Clintons Underpaid Taxes

[Thiebear]

I just find it funny that the people that normally yell the loudest: Are guilty of it.
I don't mind if you use all the resources available to you to reduce your income tax.. But actually delcining, lying and cheating should be grounds for removal from Gov't service..

But again, the Ethics committee is just another fraud waste and abuse group of do nothings...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/13/192614.shtml


Peter Schweizer: Clintons Underpaid Taxes

Just last week, Bill Clinton decried the Bush tax cuts as "unethical" and "immoral," because they allowed wealthy folks like himself to avoid "paying their fair share."

And Hillary, of course, has argued for years for higher taxes. She told wealthy San Francisco contributors during the 2004 presidential campaign, for instance, that if Democrats win, "we're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

But in his blockbuster new book "Do As I Say, [Not As I Do]," Peter Schweizer blows the lid off the Clintons tax hypocrisy.

Schweizer sets the table with a quote from the former first taxpayer himself:

"I must be the only person in America that every time - I pay the maximum tax rates - every time I sign that tax form, I smile," Clinton recently explained.
However, as Schweizer discovered, the Clintons have been paying a good deal less than their fair share in taxes for years.

"A study of their income tax returns reveal that, since 1991, the Clintons paid on average about 7 percent less to the IRS than others in their income group," he writes. "While most Americans in their bracket were paying 27 percent in taxes, the Clintons were bumping along at 20 percent."

How did Bill and Hill keep their taxes so low? They did it the old fashioned way - they cheated.

According to a Money Magazine report unearthed by Schweizer, "The Clintons appear to have repeatedly overstated their charitable contributions."

What's more, according to Gaines Norton, the former first couple's one-time accountant, some of the Clintons' deductions were "probably illegal"
Norton told Whitewater probers that when he urged Mr. Clinton to pay his fair share, the then-Arkansas Governor told him: "Back off and leave the issue alone."

Other tax dodges employed by Bill and Hill include:


Not reporting as income Hillary's $100,000 in profits from commodities trading. Instead, says Schweizer, they actually claimed a loss.

The Clintons also failed to report as income "$74,234 in loans, payments, and forgiven debts that the IRS code counts as income."


Then there's the personal property tax that was due on a sportscar Hillary owned, which first couple declined to pay.


They also took thousands of dollars in deductions on their Whitewater investment that "Hillary admitted at the time she knew they were not entitled to."

In a bid to further reduce their tax exposure, the Clintons set up a contract trust, which "among other things will allow them to substantially reduce the amount of inheritance tax their estate will have to pay when they die."
Given all the cash Clinton was saving by shortchanging the federal treasury, it's no wonder he was smiling when he signed his tax return.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Clinton scandal? No way!

[rebornempowered]

I guess it all depends on the what the defintion of "tax" is.

I am sure they felt taxed having to go through all that effort to bring their tax payments down.

[Duckus]

Are there any facts or sources for this. All the quotes are taken from this book, however, we have seen books like this in the past about the Clintons that will claim anything with zero facts.

Remember when they attempted to claim Bill raped Hillary in the last anti-Clinton book.

[rictus58]

Are there any facts or sources for this. All the quotes are taken from this book, however, we have seen books like this in the past about the Clintons that will claim anything with zero facts.

Remember when they attempted to claim Bill raped Hillary in the last anti-Clinton book.

Its as factual as some editorials that other members post on this board and pass off as "fact."

[Thiebear]

He claimes all of his research comes from public records..
will follow up if there are any denials...

[SEF]

Wow. Newsmax. What's Drudge say?

[DarkLadyRaven]

He claimes all of his research comes from public records..
will follow up if there are any denials...

So what, My paper on Property Taxes has information that comes from mostly public record but if I dont specifically state where and other specifics my ass is grass with my professor

[Thiebear]

So what, My paper on Property Taxes has information that comes from mostly public record but if I dont specifically state where and other specifics my ass is grass with my professor

If you want the specifics.. buy the book..
If you did a paper on Property Taxes and such you should be able to state whether or not the above information is attainable correct.

Is it that far fetched that the author could/couldn't get the information?

[webnarc]

Wow. Newsmax. What's Drudge say?

Unrelated SEF, but I like your sig pic - "this whole incident has really turned his life upsidedown face"

[flashback]

I underpaid my taxes 2 years in a row because I didn't count my wife's child-care reimbursement benefit as income. The IRS sent me a letter and we're all square now. Even if the Clinton's did over-report some things and under-report some other things, they could have gotten it all straightened out according to the IRS, but Newsmax isn't going to tell you that side of the story.

Should we compare this story to something like Bill Frist's "blind" trust? Which do you think has more impact on the American people? Which do you have the biggest problem with? If this story is accurate, then we have an example of the Clintons saying one thing and doing another. Not something to be proud of, but also not something we haven't seen before. I would even say that this is a little like Newt Gingrich championing family values after what he did to his first wife. Bad form, sure, but not strictly relevant to the policy. And the case against the Clintons so far is much weaker than what we learned about Gingrich.

[RabidFan]

So this guy claiming some ills by clinton in a book he's selling is considered fact but what Richard Clarke said during the hearings is BS cause he is selling a book??? oh the irony.... :) if these are true about the clintons, have at em I say.

[Thiebear]

I underpaid my taxes 2 years in a row because I didn't count my wife's child-care reimbursement benefit as income. The IRS sent me a letter and we're all square now. Even if the Clinton's did over-report some things and under-report some other things, they could have gotten it all straightened out according to the IRS, but Newsmax isn't going to tell you that side of the story.

