Hillary Clinton Thread

[YADA]

Originally Posted by qui est ce View Post …Are you saying the Clinton’s did not deduct charitable contributions on their income taxes? Mortgage interest? Did not claim long term capital gains? Did not take IRA deductions?

Yes.

Did you even look at her 2014 Tax returns? They deducted $41,883 in mortgage interest, $104,303 in property taxes, and only $3,022,700 in Charitable deductions - not $14 million

In fact they took advantage of over $5 million in Schedule A deductions. They paid under $10 million in taxes.

I wonder what work [and when she actually shows u at the office] Hillary actually performs for ZFS Holdings , LLC to earn her $10,492,000 salary? … oh yes … its “Speaking Fees” … and then there is the $5,563,867 ZFS Holdings paid her for authoring

And that $3,022,700 - $3 mil was to the Clinton Family Foundation -
Which has issues …NOTE - not right wing sites … so stories have the most positive spin:
huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/clinton-charities-taxes_n_7123524.html
washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-foundation-tax-forms-reveal-millions-in-unreported-donations/article/2576527
yahoo.com/news/clinton-foundation-admits-mistakes-in-tax-forms-117429841506.html
nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-foundation-admits-mistakes-tax-returns-n348641

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If Hillary was dead broke when she and Bill left the white house, then how come they bought a five-bedroom home in Chappaqua, N.Y., for $1.7 million. In December 2000, just as they were leaving the White House, they bought a seven-bedroom house near Embassy Row in Washington, D.C.for $2.85 million. She said she was dead broke, but she owned two houses worth a combined total of $4.5 million? I don’t see how that qualifies a person for being dead broke?

I don’t know. I don’t make it a habit to keep up with the Clintons’ finances. I remember that Bill got a $20 million advance for a book shortly after he left office. Maybe that’s how, but that’s just speculation on my part.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Did you even look at her 2014 Tax returns? They deducted $41,883 in mortgage interest, $104,303 in property taxes, and only $3,022,700 in Charitable deductions - not $14 million

In fact they took advantage of over $5 million in Schedule A deductions. They paid under $10 million in taxes.

I wonder what work [and when she actually shows u at the office] Hillary actually performs for ZFS Holdings , LLC to earn her $10,492,000 salary? … oh yes … its “Speaking Fees” … and then there is the $5,563,867 ZFS Holdings paid her for authoring

And that $3,022,700 - $3 mil was to the Clinton Family Foundation -
Which has issues …NOTE - not right wing sites … so stories have the most positive spin:
huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/clinton-charities-taxes_n_7123524.html
washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-foundation-tax-forms-reveal-millions-in-unreported-donations/article/2576527
yahoo.com/news/clinton-foundation-admits-mistakes-in-tax-forms-117429841506.html
nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-foundation-admits-mistakes-tax-returns-n348641

I looked, but I’m not all that concerned with her finances.

I corrected myself and said the Clintons gave $14 million to charity since 2007. This is from Hillary Clinton’s Website:

"As the returns detail, since 2007, the Clintons have paid $43,885,310 in federal income taxes. In the two most recent years, 2013 and 2014, the Clintons paid an effective federal tax rate of 35.4 percent and 35.7 percent, respectively. When accounting for state and local taxes, the Clintons’ combined effective tax rate was 44.6 percent in 2013 and 45.8 percent in 2014.

“Since 2007, the Clintons have also made $14,959,450 in charitable contributions. In 2013, charitable giving represented 11.4 percent of their income. In 2014, it represented 10.8 percent.”

Most people don’t give 10% of their income to any charity.

I see nothing wrong in commanding a large speaking fee. If someone wanted to pay me that to give a speech, I would take it in a second. I think most people would. I doubt that anyone wants to hear me speak for free. I’m just another associate professor in a vast pool of professors. I have not been First Lady, a Senator, Secretary of State, and a presidential candidate. I have not brokered a cease fire between Israel and Hamas. I have brought a few souls to Christ as a professor, though, so I’m hoping I’ll get my reward in the next life since this one doesn’t seem to be overflowing with material wealth, although I can’t complain. While not rich, I make a pretty good living between teaching and PR. I don’t want to sound ungrateful. I’m not.

 

[didymus]

Hillary Clinton can’t quite decide what she wants to say about Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders has a very clear theory of what is wrong with Hillary Clinton: She is less left-wing than he is. She is less of a conviction politician, less politically daring, less consistent in her record, and more beholden to interests that benefit from the status quo. Agree or not, that’s what he’s saying. You don’t need to agree with it or intend to vote for him to understand it and be able to repeat it coherently.
Clinton, by contrast, is all over the map.

This was on clear display Thursday night at the final Democratic debate before the New York primary on Tuesday night. Sanders has improved his range as a debater, and across a variety of subjects and questions he hammered home his basic point painting his preferred picture of Clinton. Clinton herself continues to have impressive command of the issues, but seems to have only the haziest notion of what she wants to say about Bernie Sanders, delivering a mixed message with no clear takeaway or big moments.

