The average percent of income given to charity by high income families is 3.1%

[dsc]

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/02/19/Poor-Give-More-to-Charity

http://www.portfolio.com/graphics/2008/02/Alms-From-the-Working-Class

That means the Clinton's gave not twice but over three times as much as his class typically does. Yes, they have made great deal of money. But, they also gave an immense amount away. Sadly, we have some bitter partisans who even shit on charity threads. I, for one, am proud of them for their giving.

[wellstone dem]

1. I was pleased by their

generosity, though they certainly could afford to give more--as could I.

[dsc]

2. we all could

but he outperforms his income cohort by a factor of over 3.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Alms From the Working Class

You might want to get some stats for charitable contributions from the extremely wealthy class, aka 'the rich'. The Clintons fall into the category of 'plain rich' as per the wonderful taxonomy of wealth over here: http://jmooneyham.com/rich-reference.html



These folks should be donating a much larger share of their annual income to charity. Frequently however they appear to more often be donating to tax shelter family trust funds rather than to actual charitable organizations.

"The tax returns also reveal that the Clintons paid $33.8 million in taxes while claiming $10.2 million in charitable tax relief. These contributions went to the Clinton family foundation, which has given away less than half of the money they have put into it. Most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton announced she was running for the White House."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clintons-discolsed-tax-returns-show-more-than-109m-earned-in-the-past-eight-years-805030.html

[redqueen]

8. "contributions went to the Clinton family foundation, which has given away less than half

of the money they have put into it. Most of that was last year, after Mrs. Clinton announced she was running for the White House."


Obviously, PR works.

[dsc]

10. so they should have just thrown the money at stuff willy nilly?

is that your position? The money isn't Clinton's anymore. It is in a foundation. It doesn't get more simple than that.

[redqueen]

11. If the donations were genuine and not more political posturing

it wouldn't be mostly given after she started running, IMO.

And there are charities that are HURTING for money. Food banks are having trouble meeting demand.

But hey, at least their foundation is flush with cash. Guess they're saving it for when they think some really deserving charity needs it more.

[dsc]

12. Oh please

if they gave 100 million to some food bank then the complaint would be it was in a state we never could win, we will win anyway, or was a transparent attempt to buy votes.

[redqueen]

14. Sorry... that doesn't hold any water.

Maybe someone already inclined to only want to see the Clintons as infallible would buy that... but not me.

Food banks are hurting. I guess yours is a good enough reason for some, to explain why they haven't donated to some charity that could use the money...

[PBS Poll-435]

18. Please Look at This....

2003 - $410,000 5.2% of Adjusted Gross Income
2004 - $2,534,280 12.7% of Adjusted Gross Income
2005 - $1,755,473 9.7% of Adjusted Gross Income
2006 - $1,580,503 9.9% of Adjusted Gross Income

Just when did she start running for President?

[MonkeyFunk]

19. The new smear

is the one redqueen posted above.

The fact is, no matter WHAT the Clintons do, they'll be attacked. The fact that we're actually arguing over their $10,000,000 generosity proves that.

[PBS Poll-435]

21. I know. Even the power of *Facts* is useless

Against those who have that much hatred and vitriol.

[redqueen]

30. We're not arguing over generosity.

We're arguing over timing and the inferences one either makes or doesn't make based on that.

You apparently see the timing of the increase in donations and figure it's not a big deal. I look at it and think ... why?

[MonkeyFunk]

35. And there are countless possible reasons

but people here glom onto the one that makes the Clintons look bad.

Foundations often accrue money at the beginning, while building up their fund. The Clintons had many legal fees to pay in their first few years out of office, as well as having to buy homes. People have to rewrite history to pretend that Hillary started running for President in 2004.

If you twist everything a certain way, you can spin it as looking bad. But I feel the only way to come to your conclusion is to have pre-judged them as rotten heels, and then look at everything through that shit-covered lens.

[redqueen]

40. Are there?

Perhaps you're right. Too bad nobody knows any of those. What's the point in accruing money? Building up?

I'm not rewriting history or pretending that she started... I made a guess based on logic.

As for what you refer to as my 'shit-covered' lens... would it be meaningful for me to accuse you of wearing rose-colored glasses? Cause what you just said is just a more vulgar inverse... so... whatever.