Should we compare this story to something like Bill Frist's "blind" trust? Which do you think has more impact on the American people? Which do you have the biggest problem with? If this story is accurate, then we have an example of the Clintons saying one thing and doing another. Not something to be proud of, but also not something we haven't seen before. I would even say that this is a little like Newt Gingrich championing family values after what he did to his first wife. Bad form, sure, but not strictly relevant to the policy. And the case against the Clintons so far is much weaker than what we learned about Gingrich.


They are the same....

[Larry]

It's a vast right-wing conspiracy.

[DeanCollins]

. I would even say that this is a little like Newt Gingrich championing family values after what he did to his first wife. Bad form, sure, but not strictly relevant to the policy. And the case against the Clintons so far is much weaker than what we learned about Gingrich.

What was really amazing, was how hot on the Monica L thing Newt was for the duration, pounding the press about infidelity and sex (values :laugh: ). Then shortly after it was over, the truth comes out about his personal crap, and he quietly retires/reseigns before his tuccas gets held to the flame. Then he waits a few years, and starts showing up on Fox News as "an expert" :laugh: he difines hypocrite. Newt= "a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not practice"

[DarkLadyRaven]

If you want the specifics.. buy the book..
If you did a paper on Property Taxes and such you should be able to state whether or not the above information is attainable correct.

Is it that far fetched that the author could/couldn't get the information?

Paper was done on property taxes in MD, VA and DC .

Yes if you dont say where he got his sources

By the way - we learn in economics that most people in the upper brackets never pay the sticker price due to deductions that the upper classes tend to take-- and they higher smarter people that the average citizen cant afford to do there taxes and know the every vague deductions. Are you goinh to ***** to those americans as well ?

[chomerics]

He claimes all of his research comes from public records..
will follow up if there are any denials...

Bear, it's from Newsmax, you know better then that. Do you want me to start posting articles from commondreams?

I've read about 1000 editorials like this from newsmax, worldnetdaily, natioanlreview, american spectator etc etc. They are all fabricated stories meant to rile up the base. Do you think it is just "coincidence" this is released right after Bush's polls are the lowest since Nixon?

Nahhh, couldn't be that. . .

Larry is right, it IS a vast RW conspiracy. . . people are just too full of hatred to see it.


Edit: BTW Bear, he's a Hoover Institute fellow, hence the term Right Wing Hack applies :doh:

[DjTj]

:yawnee: call me when someone gets indicted. If the IRS doesn't even think there are unpaid taxes, you're not going to get me too excited about it.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Every smart American underpays their taxes

Giving the American government all that it wants is the quickest way to end the Republic

[Predicto]

That article falls under the "Make Stuff Up" category of journalism.

Wow, Clinton maximized his deductions and offset capital gains with losses. Who'da thunk it?

[Cdowwe]

It's a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Just like Monica

[Crazyhorse1]

I just find it funny that the people that normally yell the loudest: Are guilty of it.
I don't mind if you use all the resources available to you to reduce your income tax.. But actually delcining, lying and cheating should be grounds for removal from Gov't service..

But again, the Ethics committee is just another fraud waste and abuse group of do nothings...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/13/192614.shtml

I suppose you did notice all the hedge words in your blockbuster post about the blockbuster book: ...the Clinton's appear...they probably. Come on guy. You can do better than that. No case is made using statement like you've quoted.

[Thiebear]

I suppose you did notice all the hedge words in your blockbuster post about the blockbuster book: ...the Clinton's appear...they probably. Come on guy. You can do better than that. No case is made using statement like you've quoted.

OK OK for Goodness sake..... I'll get the book and see... I'll also wait to see if there aren any follow ups from a website (that I can not find now) that is reputable.. Until then I'll take this beating and drive on.. :) :doh:

[Thiebear]

P Are you goinh to ***** to those americans as well ?

Just to clear the record since it was a direct question:

If you actually read what I said.
1. I don't care what you pay in taxes, but don't smile and Lie my face and say you happily pay the full share.
2. It was also more of a slam on the Ethics committee for doing nothing, again. (if the scenario was true).. Like Frist and Delay and Pelosi etc. etc. etc.

So no I'm not going to ***** to those Americans as well? Thanks for playing though.

[wskin44]

It's the IRS' job to make sure that everyone is paying their taxes, not some guy who is trying to sell books.

If there is a real issue here then where is the IRS?

[Thiebear]

It's the IRS' job to make sure that everyone is paying their taxes, not some guy who is trying to sell books.

If there is a real issue here then where is the IRS?
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/Avoidanaudit/P33948.asp
Recent years have seen big declines in the “audit rate” -- the number of returns examined divided by the total number of returns filed the previous year. It dropped from 1.67% in 1995 and 1996 to a low of 0.49% for 2000 and $0.57% in 2002. In 2003 and 2004, the audit rates have moved higher. But it's hard to say a 0.77% audit rate -- 1 return in 130 -- represents a huge increase.

The total number of individual returns examined in 2004 topped 1 million for the first time since 1999. Audits of returns showing income of more than $100,000 moved higher as well, up to 1.47%. That’s about one out of every 68 tax returns. That could double and still be lower than the comparable 1996 level.

[DarkLadyRaven]

Just to clear the record since it was a direct question:

If you actually read what I said.
1. I don't care what you pay in taxes, but don't smile and Lie my face and say you happily pay the full share.
2. It was also more of a slam on the Ethics committee for doing nothing, again. (if the scenario was true).. Like Frist and Delay and Pelosi etc. etc. etc.

So no I'm not going to ***** to those Americans as well? Thanks for playing though.

then its an unfair slam-- so begone partisan hack