 

[Tomdstone]

I looked, but I’m not all that concerned with her finances…

I don’t like the way the tax system is set up. Many people get to use the standard deduction when filing their taxes and are able to deduct a few thousand dollars. Others hire wall street lawyers and financial experts to advise them how to file schedule A and deduct $5 million. IMHO, that is very unfair. The Ted Cruz flat tax plan seems to me to be a whole lot fairer, where everyone gets to pay the same rate and no deductions are allowed.

 

[Tomdstone]

I can’t make sense of what you say. First you tell us that you were sure that Hillary and Bill were dead broke when they left the White House:

I’m sure they were when they left the White House.

Then you say that your don’t keep up with the Clinton’s finances.

I don’t know. I don’t make it a habit to keep up with the Clintons’ finances.

If you don’t keep up with the Clinton’s finances, how can you be sure that they were dead broke when they left the White House?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I can’t make sense of what you say. First you tell us that you were sure that Hillary and Bill were dead broke when they left the White House:

Then you say that your don’t keep up with the Clinton’s finances.

If you don’t keep up with the Clinton’s finances, how can you be sure that they were dead broke when they left the White House?

Well, I do listen to the news a lot since the bulk of TV is not worth turning on. I heard it from sources that seemed quite reliable. A person can be dead broke one day, and if they receive a $20 million advance the next week, they are going to be in pretty good shape. I know a lot of book editors, so I know who gets what advance, and it was on the news, no secret about it.

I’m way more concerned with my own finances than the Clintons’ finances, but I do go out in the world, I don’t live in a cave, and though a professor, I’m hardly “ensconced in academia” as one poster put it. LOL

I did tell you it was speculation on my part about how they bought expensive homes, etc. I do not have access to the Clintons’ finances. I am not one of their intimates. If I were, I’d be richer.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I don’t like the way the tax system is set up. Many people get to use the standard deduction when filing their taxes and are able to deduct a few thousand dollars. Others hire wall street lawyers and financial experts to advise them how to file schedule A and deduct $5 million. IMHO, that is very unfair. The Ted Cruz flat tax plan seems to me to be a whole lot fairer, where everyone gets to pay the same rate and no deductions are allowed.

Well, I don’t like the tax system, either. A flat tax with no loopholes seems better to me, too, but I could never vote for Ted Cruz.

 

[mary_bobo]

I can’t make sense of what you say. First you tell us that you were sure that Hillary and Bill were dead broke when they left the White House:

Then you say that your don’t keep up with the Clinton’s finances.

If you don’t keep up with the Clinton’s finances, how can you be sure that they were dead broke when they left the White House?

It seems that they were “dead broke” enough to take $200,000 worth of stuff from the White House when they left. It had to be returned.

 

[grotto]

I will try to get it this evening. I have to go to class right now. I apologize.

Edit: Here, I was wrong; the 14 million given to charity covered several years. I will look for the detailed breakdown this evening.
They don’t SEEM to take advantage of loopholes.

---

Are you apologizing for going to class? That’s a start.

Its a matter of opinion, not backed up by the info you provided, the Clinton’s do SEEM to take advantage of loopholes and all other possibilities.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, I don’t like the tax system, either. A flat tax with no loopholes seems better to me, too, but I could never vote for Ted Cruz.

One man’s legitimate deduction is another man’s loophole.

For the most part, itemized deductions (other than medical and home mortgage interest) are production-related in some way. I get a lot of deductions because I operate a small ranch in addition to my “day job”. But it isn’t really a “loss” because it’s all for production-related measures that will pay off in the long run. In fact, unless cattle prices go down a lot before then, I’ll end up paying a lot of taxes on sales next year, possibly even for this year.

But in the meantime, the expenditures in herd-building, in infrastructure creation, in soil-building, were all deductible against my other income. I’m small time, but I know people who do that sort of thing on a really large scale.

Is it necessary for the government to do that? You could argue that it isn’t. But if I had to put all that money into the enterprise with after-tax dollars, the effort would have at very least been less productive in the long run.

 

[stinkcat_14]

One man’s legitimate deduction is another man’s loophole.

For the most part, itemized deductions (other than medical and home mortgage interest) are production-related in some way. I get a lot of deductions because I operate a small ranch in addition to my “day job”. But it isn’t really a “loss” because it’s all for production-related measures that will pay off in the long run. In fact, unless cattle prices go down a lot before then, I’ll end up paying a lot of taxes on sales next year, possibly even for this year.

But in the meantime, the expenditures in herd-building, in infrastructure creation, in soil-building, were all deductible against my other income. I’m small time, but I know people who do that sort of thing on a really large scale.

