Jump to content

Hillary, Bill Clinton earn more than $139M between 2007-14


Lite Beer

Recommended Posts

Hillary, Bill Clinton earn more than $139M between 2007-14
By STEPHEN BRAUN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, earned more than $139 million between 2007 and 2014, according to eight years of federal income tax returns released by her campaign on Friday.

The returns show that the Clintons paid an overall federal tax rate of 31.6 percent during those years. The bulk of the Clintons' income came from speeches delivered to corporate and interest groups by Bill Clinton and later by Hillary Clinton after she resigned as secretary of state in early 2013.

In a statement released by her campaign, Hillary Clinton said the couple has paid nearly $44 million in federal taxes on $139.1 million in income since 2006, and donated nearly $15 million to charity.

"We've come a long way from my days going door-to-door for the Children's Defense Fund and earning $16,450 as a young law professor in Arkansas — and we owe it to the opportunities America provides," she said.

Clinton's statement did not comment on the specifics of her earnings. Last May, financial disclosures released by her campaign reported that the couple had earned more than $30 million from speeches and book royalties since January 2014.

The Associated Press has estimated the Clintons made nearly $50 million in earnings from speeches alone since 2000.

The Clintons donated nearly 11 percent of their income to charity in 2014, according to her tax return. This year, the Clintons boosted personal donations to their global family charity, the Clinton Foundation, to between $5 million and $10 million.

Clinton used the occasion to reinforce her call from earlier this month for tax code reforms that would tighten restrictions on corporate profits and tax benefits for wealthy Americans. The federal tax code, she said, is "full of loopholes that allow the wealthiest Americans and most powerful corporations to game the system and avoid paying their fair share."

She has vowed, if elected, to revive a push in Congress to institute the so-called Buffett rule, named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, which would impose a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on anyone making more than $1 million a year.

Clinton also reaffirmed her pledge to close the "carried interest" loophole in federal taxes if elected president. Carried interest, or the share of profits from an investment fund paid to the fund manager, is taxed as the lower capital gains rate of 15 percent instead of as ordinary income, which could range between 20 and 36.9 percent.

She has also advocated for raising the tax on capital gains to as much as 28 percent for short-term investments.

aplogo.jpg
-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-01

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your making mega money and your taxed 40% you still have mega money.But A single person making

$200,00 A year at 40% tax bracket he has $120,000 after taxes.Living in A city like New York with high

Rent it don't leave you a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the man in the street have to work for 10-15-20$ an hour and these people with connections , let's call it lobby-ing dudes, earn millions with spreading whatever the coprs want them to use their connection to get contracts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your making mega money and your taxed 40% you still have mega money.But A single person making

$200,00 A year at 40% tax bracket he has $120,000 after taxes.Living in A city like New York with high

Rent it don't leave you a lot of money.

What was that saying years ago "Only the poor pay taxes" The fat cats are hiring top tax people to save them more money while the government is leaning down laying off wherever they can. The government has left so many loopholes open over the years and the fat cats just keep on marching through. Do business in the North America but set up business headquarters abroad. Guess where the profits go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asian politicians steal whilst in power, many western ones do as well, but for the big fish under too much scutiny the payoff comes later. Seems too many politicians are unusually rich, recall very few in US Congress not millionaires. Any Treasury is big, no better richer pond to drink from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of the 139M did Bill spend on sex with other women. Hilary can not take care of him so how could she run a country?

Hillary hasn't taken care of Bill in decades... She bats for the other team anyway with Huma...

On another note, it appears Bill has another woman on the side, again...

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-a-new-bill-clinton-sex-scandal-exposed-busty-blonde-is-bad-news-for-team-hillary/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of the 139M did Bill spend on sex with other women. Hilary can not take care of him so how could she run a country?

Hillary hasn't taken care of Bill in decades... She bats for the other team anyway with Huma...

On another note, it appears Bill has another woman on the side, again...

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-a-new-bill-clinton-sex-scandal-exposed-busty-blonde-is-bad-news-for-team-hillary/

Interesting site. biggrin.png

"Michelle a tranny." gigglem.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And paid 44 million in taxes. Let's see what outrage Fox can come up with today. coffee1.gif

It really does not matter how much taxes one pays when the source of any of it is suspect. When one begins with nothing, produces nothing, manages nothing, and, in some respects, achieves nothing, having so much money can only be crooked.

The problem is HOW they acquired all that money. The guy with billions did it honestly.

Ditto!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remain unsure which makes me more sick, the Clintons or America's ability to be shat upon. I think my fellow country men/women. After all, losers and liars are a part of life but any people with an ounce of dignity and self respect would deny them legitimacy. America so readily embraces deceit it is almost collective pathology at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their personal wealth is not an issue.

Next ...

Next.......... would be the Energizer bunny that visits the house every time "hilla the hun" (Bill's pet name not mine), leaves for work. EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton's camp fears a new 'bimbo eruption' will put the kibosh on candidacy - especially from Gennifer Flowers who claimed Bill liked to be blindfolded and tied up with silk scarves and called his wife 'Hilla the Hun' Drudgereport

Your turn.....biggrin.png

Edited by lostoday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your making mega money and your taxed 40% you still have mega money.But A single person making

$200,00 A year at 40% tax bracket he has $120,000 after taxes.Living in A city like New York with high

Rent it don't leave you a lot of money.

