Patterico's Pontifications

4/4/2008

Hillary Clinton Releases Tax Returns (Updated x2)

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 6:38 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

UPDATE 2: TaxProf breaks it down.

*****

Holy smokes, it pays to be an ex-President:

“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Clinton reported $20.4 million in income for 2007 and more than $109 million since 2000 as they gave the public the most detailed look at their finances in eight years.

The campaign released tax returns from 2000 through 2006 and gave highlights from their 2007 return. The Clintons have asked for an extension for filing their 2007 tax returns, citing the dissolution of a blind trust last year.

The Democratic presidential candidate and her husband paid $33.8 million in taxes from 2000 through 2007. They listed $10.25 million in charitable contributions during that period.”

In 2000 when the Clintons last released their tax return, they had adjusted gross income of $416,039. Since then they have earned income from his book sales of $29.6M, her book “Living History” of $10.6M, and his speeches of $51.85M.

UPDATE 1: The Politico says Drudge got an early release and that $18M is unaccounted for. Drudge has a banner up (no link yet) that says all the 2006 charitable donations were to the Clinton Foundation.

— DRJ

29 Responses to “Hillary Clinton Releases Tax Returns (Updated x2)”

  1. Yet, they’re simple people. Despite the millions they just want the White House.

    Vermont Neighbor (e7ed47)

  2. Did either Hillary or Bill actually sell enough books to have earned that much? Does anyone know the number of books sold? At what price? What percentage of that total does their cut represent? How does their percentage compare to other authors?
    Is this just a glorified form of the $1000 cattle futures deal?

    j.pickens (53ee7a)

  3. There’s nothing wrong in being rich. I wish I were. 33 million in taxes and 10 million to charity is a good thing too.

    But since class envy is the Democrats’ stock-in-trade, let her justify it to her food-stamp constituents.

    nk (34c5da)

  4. I don’t know about his book deals but I’m fairly certain she got an $8M advance for “Living History” — I remember the ethical debate as a result of her pending Senate seat. The publisher must have sold more than was covered by the advance because Hillary apparently got another $2.6M from sales.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  5. I’m having trouble believing the sales amount on her book, given how often its found on remainder.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  6. I’m all for capitalism, but sheesh. Shouldn’t there be federal legislation to make sure that some of the dough trickles down to small-time bloggers who haven’t been the winners of life’s royalties lotteries?

    Just kidding, just kidding. But I would rather hear a speech by anyone in the first 100 names on the alphabetical listing of the blogosphere than listen to those two.

    driver (faae10)

  7. Nothing unaccounted for. The other income is capital gains and the like. That’s why the Clinton summary says, “Including, among other items,” rather than, “Exclusively.” Someone forgot to lock the glue up at Politico, because Smith seems to have gotten into it.

    jpe (bd88bc)

  8. Thanks for the update, jpe, and for the laugh. I’ve never heard that saying before.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  9. It is easy to see why the Clintons were so slow in releasing their income tax returns. Now that they have been released, we know that Bill and Hillary have turned a nice income of some 109 million dollars since 2000. And we should condemn the oil companies for their obscene profits?

    Of that 109 million, almost half came from Bill’s speaking appearances, some 51.8 million paid by various groups to listen to him tell them a bunch of BS. Book deals also brought in millions, a joke in itself, but that’s the market. The books sell-I don’t know why-but they do.

    Taxes paid were apparently in order-some 31% plus about 10 million given to charity, including, apparently, free speeches “donated” by Bill. That’s charity? Are they actually claiming those? Well, this is the same pair that wrote off Bill’s donations of his old underwear to Goodwill or somebody like that.

    All this coincided with Hillary’s latest campaign promise to install a “Poverty Czar”, a cabinet-level position that would report to her every day what he/she was doing to eliminate poverty in America. (That 109 million might come in handy.) Obviously, the czar will be figuring out ways to redistribute income from those who earn it. While that won’t hurt the Clintons, it will effect everyday folks like me.

    Honestly, I have no objection to the Clintons making an honest buck-even 109 million of them. That is part of our free market system, although it does strike me as unseemly for former presidents (not just Clinton) to cash in on their public service. If it is legally earned, I am ok with it. (Actually, I am far from convinced that all the Clintons money is legal, but that is another story.) Yet, doesn’t this make one wince when we hear Hillary condemning CEOs and corporations for all their “obscene profits”, and complaining about the “income gap” in America? A little hypocritical, perhaps?

    Another big source of income is represented by big business deals. It has been reported that the Clintons have important business connections with the Government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Strictly legit, perhaps, but it would be nice if the mainstream news media, with all their investigative resources, were to look into those connections. (Well, I can dream can’t I?)

    Even if every penny the Clintons have made since leaving office is legitimite, doesn’t it strike you as odd that these are the people supposedly looking out for the “little guy”? True, Washington is full of opportunists like the Clintons, but since Bill and Hillary were known to be in financial difficulty when they arrived in the White House, this sure illustrates that something is wrong in our political system.

    Perhaps, even obscene.

    gary fouse
    fousesquawk

    fouse, gary c (7b7c7c)

  10. Taxes paid were apparently in order-some 31% plus about 10 million given to charity, including, apparently, free speeches “donated” by Bill. That’s charity? Are they actually claiming those?

    If what you say is true, I don’t think this is kosher. You can deduct cash or tangible (real or personal) property you donate to charity, but you can’t deduct your time. At least, that’s what I remember from the tax code, is there a CPA out there who can set us straight?