Is it necessary for the government to do that? You could argue that it isn’t. But if I had to put all that money into the enterprise with after-tax dollars, the effort would have at very least been less productive in the long run.

I would argue that the mortgage interest deduction is consumption related rather than production related. Houses don’t create jobs and the mortgage interest deduction has contributed to an overinvestment in housing, to the detriment of investment in the productive sector of the economy. Now, some housing is used for business, but that is deducted on schedule c, not schedule A.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

---

Are you apologizing for going to class? That’s a start.

Its a matter of opinion, not backed up by the info you provided, the Clinton’s do SEEM to take advantage of loopholes and all other possibilities.

I’ll ignore your insult. I was apologizing for not being able to stay around and answer a question, not for going to my class. The students always come first.

Everyone takes advantage of every loophole he or she can. I do, and I don’t feel bad about it. So what if the Clintons, and the other candidates, took advantage of some tax loopholes. That’s what 99.999% of Americans do, no matter what their income level. To not do so would be imprudent; it would be throwing money away.

Who pays more tax than they have to unless by accident?

 

[DeniseNY]

I’ll ignore your insult. I was apologizing for not being able to stay around and answer a question, not for going to my class. The students always come first.

Everyone takes advantage of every loophole he or she can. I do, and I don’t feel bad about it. So what if the Clintons, and the other candidates, took advantage of some tax loopholes. That’s what 99.999% of Americans do, no matter what their income level. To not do so would be imprudent; it would be throwing money away.

Who pays more tax than they have to unless by accident?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13827530&postcount=1863

 

[Siegehammer]

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders met for yet another debate in New York last night, ahead of next Tuesday’s New York primary, and the gloves came off.

The Washington Post has a complete transcript.

The story of this debate was that it was a perfect reflection of the entire primary: Hillary Clinton was a policy wonk who spoke in nuance and detail, and Bernie Sanders was a polemicist who spoke in promises and jeremiads.

The difference in their styles was thoroughly evident, right down to their body language. They interrupted each other probably in equal measure; it was really what they did when they weren’t interrupting each other that was interesting.

When Sanders spoke, Clinton would (generally) turn slightly toward him and look at him and listen while he spoke. When Clinton spoke, Sanders would (generally) look down or at the moderators, wagging his finger and making faces.

Clinton is a listener; Sanders is a lecturer. And it was very evident, just watching them onstage

The debate will not change anyone’s mind if their mind if it’s already made up; it just underlined for each of the candidates’ supporters why they’re supporting them.

And, of course, it underscored that either one of them is galaxies better than anyone the Republicans will put forth as their nominee.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Listening is an important skill.

 

[zz912]

I will try to get it this evening. I have to go to class right now. I apologize.

Edit: Here, I was wrong; the 14 million given to charity covered several years. I will look for the detailed breakdown this evening.

"As the returns detail, since 2007, the Clintons have paid $43,885,310 in federal income taxes. In the two most recent years, 2013 and 2014, the Clintons paid an effective federal tax rate of 35.4 percent and 35.7 percent, respectively. When accounting for state and local taxes, the Clintons’ combined effective tax rate was 44.6 percent in 2013 and 45.8 percent in 2014.

“Since 2007, the Clintons have also made $14,959,450 in charitable contributions. In 2013, charitable giving represented 11.4 percent of their income. In 2014, it represented 10.8 percent.”

hillaryclinton.com/tax-returns/

They don’t SEEM to take advantage of loopholes.

So that $14M was basically all donated to their own foundation. The same foundation which pays a salary to their daughter and is controlled completely by themselves. For those who complain about “loopholes” this seems a perfect example.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I would argue that the mortgage interest deduction is consumption related rather than production related. Houses don’t create jobs and the mortgage interest deduction has contributed to an overinvestment in housing, to the detriment of investment in the productive sector of the economy. Now, some housing is used for business, but that is deducted on schedule c, not schedule A.

Agree. The tax code is used for social engineering.

 

[qui_est_ce]

"Lily:

She does NOT use tax loopholes. Her tax forms are on her Website. She and Bill paid millions to the IRS. And they gave 14 million to charity, about a tenth of their income.

Everyone takes advantage of every loophole he or she can. I do, and I don’t feel bad about it. So what if the Clintons, and the other candidates, took advantage of some tax loopholes. That’s what 99.999% of Americans do, no matter what their income level. To not do so would be imprudent; it would be throwing money away.

Who pays more tax than they have to unless by accident?

I used no loopholes; I used legitimate deductions.

This is an example of many contradictions you made on this thread. It makes me wonder if you know what you are talking about.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Are you saying the Clinton’s did not deduct charitable contributions on their income taxes? Mortgage interest? Did not claim long term capital gains? Did not take IRA deductions?

Yes.

I expect they both have made good use of available deductions, don’t you?

Most people do, politicians and non-politicians.