All you've shown us is that she's put money into the foundation. That's sort of the idea. Unless you can show where she's taken money out of the foundation, your post is a pro-Hillary sentiment.

Are you really not familiar with charitable foundations? People with eponymous foundations donate to their own, not to other people's. They set them up for a reason: to fund a pet cause. You are just being deliberately obtuse.

Indeed. Just as Bill Gates giving large chunks of his wealth to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a pro-Gates sentiment.

As I recall, there is a Trump Foundation as well. One of his brow-beaten sons runs it. Of course, we'll never know how much Trump donates because we can't see his tax returns. Whoopsie.

You astound me with your stupidity. Many people with wealth have their own foundations to which they donate their money so that it goes to causes they believe in. Bill Gates being but one. Or is he also suspect in terns of your attitude.

Maybe Trump's people can all wear the same thing so they can be easily recognized. Perhaps a shirt of a certain color. Brown maybe.

Foundations are also set up to avoid estate taxes and other taxes.

The Clintons receive high income from speaking fees, as well as donations to their foundation, obviously many people who pay those fees or make the donations wish to get access- and just as obviously the Clintons have been masters at building networks. Sure maybe Chelsea gets paid more than her experience or abilities may merit, and the Clinton's get fringe benefits such as travel expense or simply building up favors. Just the way the game is played on all sides, just Hilary seems to go beyond what others do.

You are so biased. By the way..the Clintons paid 34.2% in federal taxes...and a rate of over 40% in state and city taxes. No tax avoidance there. They also had charitable contributions of a million dollars.

love it

Lol. Like I said, you're all the same.

So she avoided taxes using a foundation, yet still paid over $3m on $10m?

And avoiding estate taxes? So she put her estate in this foundation also?

Time to cash in on that MBA you have.

So Bernie Sanders has influenced aspects of the Clinton agenda, which in turn won't make it through Congress because there is a Republican House that won't vote for it.

That's nice but it won't accomplish much. Sanders' track record as a legislator is pretty unimpressive because he can't turn his rhetoric into law. It's not enough to talk; getting things done requires support from other legislators and deal cutting, not just speeches to earnest white kids. One reason that he did not win much minority support is because those groups have come to expect tangible results, and Sanders simply does not have many bragging rights in that department.

Incidentally, I'm glad that he was involved in the primaries because i do believe that he had a net positive effect on the Democratic agenda. But I'm glad that he lost because his contributions are ultimately more about tone than they are about results, and his insistence on being the proud independent socialist was only going to lead the Dems to the slaughterhouse. Clinton is not beloved, but she can win the election.

I fail to see any bias in my comment. I clearly stated she is just doing the same as many others who set up foundations and are in the political arena- and the size and scale of what she does is bigger than most.

As far as the Clinton's tax rate is concerned, my understanding is much of their income is from speaking fees and the like so it would be normal their tax rate higher than someone who had more deductions or ability to structure how they received income. How many people voluntarily pay more taxes than they need to ? The problem is the tax code that both democrats and republicans over the years have not reformed- increasing tax rates on the super wealthy will not alone necessarily make the super wealth pay the same rate as anyone else let alone a higher rate.

Chelsea Clinton's compensation from the Foundation was the same as her parents': zero.

I commented foundations are "also" set up for estate planning purposes (often by people who own businesses or significant assets).- in response to prior post that gave impression, at least to me. that foundations only set up for charitable purposes as the main motivation- IRS has been fighting abuses in this area for decades. In any case I would doubt this would have bene a motivation for the Clintons.

To know whether she gained a tax advantage it most likely would be when the foundation was set up in most cases I am aware of, but again my impression would be her foundation would not have been set up for a tax advantage.

I do not know the conflict of interest laws well enough to have an opinion.

The foundations seems to be doing very good work, and I do not think that it is odd that donors may ask for introductions or access.

As far as Clinton's tax rate I am unaware that it is patriotic to pay more than you need to so for me it is immaterial whether they paid 40% or 10%- my problem is with the tax code hat allows super-wealthy to pay a lower effective tax rate than the working class.