[PBS Poll-435]

37. Because you need a reason to continue this ...

It's bullshit and you know it. They gave more as a percentage in 2004 than any other year. First you said it was because she announced she was running for President. Well, that was the wrong year, unfortunately. Then you said it was because Kerry was "out of the way." Right...I don't remember Bill Clinton campaigning for Kerry at all. I don't remember that after Clinton had his bypass surgery, he got on the campaign trail very quickly after recovery. I don't remember any of this. To me, it didn't happen. Just like you!

[redqueen]

43. Did you see the shrug?

I meant that to imply that I was guessing.

The sentiment was from the guardian piece that was linked.

As for the Clintons campaigning for Kerry... don't make me laugh. Hillary sided with republicans in bashing him for the stupid joke he flubbed.

[PBS Poll-435]

57. What...

You mean that "joke" in 2006? Was he still campaigning for 2004?

[MonkeyFunk]

38. Also...

some people here made the same claim about the Obamas, and the numbers would reflect the same "reality" you're pushing for the Clintons. But smarter people know that there are other possible explanations for the pattern of the Obamas' charitable giving, and not just the one that makes them look the worst.

I imagine you'd object if I looked at the Obama's record with the goal of twisting everything to make them look bad.

[redqueen]

44. People did, and I read them without throwing a fit about it.

I appreciated seeing the points raised and debunked (his giving increased after he paid off his student loan and got his book things).

See? No childishness required.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. Many people did throw a fit

and rightly so, because it was a baseless accusation, and an unfounded smear against their candidate.

I myself have not thrown a fit here - I've explained the situation as calmly as I can.

But I certainly understand why supporters on either side get upset when such baseless smears are put forward by the other side.

[redqueen]

51. I know... like I keep telling you... there are childish people everywhere!

Jesus, MF... I *know* you're not acting like a jackass here... and I appreciate that you usually don't. We all do from time to time but the whining about how "Obama people are so meeeean" is really starting to make me sick.

And again... NOT a baseless smear put forward by MY side... it came from the goddamn guardian piece.

Shit.

[Evergreen Emerald]

64. amazing. The Obama goggles don't allow people to see how

hypocritical and really silly their arguments are becoming.

[redqueen]

68. Obama goggles?

Jesus... look... I saw the blip from the guardian... so accuse me of being biased for seizing on it like I did... that's fair... but to smear a whole group of supporters?

You're a peach.

[Evergreen Emerald]

87. these constant "blips" about Clinton are getting so old.

YOu are not the only ones posting them. Constant attacks over NOTHING.

[spooky3]

88. The reason she made the tax returns available as early as possible

and demand that all of us look at them, was to get credit for all those phony contributions!!!

:sarcasm:

Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

I don't suppose they had any legal expenses they were still paying off in those early years...

[redqueen]

24. Once Kerry was out of the way?

:shrug:

[PBS Poll-435]

25. LOL - Now you have done it!

Seriously, there is nothing I can do for you.

[redqueen]

28. Did I ask you to?

:wtf:

[PBS Poll-435]

33. You obviously can not be reasoned with.

Your hatred is behind the wheel now. Don't hurt anyone...

[redqueen]

36. My hatred?

You're acting like a hyper kid and you're accusing me of hatred?

I don't hate them, kid. I just won't pretend I don't know jack about the way the real world works.

[PBS Poll-435]

39. You obviously don't have a clue about the world,

Or at least the world outside of your bubble.

"Hyper Kid?" What was that supposed to mean?

[redqueen]

46. The tone of your posts.

It's childish. Hyper - your posts aren't thought through.

I mean seriously - accountants tell you to pay your taxes and don't help you cheat? Was that sarcasm? Cause damn!

[PBS Poll-435]

54. Get a Clue,

Buy a Clue, Steal a Clue. Just get one before your hurt someone.

[redqueen]

58. Have a nice day. Good luck with your little catchphrase there.

[PBS Poll-435]

61. You also have a nice day. It is the weekend, enjoy it.

[redqueen]

66. I wish.

I'm stuck at work babysitting the team assembling the cubicles in our office extension. :(

But at least I have DU to keep me company. :)

[PBS Poll-435]

72. I am working too. Dang it.

DU might cause a slight loss in productivity today. We will see.

:)

[redqueen]

74. Heh... well either way...

glad we managed to be able to actually talk *to* each other. Sorry if I came across like I was attacking them... like I said, I saw that claim and seized on it. Mea culpa. But the way I see it, I have learned something... so maybe lurkers who also would have seized on it have learned too.

