was great he went on Fox and ditto for CLinton to go into the Scaife lion's den.

Our guys are gutsy.

[PBS Poll-435]

42. What a rational and sane comment

You are obviously in the wrong place. Leave before they do the hypnosis on you! :crazy:



J/K

:D

[Texas Hill Country]

25. dumb statement.

[anamandujano]

59. He has lots of dreams that guide his view of reality.

So, it wasn't really that dumb. :shrug:























Ok, it was dumb.

[Cant trust em]

31. dents, but not destroys.

Hillary could rescue Barack Obama's grandmother from out of a burning building and some would say that it was to pander to the black vote.

[PBS Poll-435]

43. That is for sure!

[anamandujano]

60. Actually, it would be because

she likes thinking of herself as a hero. It's all about her. :crazy:

[PBS Poll-435]

23. HUH?

It says exactly where every piece of income comes from...

Sch B - Interest & Dividends
Sch C - Self Employement/Sole Prop Income
Sch D - Dispositions
Sch E - Rents, Royalties, S-Corp & Partnership pass-throughs....

But yeah... On page 1 of the 1040 it doesn't say where the income came from.

Nancy Drew Jr. Detective of the Day!!!

:eyes:

[Blue Diadem]

22. It appears they give a lot to their foundation:

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

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/300/300048438/300048438_200612_990PF.pdf

In case the exact page doesn't come up, recipient names begin on page 23 for the link immediately above.



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).

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/returns/

[dysfunctional press]

3. so apparently thet aren't members of a church that espouses tithing.

it would seem.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. They gave around 10% to charity

[PBS Poll-435]

13. Obama's Donations Mean A Whole Lot More!!!

Don't you realize he gave as much as he could. And he gave it to church! What do you have against church? They just paid off their student loans G-D it! Why would you want Him & His Wife, thier Kids, and thier pets to live in an apartment just so they could give more to church & various charities? And I will have you know, as a percentage, they gave WAY more than the Clintons. The Clintons are MISERS.





tehe

[The Night Owl]

32. An example of what Barack Obama's donation to TUCC went toward...

Pastor Wright's dream house...

_20080329_02_26_42_3-282-400.imageContent

Put a shrimp on the barby!

[PBS Poll-435]

34. Why with the Obamas and their associates,

Do I always hear about "Dream Houses?"

It is like Barbie, Skipper, & Ken come to life!

[TK421]

57. Miserly, evil little shit-eaters!!

THEY'RE DARKSIDED GARGOYLES!!!@!@!@!SLYNKNICKS!!@!~

[PBS Poll-435]

65. Well...

They Ain't "Christian!!!" If you know what I mean..

[dysfunctional press]

20. tithing is 10%, not "around 10%".

nt

[MonkeyFunk]

27. they gave 9.5%

are you really faulting them for that?

It's more than most people give. Far more.

Plus, Bill has given countless hours, raising hundreds of millions for tsunami and hurricane relief. What a bastard.

[PBS Poll-435]

29. And since her investments are in a blind trust,

She is not going to know exactly what each investment generates until she gets her 4Q statement the next year.

[Boz]

6. This is petty close to the standard for their income level

Most people choose donation as a way to write off a tax liability.

It doesn't speak to philanthropic pining.

In fact most politicians donations of this type, as I expect these to be reflected as often, as a generalization, go to politically connected non profits, rather than directed philanthropic receivers.

You very rarely see these kind of donations going to mom and pop soup kitchens or other such real world charities.

[jefferson_dem]

9. So they had to struggle along with only $65-70 million over the past six years...

When you subtract those generous contributions (most to the "Clinton Foundation, surely) and their taxes paid...

Wow. :wow: Sounds like a real common-folk couple.

[ruggerson]

11. yes, every well to do person is evil

the Kennedys. The Kerrys. Just unable to give back.

[jefferson_dem]

15. I never said they were evil (at least not based on their amount of charitable givings alone)

It's just that ClintonInc shouldn't necessarily be celebrated for giving just the right amount to charities when they rake in such obscenely high dollars.

I'll await more details before I give them any gold stars.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Did they ever say they were middle-class?

No.

Everybody in America knows Bill makes a lot of money, so pretending that this is surprising news is just stupid.

[mikelgb]

17. damn usually enigmatic elipsis threads are better

[redqueen]

19. hehehehehe

:P

[ruggerson]

21. I reedited the title

just for you

[mikelgb]

37. =Þ

[Emillereid]

30. Get some perspective. It's 10% - most of us do that.

[MonkeyFunk]

35. No

average Americans give 3.1% of their income. The Clintons gave more than three times that amount.