What was that saying years ago "Only the poor pay taxes" The fat cats are hiring top tax people to save them more money while the government is leaning down laying off wherever they can. The government has left so many loopholes open over the years and the fat cats just keep on marching through. Do business in the North America but set up business headquarters abroad. Guess where the profits go.

Only the poor pay taxes?

According to who?

And the so-called "rich" pay most of the taxes.

Love them, hate them or have no opinion, we would be screwed without the taxes they pay as they shoulder the biggest burden of paying taxes.

Research it for yourselves if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Not bad for someone "dead broke" when they left the White House!

LOL.

Hmmm. Do you think there's a possibility that she was lying?

No, no. She's far too honest.

cheesy.gif

Lying?! Hillary?? Oh, no, say it ain't so, Joe!!

According to politifact, just a few weeks before the end of Bill's last term, the Clintons made a down payment of $855,000 and successfully secured a $1.995Mill mortgage on a 7-bedroom house in Washington, D.C. near Embassy Row (their source: the New York Times).

Edited by hawker9000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its silly to assert their wealth is not an issue in response to an article about their wealth. Clearly its an issue, if for no other reason than its being discussed. Wishing it away is silly. Any candidates wealth is an issue as nearly all appeal to their common humanity- and those with excess wealth clearly do not have the same things in common. Good? Bad? Trump is taking an approach similar to Bloomberg and embracing his wealth as an asset. Maybe? Its literally the only tactic he can take because every single person knows that in the political train ride wealth becomes an issue every single time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their personal wealth is not an issue.

Next ...

Next.......... would be the Energizer bunny that visits the house every time "hilla the hun" (Bill's pet name not mine), leaves for work. EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton's camp fears a new 'bimbo eruption' will put the kibosh on candidacy - especially from Gennifer Flowers who claimed Bill liked to be blindfolded and tied up with silk scarves and called his wife 'Hilla the Hun' Drudgereport

Your turn.....biggrin.png

Hmm, I would say how they acquired their personal wealth is quite pertinent to the discussion... And so does Congress... whistling.gif

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-demands-top-cop-lynch-look-clinton-ties-shady-uranium-deal_982467.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will expand a bit on this.

Assuming Hillary is nominated she will be running against one of the right wing republicans.

MOST of the vote is ALREADY decided for either side. Yes, this early. That's the way it is.

Probably over 90 percent.

So the fight is over the remaining 10 percent and also of course motivating the already decided to actually vote.

In that context, I think the Clintons being wealthy is NOT going to be what such an election is decided on, either way.

So in that sense, not an issue.

More like background noise.

Kind of like Fox News Benghazi BS. Benghazi obsessives ALREADY would never vote for Hillary.

Now what exactly ARE going to be the decisive issues in such a contest?
I don't think that is nearly gelled yet. Hillary needs to know who she is running against and what his specific positions are.

Also news events tend to drive the final decisive issues ... we just can't predict.

Edited by Jingthing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will expand a bit on this.

Assuming Hillary is nominated she will be running against one of the right wing republicans.

MOST of the vote is ALREADY decided for either side. Yes, this early. That's the way it is.

Probably over 90 percent.

So the fight is over the remaining 10 percent and also of course motivating the already decided to actually vote.

In that context, I think the Clintons being wealthy is NOT going to be what such an election is decided on, either way.

So in that sense, not an issue.

More like background noise.

Kind of like Fox News Benghazi BS. Benghazi obsessives ALREADY would never vote for Hillary.

Now what exactly ARE going to be the decisive issues in such a contest?

I don't think that is nearly gelled yet. Hillary needs to know who she is running against and what his specific positions are.

Also news events tend to drive the final decisive issues ... we just can't predict.

If you were dealing with politics as usual, you would be absolutely correct. But Trump carries the possibility of a massive political realignment in his campaign. Don't forget, at one point Ross Perot was ahead of Clinton and Bush. His campaign crashed when at that very moment he announced he was withdrawing his candidacy. He got back in but never went anywhere. Huge numbers of Americans want the current political system to be put in the trash. We have had business as usual since Perot. People are sick of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of the 139M did Bill spend on sex with other women. Hilary can not take care of him so how could she run a country?

Hillary hasn't taken care of Bill in decades... She bats for the other team anyway with Huma...

On another note, it appears Bill has another woman on the side, again...

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-a-new-bill-clinton-sex-scandal-exposed-busty-blonde-is-bad-news-for-team-hillary/

Interesting site. biggrin.png

"Michelle a tranny." gigglem.gif

Merely the first link I could find that had this story... Try goggle for any of the other 42,800,000 links that pop up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Joan Rivers and others have said this about Michele but frankly, whether true or not, it reflects more on others than on her. I mean, yes its deceitful but honestly, what a person chooses to do with their sexuality is their own business. I indict them all for seeking, willfully, to destroy America, not for how they identify or sexual other. I guess I think some things are beneath political debate. Perhaps? I remain undecided but intuitively feel something like this is a distraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...