So... thanks. :hug:

[PBS Poll-435]

75. I totally agree.

I can't wait for primary season to get over. McCain, doesn't know what he is in for!

:hug:

[onenote]

45. and what about 2000?

Income: $357,000. Donations around $35,000 -- about 10 percent.

[redqueen]

47. I didn't see that, and I appreciate having that suspicion debunked.

See how fucking easy this can be?

Jesus...

[onenote]

42. you so obviously don't understand how foundations work

The whole point of setting up a foundation is to create an entity that will make donations over a period of time, not immediately. In the first few years of a foundation, the goal is to accumulate a corpus -- a residual base of assets that earns interest and enhances the foundations overall value. Once the foundation reaches a certain level, giving increases. But the whole idea is to create an institution that will continue to be able to make charitable contributions after the originators are no longer around.

And, if I may ask, if the reason for the increased giving in the last couple of years is political, not benevolent, why hasn't any of that giving been publicized? The foundation's returns, with an itemized list of donations, have been readily available on line every year, but nobody has bothered even to look at it until yesterday.

Try using logic rather than blind emotion when you think through something.

[redqueen]

50. Wow... and I thought you were going to keep being reasonable.

Yes, you're right. I don't know how foundations work.

So thanks for explaining that thing about why they have to accumulate interest.

As for your accusation about emotion... I read it in the linked piece, so it wasn't "blind emotion" but rather having read that and finding it odd.

But thanks, though... it wouldn't be GDP without unnecessary ugliness.

[onenote]

65. sorry if my frustration came across as ugliness

Truly. And in the spirit of dialog, I reiterate my question: how do you square your apparent suspicion that their giving is politically motivated with the fact that its been going on for several years and hasn't been publicized by the Clintons or anyone else for that matter?

[redqueen]

70. Because you don't need to politicize it to get a return...

influence peddling is far from cut and dry... and often has nothing to do with public opinion.

[PBS Poll-435]

16. The Foundation

Has had its Annual Reports and Federal Form 990s available on the internet for a very long time.

You can see where the money goes quite easily.

Nice Strawman,though!

[redqueen]

17. What strawman? All I referenced was that less than half the money has been given away.

Leaving it there to sit while charities go wanting... weird.

[PBS Poll-435]

20. It is just sitting in the bank, right?

The old-men Washington Mutual bankers are just counting all that coin!

Actually, the foundation distributes the money. It gives to charities every year. It gives grants.

It is the responsible way to deal with the sum of money that we are talking about.

Has anyone talked shit about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation here yet. Not that I can see...

[redqueen]

27. Lots of people talk shit about that foundation.

In fact, the last time I remember that being discussed was when they gave so much money and in such high-profile fashion - to India... where bill just so happens to be setting up shop.

Coincidence of course...

[PBS Poll-435]

29. They give crazy money every year.

The dole it out responsibly and where it can have the greatest effect.

[onenote]

48. bad bad George Soros, Bad bad Bill Gates.

The Soros foundation has around $80 million sitting in the bank

The Gates foundation has around 29 BILLION sitting in the bank

Bad bad. They should give it away all at once and be done with it. That's the ticket.

[redqueen]

55. Sorry but your sarcasm doesn't help explain much.

WHY is that money just sitting there? I won't say they're 'bad' (nice injection of a loaded term... you're a peach)... but I am SUSPICIOUS. And I don't understand why it's left to sit there while needs go unmet.

If you can explain to me how that's a good thing I'd be grateful... but I'm not going to get down in the mud with this "torches & pitchforks" "bad bad!" bullshit. So you can just feel free to drop that shit now.

[onenote]

67. its a good thing because it ensures that the foundation will not be transitory

but can be a permanent institution for giving.

[redqueen]

73. I get that... but why have billions sitting there?

Whenever the founder dies... how does that relate to having all that money (and that is a HELL of a lot of money) there sitting around, collecting interest, while we keep seeing reports that food banks are not able to meet demand?

I really don't get it. Especially while the dollar tanks. :wtf:

[havocmom]

4. Seem to recall several really nasty posts about what Obama gave

because it wasn't 10% or better.

[dsc]

6. find one from me and I will take down this thread

[havocmom]

81. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5387489#5387720

[havocmom]

91. ..

No body wants to remember... what a surprise, not.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[havocmom]

93. Did not say YOU were one of those posters

Thanks for outing yourself as dense as a post and not one to adhere to DU rules

[dsc]

94. I asked for a post BY ME

THE WORDS BY ME were clear.