[PBS Poll-435]

44. (And most people lie about it!)

The returns for the Foundation are, and have been for some time, available on-line.

Nice to see you here today!

[Emillereid]

48. Well I give about 10% - the rest of you guys should get up to speed.

[PBS Poll-435]

66. I see that you give to shame others into giving...

Just like it says in the Bible!!!

:yourock:











:eyes::eyes::eyes:

[Emillereid]

78. I must confess - the tax write off is a motivator too.

[BeyondGeography]

33. So I guess you like the whole weak government/privatization trend, too?

because that's what apologists for uber-rich people who point to charitable donations are usually about.

[ruggerson]

36. I plead guilty

to not demonizing wealthy people.

Some rich people make their money in a criminal fashion. Some poor people make their money in a criminal fashion.

I don't see a correlation between morality and wealth.

[BeyondGeography]

40. The question is whether they are compromised by their sources of wealth

and whether they should be entrusted with power again.

It's an old fashioned concern, I know.

[ruggerson]

41. That's a question one can make of all politicians

including the Obamas. At some point, we have to take a leap of faith with our elected servants.

I think Hillary is in this for largely the right reasons. She has all the money she ever needs. I'm sure there is an ego/power thing involved, but there is for Obama as well. You have to have that in order to be insane enough to run for this job.

Both Clinton and Obama should be commended for being run through the gauntlet. Neither of them are perfect human beings and neither of them are evil monsters.

[Zueda]

39. Hah

not nearly a generous as the Cheney's

What did they give? Like 60-80% of their income?

[PBS Poll-435]

46. LOL...you have to be kidding me right?

Holy Hell.

[Zueda]

55. nope!

Right here...

The Cheneys donated just under $6.87 million to charity from the stock options and royalties from Mrs. Cheney’s books. That left about $1.9 million in income on which the Cheney’s owed $529,636 in taxes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12318056/

[PBS Poll-435]

63. And you actually think that is representative of his income producing assets!

How quaint!

Please seek help. (Or just frequent FR. I won't tell JimRob that you were here...)

[Zueda]

80. You obviously misunderstand the point...

Maybe you need to get a clue.

[tammywammy]

45. Good for them!

Everyone should give what they can. I know I can't afford much, but I do give to charity.

[DemVet]

47. Evil whores? You're a real class act.

[ruggerson]

50. some of you

people have to get out more

[goodgd_yall]

61. He's only reflecting back

what some people say and think.

Ruggerson is a class act.

[MethuenProgressive]

49. After all the fuss - the only thing the tax returns 'prove' is success and generosity.

Bless their generous hearts!

[anonymous171]

69. Well, there is that missing 18 million.

And that 10 mil is donated to their own foundation. Not insulting their generosity. Just saying.

[nichomachus]

51. The scale of justice

On one hand, she gave some money to charity.

On the other hand, she sent 4000+ Americans off to die in a phony war.

Good person or bad person?

So, she donated $2,500 per person she helped kill.

Not very much.

[jillan]

52. lol!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. And we know that politics pays.

Not bad.

[goldcanyonaz]

54. What terrible people.

[Frank Booth]

58. As an Obama supporter,

I have to say that I am very impressed by this. I think, at heart, the Clintons care about the things all Democrats care about: the poor, the oppressed, the environment. This shows that the Clintons are very generous people, which everyone here suspected all along.

I happen to prefer Barack for president, however. He will move this country forward in ways that the Clintons just can't.

[stillcool]

62. Well there's charity...

and there's charity. From the book "The Rich and the Super-Rich" by Ferdinand Lundberg 1968. Available for free download here: http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/0303socialcriticism.html
because of it's copyright expiration...such a great book!

PHILANTHROPIC VISTAS:
THE TAX-EXEMPT
FOUNDATIONS

Puzzles of Philanthropy

As we are not engaged here in an embroidery upon journalistic fantasies we are confronted by a number of puzzles. To what extent are the wealthy giving their money away for good works if they are giving it away at all? This is somewhat similar to the question faced in the last chapter: To what extent are the wealthy being taxed out of existence? And, if they are not giving wealth away, what is it that they are really doing with their numerous foundations?

As many persons are involved in all this so-called philanthropy one must not, heeding the caveats of methodological vigilantes of the Establishment, impute motivations without warrant, although the very term philanthropy (to which the Establishment methodologists oddly do not object) does already unwarrantably impute motivations. What the individual motivations are of those thousands who now transfer money to foundations one cannot say one really knows. 1 But one can trace certain indubitable nonphilanthropic effects of such activities.

