Clinton releases 2015 tax returns; paid 34% effective federal rate - Polidicks

[url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-releases-2015-tax-returns-paid-34-effective-federal-rate-1471017626/[/url] [quote]Hillary Clinton released her 2015 personal tax return on Friday, further pressuring Republican opponent Donald Trump, who has spurned a decades-old tradition by refusing to release any of his returns. Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, paid an effective federal income tax rate of 34% in 2015 and donated nearly 10% of their gross income to charity, the campaign said in a statement. Mrs. Clinton’s running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.), released 10 years of his returns on Friday. Mr. Kaine and his wife, Anne Holton, paid an effective rate of 20% last year. Their rate ranged from as low as 13% in 2009, Mr. Kaine’s last full year as governor of Virginia, to 24% in 2011. The campaign said they donated 7.5% of their gross income to charity over the past 10 years.[/quote] Oh shit that source is paywalled or something, here's another [url]http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/12/pf/taxes/hillary-clinton-tax-return/index.html[/url] [quote]After hammering Donald Trump on the campaign trail for refusing to reveal his tax returns, Hillary Clinton released her latest federal income tax return Friday, showing she and Bill paid roughly a third of their multi-million dollar income to Uncle Sam. Hillary and Bill Clinton pulled in $10.6 million in 2015, much less than the nearly $28 million they made the year before. Their tax return showed that they paid $3.24 million in federal income taxes. That means their effective tax rate -- a measure of their income tax burden -- was 30.6% based on their adjusted gross income. That's on par with their 32% effective rate in 2014. It also means Hillary Clinton and her husband would have satisfied the Buffett Rule she'd like to impose if elected. Under that rule, anyone with adjusted gross income over $1 million would have to pay a minimum of 30% of their income in taxes.[/quote]

My goal someday is to have enough money to donate 10% of my income to charity like the Clintons

I'm curious as to where their income comes from

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50873035]I'm curious as to where their income comes from[/QUOTE] Speaking fees, consulting fees, and book sales, according to [url=https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/01-health-financial-records/Clinton_2015_Form_1040_with_Signature_Page.pdf]the tax return[/url]

[QUOTE=smurfy;50873135]Speaking fees, consulting fees, and book sales, according to [url=https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/01-health-financial-records/Clinton_2015_Form_1040_with_Signature_Page.pdf]the tax return[/url][/QUOTE] dang that's a lot of fees

The Clinton Foundation also receives a moderate sum from the federal government, due to a bill that was made to prevent former presidents from dying penniless.

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;50873193]The Clinton Foundation also receives a moderate sum from the federal government, due to a bill that was made to prevent former presidents from dying penniless.[/QUOTE] ya a pension, but its not exactly like theyve ever been broke

How does this compare to the average family?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50873481]How does this compare to the average family?[/QUOTE] About right. [url]https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/IRS-Tax-Return/2013-Federal-Tax-Rate-Schedules/INF12044.html[/url] They donated a lot and probably took a fair number of deduction which would explain 39% -> 34%

"Family releases tax statements, are paying what they should be in taxes." Why is this news? Just because she's a presidential candidate? The 10% donation isn't "to be a good person" either. It's to get a lower tax bracket and to have a write off so they get more back in their federal return. I'm not sure what bothers me more. That our presidential race has become such a carnival attraction that a candidate actually paying the appropriate income tax is viewed as "A good sign", or the fact that the media actually thinks this is news worthy.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50873970]"Family releases tax statements, are paying what they should be in taxes." Why is this news? Just because she's a presidential candidate? The 10% donation isn't "to be a good person" either. It's to get a lower tax bracket and to have a write off so they get more back in their federal return. I'm not sure what bothers me more. That our presidential race has become such a carnival attraction that a candidate actually paying the appropriate income tax is viewed as "A good sign", or the fact that the media actually thinks this is news worthy.[/QUOTE] I think you're missing the point. The thing is that Trump has refused to release his tax statements, which indicates that he has something to hide. He's probably engaging in tax evasion. Hillary releasing her tax statements is calling him out.

