<p>I still remember where I grew up and I’m the same age as HC.</p>
<p>Any outgoing president is going to go on the lecture circuit and earn the big bucks. They ALL do it, republican democrat and whatever. I would do the same, if someone were interested in anything I have to say. Nobody does, so that’s why I am posting my opinion here at no charge. The thing is, the salary of governor, president, senator – to us it is a load of cash, but not really… they get wealthy afterwards. Again, they ALL do it, don’t attribute this to the Clintons.</p>
<p>Isn’t McCain’s wife worth a similar amount?</p>
<p>Christcorp: it’s not quite as simple as you make it out to be. In the first place, at their income level, they lose quite a bit of the interest deduction. Their total itemized deductions came to $2,917.951 but they only deduct $2,604,243 due to the phase out. (that difference comes out to much more than the interest on the house) Lucky for them they aren’t also subject to AMT. Then you have to consider that the income they make on the money would be taxed. </p>
<p>At least the Clinton’s have learned their lesson and didn’t deduct the underwear they gave to the Salvation army this time.</p>
<p>Quote: “They also gave about 10 million in charity.”</p>
<p>Yes, they gave a lot to the Clinton “Foundation”! …Another Classic Clinton move. :eek:</p>
<p>1sokkermom, that is not a “Classic Clinton move”. That is how most extremely wealthy people handle their charitable contributions. We all know that nothing the Clintons do would possibly be of benefit to ANYone, in your eyes, but you’re stretching it here to find something negative.</p>
<p>Not really. The “Foundation” took in a lot more in “charitable funds” than it gave out. </p>
<p>You are wrong alwaysamom. I think that EVERYTHING the Clintons do has benefits for the Clintons. ;)</p>
<p>Perhaps you should do a little research on how charitable foundations work.</p>
<p>I know how they work. I also know that there are multiple legal loopholes, many tax advantages, and that some charitable organizations are clearly more “charitable” than others. </p>
<p>I know lots of “wealthy” people find the loopholes. Does that make it right? Maybe. Maybe not.</p>
<p>From National Committee on Responsible Philanthropy;
"It is a well-known fact (especially among the wealthy) that one can deflect taxes on much of one’s income by donating certain percentages of that income to charity. However, as they always do, the wealthy have managed to find a loophole. In recent years there has been a disturbing trend in the number of people who have “donated” their money to support organizations. Wealthy businessmen donate the necessary sums to these support organizations in order to get their tax breaks. The assumption is these organizations will dispense the money to legitimate charitable organizations.</p>
<p>However, the system is inherently flawed. The members of each organization’s respective board control the funds that come into the hands of these supporting organizations. The “donors” directly appoint these members and frequently place themselves at the head of the board. Once money is put into a supporting organization, they deploy a team of lawyers to conjure a legal melee that lasts until the closing of the fiscal year and be forced to actually pay as little as 5 percent of that money to charity. It would seem that wealthy businessmen can not only get their tax breaks, but also they can keep 95 percent of the money they were supposed to donate in the process."</p>
<p>Yes, I do see some hypocrisy alwaysamom. Particularly when Hillary just this week was stumping to the “hard-working middle class Americans” in NC promising to plug tax loopholes for “freeloader Corporations” ! :eek:</p>
<p>"Friday, March 28, 2008 (Washington)
Maintaining her hardline over outsourcing, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has vowed to plug tax loopholes for “freeloader corporations” shipping jobs abroad and correct “wrong” policies of the Bush administration, which were making Americans “pay the price”.</p>
<p>“I will close the tax loopholes for companies that outsource jobs. No company will be able to use your tax dollars to ship your job overseas,” Clinton said while campaigning through North Carolina.</p>
<p>“Closing these loopholes won’t just keep jobs in America but it will also stop freeloader corporations from avoiding $50 billion in taxes each year,” she added.</p>
<p>Senator Clinton also argued that it was the average American who was paying the price for what she termed “the wrong-headed policies” of the administration.</p>
<p>“I know that North Carolina has lost a lot of jobs. But I also know that you’ve worked hard to equip people with the skills needed to try to get new jobs. We embrace hard work. The American people are the hardest workers in the world. Don’t let anybody tell you any different,” she said at a rally in Raleigh.</p>
<p>“Our American workers work harder and are more productive than anyone. And yet, for too many here in North Carolina and elsewhere, that hardwork doesn’t seem to be paying off. And who pays the price for these wrong-headed policies? Well, hard-working middle-class Americans pay the price,” she added."</p>
<p>sokkermom: you should do some research on what Clinton Foundation is doing. Here is a list:
HIV/AIDS Initiative
Clinton Global Initiative