The first of these is the public relations effect. The founder may have been publicly disliked, like John D. Rockefeller I, or not very well liked, like Andrew Carnegie. But the forming of foundations had the effect of altering opinion in an unsophisticated population, turning the supposed bad guy into a supposed good guy.
------------
To have blotted out of popular consciousness largely by foundational activity this once prevalent estimate has been a notable achievement in public relations engineering.

* Another effect is the tax-saving benefit. Nearly all of the American foundations have come into view since the enactment of the income tax and estate tax laws: The foundations are completely exempt not only with respect to income taxes but also capital gains taxes. One does not know in each case that the founder sought to escape taxes, but common reason would indicate it. Many standard tax-advisory services explicitly point to these factors as attractive features of foundations. 2

* A third effect is the corporate-control effect. Corporate control, which would otherwise be undermined by the tax laws, is preserved to perpetuity by many foundations, permitting the hereditary transmission, tax free, of vast corporate power.

* A fourth effect is that the foundations extend the power of their founders very prominently into the cultural areas of education (and propaganda), science, the arts and social relations. While much that is done in these areas under foundation auspices meets judicious critical approval, it is a fact that these dispensations inevitably take the form of patronage, bestowed on approved projects, withheld from disapproved projects. Recipients of the money must be ideologically acceptable to the donors.

There is a positive record showing that by these means purely corporate elements are able to influence research and many university policies, particularly in selection of personnel. While the foundations are staunch supporters of the physical sciences, the findings of which have many profit-making applications in the corporate sphere, among the social disciplines their influence is to foster a prevailing scholastic formalism. By reason of the institutional controls that have been established, the social disciplines are largely empty or self-servingly propagandistic, as careful analyses have disclosed. 3

Whether or not these various effects were sought by the foundation creators, they are present, and the realistic observer must suppose they were what the realistic founders had in mind. (We must be particularly impressed by the frank analyses of their tax advisers.) Via the foundations they get more mileage out of their dollars--and retain more dollars.
-------------------------

According to The Nation, the Brown Foundation, Inc., of Houston, established by the late Herman Brown and brother George R. Brown of the big government contractors, Brown and Root, channeled money into at least one Central Intelligence Agency conduit foundation and into at least one organization partly supported by the CIA. Brown and Root, incidentally, is politically close to President Johnson.

In 1963 the Brown Foundation gave $150,000 to the Vernon Fund and in 1964 it gave $100,000, these being the latest available figures. It gave $50,000 in 1963 to the American Friends of the Middle East and $150,000 in 1964. By no kind of elastic interpretation can these donations be regarded as in the cause of sweet charity.

There are now at least seven CIA-conduit foundations known to be operating in oil-lush Texas; the others are the San Jacinto Foundation, the Marshall Foundation, the Anderson Foundation, the Hoblitzelle Foundation, the Jones-O'Donnell Foundation and the Hobby Foundation. The latter was set up by Oveta Culp Hobby, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Eisenhower, and by her son William Hobby, Jr., executive editor of the Houston Post. Both Hobbys are close to President Johnson.

"In the eight months that have elapsed since the CIA was discovered to have polluted the world of the foundations," said The Nation, "neither the IRS nor Patman has shown any interest in discovering just how deeply the spies have penetrated the supposedly charitable organizations. Patman's investigations into charity, like charity itself, should begin at home. He might even tell us what good works have been supported lately by the Lyndon Johnson Foundation, established a few years ago by the President."

[AJH032]

67. The criticism is unwarranted

The Clintons are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they donate, it's just to get the tax write off, or not enough, or whatever. Imagine what it would be like if they hadn't?

[Writer]

73. $10 million? Why didn't they give $11 million?

Huh?

:shrug:

[Milo_Bloom]

79. Too bad they used a tax loophole to retain control of the funds.

They paid the money to their own personal charity foundation.

And have, to date, only paid out a small portion of that money (less than 40%)... effectively taking the tax credit for money they have not yet contributed.

Further, they retain control of this money and can it back at a lower tax rate in the future if they decide to do "consulting" work for the foundation or even draw a direct salary.

To date, they haven't pulled these stunts, but they have left themselves the option, which is a shame.

As progressive they should set an example by not taking advantage of this tax dodge and just given money directly from their sizeable income, instead of setting up a hedge fund for the future.