Posted on 04/05/2008 7:22:34 AM PDT by cricket
italics/bold mine:
Yesterday the news was full of accounts of the Clintons' 2000-2006 tax returns. At the top of the stories -- as in the "deep background" report by Andrea Mitchell and the NBC investigative unit -- reporting their total income of $108 million over the past eight years (including 2007) was their $10 million in contributions to charity. The stories appear to be based in large part on the summary provided by the Clinton campaign, rather than on the returns themselves.
Here is the summary's description of the Clintons' charitable contributions:
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).
The summary did not directly state what one could reasonably infer (but that somehow didn't make it into the initial news reports). The Clintons' charitable contributions went to the William J. Clinton Foundation. Today's New York Times story on the tax returns puts the relevant information near the top of the story in the third paragraph:
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.
With the Clintons, there is always a wrinkle. I'm inclined to say that contributions to the William J. Clinton Foundation are to charity as military music is to music. But I don't know if that's fair. The foundation's "mission" is not exactly inspirational: The mission of the William J. Clinton Foundation is to strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.
A few years back, John and I took a look at George Bush's tax return for 1991. The return had been used with gross dishonesty by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele in their book America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?. Unfortunately, in their 350-page book, Barlett and Steele never did get around to disclosing who really pays the taxes.
Barlett and Steele implied that President Bush was a malefactor of tax avoidance in 1991. We found that President and Mrs. Bush had donated $818,803 to charity, or 62 per cent of their income in 1991. The amount represented nearly all the royalties on Millie's Book and exceeded what the Bushes could take as a charitable deduction, if I remember correctly. The Bushes paid 47 percent of their remaining income in taxes.
In 1991 the Bushes contributed to 49 different charities, everything from Ducks Unlimited to the United Negro College Fund. But the main beneficiary of their charity was the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, which received $789,176. Mrs. Bush's foundation is undoubtedly the real deal, much like the lady herself. The foundation is devoted to the cause she made her passion.
In the case of Bill Clinton, it would be harsh to say that the William J. Clinton Foundation is probably also devoted to the cause he made his passion.
Posted by Scott at 6:53 AM | Permalink | |
Why can't I stop laughing?
. . .good, only if you laugh till it hurts/lol.
This is a common tax dodge used by wealthy persons and should be eliminated.
How does it work?
Set up a charitable trust that you control.
Donate as much money as you want and take the full deduction from your taxable income.
Hoard the money (there is no requirement to spend it for any charitable purposes) or dole it out to your friends and family members using sweetheart contracts and such.
I knew it! I was just laughing at my liberal colleagues the other day as I broke the news of how much the Clinton’s have “earned” since leaving the White House. My liberal colleagues shot back, “Why should you care how much money they made, you’re a conservative.” I replied, “I don’t care how much they made, I just can’t wait for their charitable contributions to come out...If they’re anything like the Obama’s they haven’t given squat.” And lo and behold, they gave almost the entire amount of the charitable contributions to THEMSELVES. LOL!
And if, as stated, the bulk of the charitable contributions were made last year, that means that in earlier years, when they made the really big money, they gave next to nothing to charity. As NY state residents, their effective combined tax rate was probably around 50%...yet they still preferred to give money to the government rather than to a charity. Shows the true liberal mindset..
Just posted this on another thread... their “charity” seems to be primarily focused on self-promotion. Not to mention multi-million dollar donations from unnamed donors, multi-millions in salary expense to unnamed employees....
This is the link to all the William J. Clinton Foundation’s financials including the 990s...
Lots of info here, including massive salary, travel and consultant expenses and big expenditures explained as “charitable” because they are to support their Clinton Library and teaching of the “Clinton Presidency”.
In other words, a massive tax-free PR firm and free travel vehicle for the StainMaker... not to mention big padded salaries that can go to paying off political favors.
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/cf-financial-info.htm
These people have no shame.
I was watching abc last night - Stephanopolous actually called it a “tithe”
For sure; a well-deserved lol/;^)
And no question for the Clintons, Obama and Libs et al and ad nauseum; chairity is a 'self-fulling' proficy. . .
There is simply NOTHING authentic about a Liberal, save their own IN-authenticity; and challenge each and every one of them to prove otherwise.
Will they pay their campaign staffers’ health-care insurance bills now?
A tithe to what - the Church of Clintology?
‘The Clinton’s favorite charity......the clintons!!!!
Wow, that 60K page loopholed tax code works so well. /s
You have to love it; when the wealthiest of our nation; like Warren Buffet, (did Soros go here?) tell - not the 'mega rich;super-wealthy' - but the lesser if not 'poor rich'; that they are to ante up for public charity and pay higher taxes.
Would love to walk through their Foundations.
Meantime, what is John Kerry's 'favorite charity' and Al Gore's?