[havocmom]

95. What I said was clear. I did not mention you, I said OTHERS

You called me a liar and I won't stand silent for that.

[dsc]

96. you said nothing

you linked that thread to a request for a thread by ME and even dishonestly linked to the middle of the thread so one had to actually engage in effort to discover your complete dishonesty.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Yep

And he's also dedicated countless hours to raising money for tsunami and hurricane victims.

[frazzled]

7. The Clintons "gave" only 2.5% to charity

While $10 million was put into the family foundation (totally legit, by the way), only $2.55 was actually disbursed to charities. This according to a detailed article in today's NY Times. Now, the Clintons are saying that their 2007 returns will show more donations. I'm sure it will (explanation for delay).

[dsc]

9. the money isn't theirs anymore

and I don't think taking time to figure out how to wisely donate a large some of money is a problem.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Eh?

while family trust fund shelters are at least preferable to elimination of estate taxes entirely, they are shelters and they do frequently serve as much to retain control over accumulated wealth as they do to provide actual charity to needy individuals.

"taking time to figure out how to wisely donate a large some of money is a problem." Nice spin.

[PBS Poll-435]

22. Lets go after Bill & Melinda Gates then.

With pitchforks and burning effigies!

Seriously....Why don't you go freaking look at the 990s that have been available to anyone who wants to see them...

[redqueen]

34. You do realize that's a strawman, right? What you just said?

:rofl: You're a hoot you are.

I'm not "going after" the Clintons. I'm simply attempting to discuss things apparently some would rather not even think about.

Your over-the-top comments prove you would rather shout and fight than discuss the issue. Your claim that 'accountants tell you to pay your taxes and don't help you cheat' proves that you're ill-equipped to have this conversation.

I won't "go after" the Gates. I will not stand by while people try to paint them as amazingly generous people because they set up a foundation.

Jesus.

[PBS Poll-435]

52. You are obviously unstable, and a little sad.

Your "real world" and "logic" belong somewhere between "The Weekly World News" and "Investors Business Daily."

And who is shouting? Jeez. Accountants, that vast majority of them anyway, will give you advice before you make a transaction. They will assist you in future tax-planning. They will prepare your return with the information that you provide.

But how, in the fuck, are they going to help you cheat, risking their license, when most things are reported to the SSA. Wages, Interest, Dividends, Sale of Stocks/Bonds. Computers have changed everything. Your ideas are old and are just a stereotype.

Feel free to put me on ignore if your feel that I am "ill-equipped" to have this very serious conversation.

The very fact that you criticize the grants and distributions of the Clinton Family Foundation, without even looking at the issue, is absurd and juvenile.

[redqueen]

63. Do you know any accountants?

My "ideas" aren't mine... they are demonstrated fact... and yes... computers changed everything... decades ago.

I don't need to put you on ignore... :wtf:

[PBS Poll-435]

78. Yeah...I know some accountants

They are all scared shit-less because of the new preparer penalties introduced this year.

[redqueen]

79. I can imagine.

As a notary, you're liable... as a frickin tech writer, you're liable. I can't wait till that kind of crap affects people like those Countrywide ASSHOLES. x(

Also re: avoidance / evasion... we were talking past each other. I consider tax avoidance equally bad. And it has the added benefit of dividing the working class from the upper middle class. Hurray!

[PBS Poll-435]

80. I agree about the liability stuff!

The avoidance thing though...Imagine this

90yo Mrs. Happybee lives on Social Security and her dead husband's pension. He worked for the phone company for 50 years and accumulated some stock a long time ago. It has since split many times and has had spin-offs. It is worth about $50,000 and it pays her about $600.00 per year in qualified dividends. Now if she were to ask me if she should sell it in 2007 or not, I would tell her to wait until 2008 because that is when the long-term capital gain tax rate, for those taxpayers in the 15% bracket, is 0%. She would effectively save 15% on the gain.

That is my idea of tax avoidence.

[redqueen]

82. Yeah... that's not what I'm thinking of when I use those words...

I guess the word "obscene" has to come into it somewhere. The situation you describe involves someone not living some high-falootin lifestyle... I mean the people who earn more than enough to have a nice big McMansion, a couple of vehciles, vacations, etc... and still they want to find a way to get out of paying their fair share. That makes me see red.

[redqueen]

15. No, I'm sure they have the best accountants money can buy. (nt)

[PBS Poll-435]

23. Good Accountants!!!

Would tell you to pay your taxes and be happy about it. Accountants do not set up other entities. Accountants do not help you cheat.