[QUOTE=archangel125;50874007]I think you're missing the point. The thing is that Trump has refused to release his tax statements, which indicates that he has something to hide. He's probably engaging in tax evasion. Hillary releasing her tax statements is calling him out.[/QUOTE] I'm not missing any point. You obviously didn't read my entire post because I touched on that EXACT SCENARIO when I said this: "I'm not sure what bothers me more. [highlight]That our presidential race has become such a carnival attraction that a candidate actually paying the appropriate income tax is viewed as "A good sign",[/highlight] or the fact that the media actually thinks this is news worthy."

Maybe it is an indictment against the state of politics but when it's hard to come up with nice things to say about Clinton, it's nice to see that she is already prescribed to the same level of taxes she recommends in her progressive plan.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50873970]"Family releases tax statements, are paying what they should be in taxes." [B]Why is this news? Just because she's a presidential candidate?[/B] The 10% donation isn't "to be a good person" either. It's to get a lower tax bracket and to have a write off so they get more back in their federal return. I'm not sure what bothers me more. That our presidential race has become such a carnival attraction that a candidate actually paying the appropriate income tax is viewed as "A good sign", or the fact that the media actually thinks this is news worthy.[/QUOTE] Yes, of course, duh. This is not at all new like you're acting. [Quote]Donald Trump said “there’s nothing to learn” from his tax returns, but experts say there’s plenty to learn from presidential candidates’ tax returns, including sources of income, effective tax rates, charitable giving habits and more. Unlike many other 2016 presidential candidates, Trump hasn’t released his tax returns and says he won’t until a government audit is finished. Republican 2012 nominee Mitt Romney has called for Trump to release them, saying that it’s “disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse” to do so. [B]Every major party nominee since the late 1970s has released tax returns before Election Day.[/b][/quote][url]http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps-tax-returns/[/url] Jesus Christ man, think about things.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50874071]Maybe it is an indictment against the state of politics but when it's hard to come up with nice things to say about Clinton, it's nice to see that she is already prescribed to the same level of taxes she recommends in her progressive plan.[/QUOTE] Nothing crooked about this, so no one will care.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50873970]"Family releases tax statements, are paying what they should be in taxes." Why is this news? Just because she's a presidential candidate? The 10% donation isn't "to be a good person" either. It's to get a lower tax bracket and to have a write off so they get more back in their federal return. I'm not sure what bothers me more. That our presidential race has become such a carnival attraction that a candidate actually paying the appropriate income tax is viewed as "A good sign", or the fact that the media actually thinks this is news worthy.[/QUOTE] Dude, you do not understand tax brackets.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50874021]I'm not missing any point. You obviously didn't read my entire post because I touched on that EXACT SCENARIO when I said this: "I'm not sure what bothers me more. [highlight]That our presidential race has become such a carnival attraction that a candidate actually paying the appropriate income tax is viewed as "A good sign",[/highlight] or the fact that the media actually thinks this is news worthy."[/QUOTE] Trump has refused to release his tax returns, which has been a standard in presidential elections for the last 40-50 years. The last time Trump released his taxes he was paying an effective federal income tax of literally nothing. So either he's still dodging taxes and has been for decades, he's not nearly as rich as he presents himself as, or he's not actually donating his money to charity despite claiming to do so. Or all of the above. Clinton is paying her tax rate under current law. Her tax plan goes further and she'd be put into an even higher tax bracket of ~42% or so. Clinton's tax plan establishes a rule that prevents people making over a certain threshold from paying any lower than a 30% effective tax rate, considering deductions and so on. Trump's tax plan is about getting rid of the "death tax" that cost him millions when his father died, lowering his own tax rate substantially, and basically dicking down the entire lower and middle class by shifting even more of the tax burden to them while cutting their taxes about 5-10% to be like "see look you're I'm all for you" because his entire platform relies on people being too braindead to understand how taxes work.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50873970]"Family releases tax statements, are paying what they should be in taxes." Why is this news? Just because she's a presidential candidate? The 10% donation isn't "to be a good person" either. It's to get a lower tax bracket and to have a write off so they get more back in their federal return. I'm not sure what bothers me more. That our presidential race has become such a carnival attraction that a candidate actually paying the appropriate income tax is viewed as "A good sign", or the fact that the media actually thinks this is news worthy.[/QUOTE] For me it just makes me feel better about voting for her. It's more or less knowing that she practices what she preaches as far as income taxes go. I'd rather vote for Bernie but that's no longer an option so yep.