    Steverino (6772c8)

  11. An interesting point is revealed from the Drudge link to the NYT story up now about the charity donations in part is that the charity for a large part of it was the Clinton Foundation. It notes that tax records for the Foundation will show how the money was dispersed but also showed it was initially slow getting done and was building up.

    So in essence the Clinton’s were using the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle you could easily parallel as a charity PAC.

    SlimGuy (ea6549)

  12. It would be interesting to see observations from the Tax prof on are their distribution annual minimum percents to maintain charity status for tax purposes and are they types of distribution specified to be other charities or can this thing just be a glorified slush fund with a tax benefit?

    SlimGuy (ea6549)

  13. And as for fortune, and as for fame,
    I always invited them in,
    Though it seemed that the world was what I desired.

    They aren’t illusions.
    They are just the solutions they promised to be.
    The answer was there all the time:
    I love power, but money loves me!

    Don’t cry for me Bexar County!
    Your popular vote never left me!
    All through Barack’s days,
    Those crazy caucuses!
    I kept my book deals,
    Now keep your distance….

    Beldar (c7d2f9)

  14. “10 million to charity is a good thing too.”

    Donating to your own foundation is not charity — it’s a tax write-off.

    Federal Dog (1404a2)

  15. Who says public service doesn’t pay?

    Horatio (55069c)

  16. In order to be tax exempt, a private foundation must be “religious, charitable or educational” and disburse all its “contributions” within a certain time frame for any or all of those purposes.

    True enough, however, the charity lobby is blackmailing the American taxpayers through the tax code. The strongest opposition to abolishing the estate tax is from them.

    nk (34c5da)

  17. Click on the Politico link and they link you to the individual yearly returns. I looked only at 2006 and the $10million charitable contribution went to the Clinton Family Foundation. Nothing like keeping it in the family.

    jwarner (0c2175)

  18. Let’s see: most ex-presidents use their service as a way of enriching America (excluding Carter). Billy Jeff used it to enrich himself. Self centered egotistical SOB.

    At least Carter went out to try and help people, particularly with Habitats for Humanity. All Clinton did was line his pockets.

    William Teach (0b3f88)

  19. You can deduct cash or tangible (real or personal) property you donate to charity, but you can’t deduct your time.

    That’s right. I think the free speeches were mentioned to offset the impression that he’s just greedily making every buck he can.

    can this thing just be a glorified slush fund with a tax benefit?

    Yeah, they can be glorified slush funds. At the same time, to create a self-sustaining private foundation, it needs to accumulate a lot of assets. The Clintons’ foundations were giving close to the minimum, but that could mean it’s just a slush fund, or it could mean they’re growing the endowment. Hard to say right now.

    jpe (bd88bc)

  20. Points of order. Donating to your nonprofit is not enriching yourself, and the charity was much more widespread besides.

    Also the phrase “the Drudge link to the” can be removed from the following sentence for brevity and clarity for credit:

    “An interesting point is revealed from the Drudge link to the NYT story up. … ”

    Lastly, being rich does not mean you can’t care for others, if you chose to. A certain French phrase comes to mind in this regard.

    Temple

    Temple Stark (b18952)

  21. Actually, Temple, a lot of people who establish and lead non-profit corporations find a multitude of ways to enrich themselves through them. IRS’ enforcement of the various rules on non-profits is spotty, and there are quite a few loopholes.

    Whether the Clintons have engaged in such would only be evident with detailed copies of the foundation’s books.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. SPQR-
    My favorite is a gal my mom knew who basically put all of her money into charity…and paid herself very well for managing it.

    Foxfier (74f1c8)

  23. Foxfier, there is actually more than one “get rich quick” scheme book out there advocating it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  24. I’m amused that no one has mentioned that ALL of their 2006 charitable gifts went to the Clinton Library…

    And I believe that, since he gets paid for the (it would come as a “service”), he COULD deduct donated speeches…

    But I’m just taking Accounting classes, not a CPA.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  25. Clintons have made a fortune of 107+ millions since Bill leaving his Presidency though giving speeches paid by unknown sources. Clintons created their infamous “Clinton Library and Foundation” as a Tax Shelter Scam for themselves and their cronies who have donated over 500+ million dollars. To this day, Clintons have refused to reveal their contributors. Clintons themselves have also donated over 10 million dollars to their own tax shelter foundation, “Clinton Library and Foundation”. Hillary Clinton has the nerve to ask for more political contribution from ordinary hard working people while they should be financing their own power hungry ambition. Who knows how much more money they’ve made from other unknown sources that have not been reported. Does anyone really believe Clintons are honest people?

    David Thiery (0cec92)

  26. Temple #20:

    Lastly, being rich does not mean you can’t care for others, if you chose to. A certain French phrase comes to mind in this regard.

    Would that phrase be Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake”? I don’t know if Marie really said that but, when it comes to the Clintons, that’s the phrase that comes to my mind.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  27. Didn’t they get some money from at least one of the guys he pardoned?

    Everything was for sale wasn’t it? E-Bay and Craig’s list were unnecessary. Bill’s colorful notoriety has carried them into heady realms of “No news is bad news.”

    I would maybe qualify to apply for the job of poverty czar, but given the mortality of some of their friends, I don’t think I’ll apply.

    Mary Pearce (4f8b02)

  28. Noblesse oblige. But if anyone can find anything noble in the Clintons, in any sense of the term ….

    nk (764292)

  29. Lastly, being rich does not mean you can’t care for others, if you chose to. A certain French phrase comes to mind in this regard.

    Temple

    No, but it doesn’t mean you can fake it and lie for taxes and profit, either.

    Foxfier (74f1c8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2324 secs.