Clinton Climate Initiative
Healthier Generation
Clinton Hunter Development Initiative
Economic Opportunity Initiative</p>
<p>3Bm; Yes, I over simplified it. The point is; even without deductions, why take $1 million dollars to pay off a house charging 6-7% when you can take that $1 million and invest it and make 12-24% interest. Your net gain is so much better. It all depends on how much you want to make. </p>
<p>Many people at the $50,000 - $100,000 a year income; and definitely most below that income; have a totally different perspective on money. The less money you have, the easier it is for you to say; “Don’t they have ENOUGH money”; “Why does anyone need that much money”, etc… When you don’t have that kind of money, that’s easy to say. Usually people who make a substantial amount of their money through investing, including real estate, sort of are smart enough to keep it going. That’s why it’s not uncommon to see professional athletes and movie stars make a lot of money and then blow it all. The best thing you can do when you have that kind of money is to keep the cash as flexible as possible.</p>
<p>As far as McCain goes; his wife is heir to Hensley & Co. of Phoenix which is heavy into Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc., They are only worth about $100 million. Which is what the clintons did in 8 years.</p>
<p>simba,</p>
<p>I am not that impressed. The “Foundation” made $135M in 2006. I think $6,000 went to aids funding. They have to “donate” at least a third to qualify as a charitable foundation don’t they? How much went to Clinton’s own shrine, um library?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.clintonfoundation.org/pdf/irs-990-2006-clinton-foundation.pdf[/url]”>http://www.clintonfoundation.org/pdf/irs-990-2006-clinton-foundation.pdf</a></p>
<p>$30M of the $135 went to Bush/Clinton Katrina “fund”, which if you google that, you can see has its own issues. :o</p>
<p>We still don’t really have a lot of information on the recent “donors” to the Clinton Foundation. I did read somewhere, however, that once old Hillary announced her candidacy that the donations increased though! Probably just a coincidence. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>edit: (According to the Foundation website, they received $44M in donations in 2003, $57 M in 2004, $80M in 2005, and $135M in 2006 !)</p>
<p>simba,
You may want to do a bit of research yourself. A lot of the “charitable” donations from the Clinton Foundation went back to other Clinton foundations. </p>
<p>For example, not only did a lot of money go to the Clinton Katrina fund (when opportunity knocks!), but a substantial amount went to the “Clinton Birthplace Foundation”. ;)</p>
<p>I wonder how many of the foreign countries that the Foundation donated to were from countries with big contributors?</p>
<p>Sheltering money is an amazing game…the slicker you are, the better you look to most people who don’t do any research. Some people are slicker than others. They can even pretend to be great philanthropists in the eyes of some.</p>
<p>Mr. Giustra ia an amazing Philanthropist too. Of all the charities in the world, he decided to donate to the William J. Clinton Foundation.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us...in&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us...in&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>Obama isn’t in the hard-working middle class either.</p>
<p>1sokkermom: Why do you even bother commenting on these threads? Every single post is trying to find some way to deride Hillary. Not that I’m her biggest fan or anything, but you’re a little bit like a broken record on this issue. Maybe not just a little bit, actually.</p>
<p>When you give millions to a charity like the Clintons and others have done, you can have the privilege to deride their donation choices.</p>
<p>As a more general comment, the kind of drivel 1sokkermom is posting, deriding people’s charitable donations, makes me sick. I’ve heard people deride the Gates Foundation, Buffet’s contributions… all kinds. It is the ultimate schadenfreude. God forbid that someone who all these jealous people have a visceral dislike for due to their wealth actually get good publicity for giving some of it away! No, there must be a “hidden agenda” of some kind… some loophole which is being used to make a windfall profit off of… charity. Think again.</p>
<p>^ I am glad to see a Canadian college (?) student so full of wisdom on a Parents Cafe. :)</p>
<p>Why do you even bother reading these political threads if you are so bothered?</p>
<p>Those who spout their own drivel should not cast stones my friend.</p>
<p>1sokkermom, 1 of 42 is right. Your obsession with the Clintons is like a broken record. I agree with your comments about charitable foundations in general - if you want to discuss that I’d be all for it (Hey, let’s start with the Bradley Foundation!) But constant carping on the level of back-fence malicious gossip is simply tedious.</p>
<p>I happen to agree with her, 1sokkermom, and I’m not a student. Why does it matter to you that she’s Canadian or a student? She has wisdom, and reasoned arguments on many topics, that some adults here seem to lack.</p>
<p>Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I am finished with this thread.
Continue with your wisdom and reasoned arguments…the more the merrier. ;)</p>