(Buffet appeared to travel towards the light this year - is 'Liberal light' an oxymoron(?), as per Bill Gates influence; but want to see the bottom line. Am sure he is not refurbishing public libraries. Or providing free medical care somewhere. . .)
One more; can we see Chelsea's tax returns too? Does SHE have a favorite charity - beyond her family Foundation? Does SHE have her own Foundation yet?
lol. . .think Hillary is buying time. . .She hopes to turn this bill over to 'Hillary Care'.
A great point, 'missed' of course; by MSM. Don't think even Fox News hit that one - yet. Certainly Greta did not last night. (But they were 'edgier' - so to speak - than their competition.)
. . .this IS a joke! And again, and for sure; a 'self-fulling proficy' for these people.
And thanks for info/links.
So if the Democrats raise taxes only on the wealthy, the very wealthy like the Clintons will simply bump up their contributions to their own foundations, and the not so wealthy "wealthy" who make $30,000 a year will be stuck paying the bill.
These fools-for-Government, are over-the-top, with their religious 'language' trying to impart 'spirit' and connote a 'faith' as they describe to what is their Government-required, obligations.
Please note how often we now hear, 'faith-induced' language on behalf of these Libs; as they attempt to apply, what is no more than 'lipstick on a pig'. . .whatever the conversation.
(Might this be libstick?/lol)
And obviously little George does not even know the defitnition of tithe. . .as Clinton's did not quite make the 10% mark - as per their 'self-giving'.
Good one; lol. Works for sure.
For these people.. .Life IS a 'self-celebration'. . .
I notice many of their millions came from their respective book deals.
I've never seen a satisfactory explanation as to why the Clintons got to keep all their book proceeds and Newt Gingrich was forced to give his back.
Wouldn't be a double standard, would it? (sarc)
We'll learn more in the coming days of the nature of the charities, and more importantly, we'll learn who paid Bill's ginormous speaking fees. But by then, it will be "old news," and anyone raising questions over the appropriateness of the speaking fees and book advances, and/or suggesting conflicts of interest, will be labeled a crank.
It didn’t say a bulk of the contributions were last year. It said a bulk of the DISBURSEMENTS from the trust were made last year — in other words, the payouts from the money they’ve been hoarding tax-free for all these years were made LAST year when those payments would most likely buy Hillary Clinton votes for her nominating contest.
Hillary got her payment up-front before she took office, while Gingrich got his payment while he was IN office.
Good question; one that was never answered; and the issue disappeared. .
Also, while I have not had time to recheck think there is more than just book profits here; something about 'monies' coming in from foreign source to Bill Clinton per timing of announcement of his wife's candidacy; just have not checked out 'details' yet. Foundation stuff, mot likely. . .but a deal that serves both Hillary and Bill. . .
Also wonder, if Hillary was/is really opposed to whatever Penn was agreeing to do with Colombia; per his apology. . .and it was not just a Clinton 'screen' and Penn just got impatient or just 'imprudent' with his timing.
Good point on the timing here per 'dump'. And by time McCain has an opponent; it WILL be old news and for sure, we already know he IS at the least, 'cranky'.
I pray McCain's campaigning is not as pure as he promises; or as pure as his predecessor.
The improprieties here, by Clinton's, are by size and quality. . .simply gross.
Exactly, and I don’t see Buffet clamoring for its elimination, either.
Most welcome for the link.
I’m hoping that one of our brilliant accountant freepers can can tell more from the Foundation’s 990’s posted there...
Gotta love it. . .
. ..and again; gotta love it. . .this may just hit the fan. . .
Whoops... looks like there is some confusion on the blogs about which of their personal charities they donated to...
This is the Clinton Family Foundation and a link to THOSE form 990s... just how many charities did they start? :-)
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/ffindershow.cgi?id=CLIN040
The 2006 990 shows Bill as President, Hillary as Secretary/Treasurer and Chelsea as a Director.
And for all their outraged blather about the poor “Katrina Victims”, in 2006 they donated a gigantic $75,000 to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund, in 2005 a whopping $25,000.
In other words, a front for Bill Clinton's glob-trotting self-promotion where, no doubt, one of that 'foundations' main expenses is for his travel and speaking engagements around the world (so it doesn't get paid out of his taxable income, but is instead paid out of income he sheltered by giving it to his 'foundation'). He gets a charitable tax deduction for a front operation for his own self-promotion.
You nailed the bottom line here. . .and it easy to see why the 'happy couple' is smiling.
Really. . .what might we expect from a couple who donated their old underwear to GoodWill and called it 'Charity' while taking a deduction somewhere between seven to fifteen dollars a piece - when they were Governor!
They probably included their socks-with-holes too - doubt Hillary wore pantyhose. But if she did; they would have been included as a 'charitable deduction'. lol/but pathetic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.