2016 Election
#9392
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: 2016 Election
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.
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.
You can go ahead and claim it's sarcasm
#9395
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,024
Re: 2016 Election
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.
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.
#9396
Re: 2016 Election
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.
#9397
Re: 2016 Election
There are conservative arguments to be made against Clinton but, as a moderate, why should I help them make their own case?
#9398
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: 2016 Election
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?
The Foundation that now seems to be again on the FBI radar.
The Foundation that has some interesting donors to say the least?
#9399
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 4,186
Re: 2016 Election
For example, non-profits have to file a 990 tax return. 990s include salary information. Chelsea Clinton is listed, and her income there is zero.
Notice that I didn't copy that from some third-rate political blog. I went instead to the source document and simply looked it up. No need for the Daily Mail or the Washington Times to tell us how to think, when the facts are readily available.
#9400
Re: 2016 Election
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Leslie; Aug 13th 2016 at 3:07 pm.
#9401
Joined on April fools day
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: 30 miles from a decent grocery store.
Posts: 10,642
Re: 2016 Election
I admire your fortitude but... no one here is likely to be converted regardless.
#9402
Re: 2016 Election
The Republicans aren't even standing behind their own candidate.
There have actually been lots of converts in this election, now that I think of it. LOL.
#9403
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: 2016 Election
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.
#9404
Re: 2016 Election
Not really. The information age has disallowed Trump to hide his ties to the KKK. It's all right there in his Twitter feed and has been for over a year now.
#9405
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: 2016 Election
This thread is about the election, an election that has only three options - Clinton, Trump or don't vote.
But in reality this election isn't right vs left or Republican vs Democrat. This election is sane vs insane, intellectual vs foolish, tolerant vs xenophobic, globalism vs isolationism, it's love vs hate.
This shouldn't even be a competition.
So when someone comes along and says "but, Hillary had her own email server", or "but Hillary lied to Benghazi families" (that has still not been proven) I'm thinking you must be incredibly stupid to base your vote on minor issues when the future of the country is at stake.
Clinton's not perfect but she is the only sane option in this election.
Last edited by anotherlimey; Aug 13th 2016 at 1:59 pm.