[QUOTE=apierce1289;50874704]For me it just makes me feel better about voting for her. It's more or less knowing that she practices what she preaches as far as income taxes go. I'd rather vote for Bernie but that's no longer an option so yep.[/QUOTE] Why in gods name would you vote for Clinton just because she's semi-honest about her income tax? Clinton and Trump are both god awful candidates. Vote for Stein or Johnson. [editline]13th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;50874299]Dude, you do not understand tax brackets.[/QUOTE] I understand how they work. I think it's you who does not. Or do you think pre-tax deductions from your pay don't affect your bracket placement if it changes your take-home enough? (they 100% do).

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50873035]I'm curious as to where their income comes from[/QUOTE] Political corruption

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50877112]Why in gods name would you vote for Clinton just because she's semi-honest about her income tax? Clinton and Trump are both god awful candidates. Vote for Stein or Johnson. [/QUOTE] Well she isn't semi honest she is just honest. The parts of Steins platform overlap with the parts of Clinton’s I like, but Clinton will actually be on the ballot here. Why on earth would I vote Trump or Johnson. [editline]13th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50877161]Political corruption[/QUOTE] Prove it

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50877189]Well she isn't semi honest she is just honest. The parts of Steins platform overlap with the parts of Clinton’s I like, but Clinton will actually be on the ballot here. Why on earth would I vote Trump or Johnson.[/QUOTE] I never said vote for Trump. And why wouldn't you vote for Johnson? He's a decent candidate. A hell of a lot better than Trump and I think still better than Clinton as well. He feels like a fairly run of the mill Republican with some moderate/democratic views.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50877206]I never said vote for Trump. And why wouldn't you vote for Johnson? He's a decent candidate. A hell of a lot better than Trump and I think still better than Clinton as well. He feels like a fairly run of the mill Republican with some moderate/democratic views.[/QUOTE] Because he/she doesn't agree with Johnson's platform and agrees with the vast majority of the Democrat manifesto? That's as bad as a question as asking someone why they'd vote Johnson over Clinton for X Y Z and implying you're a horrible person for doing so.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50877232]Because he/she doesn't agree with Johnson's platform and agrees with the vast majority of the Democrat manifesto? That's as bad as a question as asking someone why they'd vote Johnson over Clinton for X Y Z and implying you're a horrible person for doing so.[/QUOTE] Whether or not Clinton represents the "vast majority of the Democrat manifesto" doesn't change the fact that she's a terrible fucking person. This has been proven time and time again by various means, including excerpts from the secret service agents/police/soldiers tasked with protecting her, her aids, emails, etc. Not to mention she is a walking security risk, because she [i]keeps fucking up with classified information.[/i] She touts fairness/equality among the classes, but acts like someone sitting in their ivory tower looking down on the common folk like a disease. If you want to vote for someone that follows the "vast majority of democratic manifesto" vote for Jill Stein. She's a genuinely good person and indicators are pointing to the fact that this election JUST MIGHT BE the one where a third party has a chance of winning the presidency.

I'm not voting for the person I want to hang out with I'm voting for the person I feel is most qualified to run the country. Given that that third parties actually don't have a chance this election, Clinton, while not my first choice, is a damn sight better than Trump