[redqueen]

32. I honestly can't fucking believe you just said that!

:rofl:

Thanks... I really needed that laugh. :D

[PBS Poll-435]

41. Glad to help.

Disregarded entities are set up by attorneys. Trusts, Foundations, and other fiduciaries are not set up by accountants.

Accountants can give advise, but will not lie or help you cheat. Tax avoidance is not the same as tax evasion.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Tax avoidance is not the same as tax evasion. true dat.

The rich (and for a definition of that see my earlier post) have the luxury to pursue tax avoidance with the help of lawyers and accountants. Only when things go very wrong does that become tax evasion, which it sometimes does. Working people (see my earlier post) generally have few if any options to avoid taxes. The criminal class and those working in the cash-only economy generally go for outright tax evasion, either because they have to or because they can.

[redqueen]

76. It's semantics, IMO. It's all cheating.

Divide and conquer....

[onenote]

56. actually they have the best accountants who are willing to donate their services

or at least that's how it would appear.
The Form 990 is a detailed form, running over 20 pages. In 2006 the Clinton Family Foundation made 50 charitable gifts totalling around 1.2 million. The Foundation's accounting expense: less than $2000. Someone is helping out a good cause for nothing. No body's getting rich. Try looking at the facts before spouting off for a change.

[PBS Poll-435]

60. Sweet, Sweet Sanity

Thanks for actually looking at the documents.

[onenote]

69. Its sad that someone should have to be thanked for actually putting facts on this site

but its where we've come to.

Shoot first, and don't bother even to look later. That should be the DU slogan.

[redqueen]

77. Is it?

I don't think so.

With the amount of disinformation that is out there, and the amount of ignorance (as in my case with these foundations)... it's something that should always be done.

As for the shoot first thing... have you visited any threads about Chavez? SA? That's another area where there are vast amounts of disinfo out there, and there are lots of opportunities to thank people for posting facts (as opposed to media BS, which I'm considering the guardian piece now).

[ampad]

26. I'm not impressed

I'll be impressed when Mrs. Clinton pays off her small vendors. It's amazing what some of you Clinton supporters will latch on to. Where is your post demanding that Clinton pay off those vendors that are getting ready to sue her? Seems to me if you can pay 10% of your income to your own charity then you can pay off 9 million in debts to schools and small vendors. Tell her to pay her damn bills then I will be impressed. It's a damn shame that they made all that money but are leaving all that debt behind to small businesses.

[PBS Poll-435]

31. Boo-hoo!!

Your outrage is noted.

[JackORoses]

59. they gave it to their own charity

that's called a tax loophole.

[onenote]

71. No. Its. Not.

Not unless you think any charitable giving is a "loophole". The foundation makes charitable donations. That is all it does. It is all it can do. The only difference between the Clinton's giving the money to the foundation, which then turns around and gives it away is that by setting up a foundation, they are able to create an entity that will be around to make charitable contributions long after the Clintons are gone, just as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or the Soros Foundation will be around for a long time making charitable contributions.

I donate to foundations all the time. I would be appalled if they gave away all the money they had each year. And I don't think of my giving to an organization like the Ocean Foundation as any less meritorious than my giving to any other type of charitable organization.

[JackORoses]

83. except that the foundation has actually only donated about a quarter of the 10 million

it's sitting on the rest.

But that doesn't stop Hillary from declaring the entire amount as being given to Charity, does it?

[PBS Poll-435]

84. You don't get the purpose of a Foundation, do you?

[JackORoses]

89. yes, I think I do.

It's a place for them to put money to save on taxes and make good PR.
While at the same time maintaining control of the money.

Simple, really.

[PBS Poll-435]

90. Then I guess you don't

Thanks for letting us know now, rather than later

FAIL

[onenote]

85. I'd be appalled if a foundation gave away all of its assets at once

Gates Foundation: in 2006, it took in $95 million; it gave away 6.5 million and it now has a balance of $29.6 Billion (with a "b").

Shoot them.

[MethuenProgressive]

62. "the Clinton's gave over three times as much as his class typically does"

It's a blessing to be able to be so generous!
God BLESS the Clintons!

[blm]

86. How many HIGH INCOME folks have planned to run for president since 1998?

How many gained that high income from the very same sources they protected by deep-sixing serious matters of government corruption in operations like BCCI as was done by Clintons throughout the 90s?