Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 12025664)

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

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12025666)

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.

Originally Posted by anotherlimey (Post 12025671)

You're implying the Clinton's setup a foundation to avoid taxes.

You can go ahead and claim it's sarcasm

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12025675)

Did you read my post ? I wrote specifically that I would doubt the foundation was set up for tax purposes.

Originally Posted by anotherlimey (Post 12025677)

You said that afterward.

Originally Posted by dakota44 (Post 12025645)

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.

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl (Post 12025809)

Most of the contributors to this thread are biased...that's the reason most right wing supporters avoid this thread like the plague. If they do they don't stick around too long.

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12025668)

My error then, I had heard that she received a salary of $75,000 a year.

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12025643)

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.

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12025659)

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.

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12025666)

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.

Originally Posted by morpeth (Post 12025683)

I didn't see the original post saying they used the foundation to avoid taxes, but if you took that way I can understand you prior post.

The whole subject of this foundation annoys me- as far as I know here hasn't been any evidence that the actions of the Clinton people violated any specific conflict of interest rules. Plus if I recall Trump used the phrase about the foundation "unjust enrichment" or something similar - which is accusing someone not of tax avoidance ( which is legal) but of tax evasion ( which is a crime)- totally unfair to say the least.

Originally Posted by Boiler (Post 12025849)

The Foundation that the DOJ told the FBI not to investigate?

The Foundation that now seems to be again on the FBI radar.

The Foundation that has some interesting donors to say the least?

Originally Posted by Beaverstate (Post 12025857)

I admire your fortitude but... no one here is likely to be converted regardless.

Originally Posted by Beaverstate (Post 12025857)

I admire your fortitude but... no one here is likely to be converted regardless.

Originally Posted by Boiler (Post 12025859)

I realise that.

Has been educational, history was always my favourite subject and I could never understand how so many 'leaders' got away with it.

I thought in the information age it would be much more difficult to do so.

Boy was I wrong.

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl (Post 12025809)

Most of the contributors to this thread are biased...that's the reason most right wing supporters avoid this thread like the plague. If they do they don't stick around too long.