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50877260]I'm not voting for the person I want to hang out with I'm voting for the person I feel is most qualified to run the country. Given that that third parties actually don't have a chance this election, Clinton, while not my first choice, is a damn sight better than Trump[/QUOTE] You might wanna do some research before you say the third party candidates don't have a[url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1530251]chance[/url] this year. The fuck-a-pa-looza that Clinton/Trump has spawned has made the 3rd party candidates look like the only logical choice for a LOT of people. I think you'll be surprised.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50877189] Prove it[/QUOTE] I don't need to prove a politician is corrupt to be taken serious, A politician needs to prove they are not corrupt in order to be taken serious by me... When they get a speaking fee or a donation of several million from big corporations and governments and 2 weeks later a big deal is made with that corporation, that government, and the US government in a way that is highly unpopular with the people and was snuck trough anyway under Clinton foundation shoulder power. And this did not happen once or twice either... it happened numerous times. Its how the game is played. Its called corruption, even if some of it is technically legal... Heck Bill Clinton when weeks from being impeached used his political power to amongst others pardon several Clinton attaches. including foundation core members under investigation by the FBI basically killing the investigation or judicial process on them. Since then the FBI has at least on 3 different occasions suggested to start an investigation for different reasons against the Clinton foundation, all blocked by the DoJ. This is pretty much unheard of considering any sort of organisation... on occasion the DoJ does block investigations, but never 3 times on the same organisation. All of what i said is public record, heck most of it is on wikipedia with sources provided and everything. look it up.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50877241]Whether or not Clinton represents the "vast majority of the Democrat manifesto" doesn't change the fact that she's a terrible fucking person. This has been proven time and time again by various means, including excerpts from the secret service agents/police/soldiers tasked with protecting her, her aids, emails, etc. Not to mention she is a walking security risk, because she [i]keeps fucking up with classified information.[/i] She touts fairness/equality among the classes, but acts like someone sitting in their ivory tower looking down on the common folk like a disease.[/quote] Clinton is corrupt I get that, but I've never thought she was anymore corrupt than most politicians. It's still shit but I'd prefer Bernie up there, but that's the hand ya'll were dealt. I've also never heard anyone who's dealt with her calling her a 'fucking terrible person.' The worst I've heard is from the FBI which called her very careless. And that last claim is pretty hard to substantiate, consider she's adopted Bernie's policies and has a progressive tax plan of her own. [quote]If you want to vote for someone that follows the "vast majority of democratic manifesto" vote for Jill Stein. She's a genuinely good person and indicators are pointing to the fact that this election JUST MIGHT BE the one where a third party has a chance of winning the presidency.[/QUOTE] All indications point to Johnson being the most important third party candidate by a landslide. Stein isn't even close and as Raidyr already mentioned in some states it's impossible to vote for her. I'm not sure what to think of her but she's not going to penetrate the American consciousness this election at all. EDIT: [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50877264]You might wanna do some research before you say the third party candidates don't have a[url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1530251]chance[/url] this year. The fuck-a-pa-looza that Clinton/Trump has spawned has made the 3rd party candidates look like the only logical choice for a LOT of people. I think you'll be surprised.[/QUOTE] Let's be honest man, across Western democracies it's been proven my group of people from 18-24 do not simply go out and vote a lot of the time unless it's important social issues or something that has huge implications for people (e.g. in Ireland, the Marriage Equality Referendum; in the United Kingdom, Brexit). I'd believe that there would be a much bigger youth vote if it was Bernie as the Democratic candidate, but I think a big percentage of young people won't go out and vote, and definitely not for third party. That poll doesn't judge older audiences either, who would be either adamantly Trump or Clinton too.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50877112]Why in gods name would you vote for Clinton just because she's semi-honest about her income tax? Clinton and Trump are both god awful candidates. Vote for Stein or Johnson. [editline]13th August 2016[/editline] I understand how they work. I think it's you who does not. Or do you think pre-tax deductions from your pay don't affect your bracket placement if it changes your take-home enough? (they 100% do).[/QUOTE] What do you think a tax bracket is? It's a progressive tax. EG, if you make $100,000, using my made up tax brackets, you'll pay: 10% on every dollar past $0, 15% on every dollar past $10,000 17% on every dollar past $25,000 etc. It's not like if you make $100m, you're taxed at 45%, but if you make $99m, you're taxed at 43% or some shit. That's ludicrous. It's [b]always[/b] financially better to [b]not spend or donate your money[/b] when considering taxes. The exception may exist for certain tax grants or credits associated with a specific spending/donating behavior, but that has [b]nothing[/b] to do with tax brackets.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50873970]The 10% donation isn't "to be a good person" either. It's to get a lower tax bracket and to have a write off so they get more back in their federal return.[/QUOTE] I never got the whole "they only donated to write it off on their taxes!" argument. They're still ultimately losing money anyway, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the extra cash you get back in your return probably doesn't even come close to what you donated.