I'm not sure what I'd do if massive income came my way, but I think that after a certain point, and I'm the Clintons' age, I'd start to give it all back.

But, like most people, they really like their money.

for the same reason.

We all know the threat posed by government power and we all know the threat posed by corporate power. Yet, there is a mad dash to combine government power with corporate power, whether from the corporatists or from those with too much faith in the government. It doesn't matter which side of the equation we put first the result will be too much power in too few hands.

However, a government that remains separate can fulfill its proper role of oversight. Just like we keep the judiciary and legislature separate from the executive in order to keep the executive from writing and judging the laws it enforces so too should we keep the government from treating profits as its own playground at the expense of keeping corporations on the straight and narrow.

I bet FDR liked his too!

I'll wager many of those rich got that way by actually doing something other than speaking fees, book advances and hedge funds. You know, something actually productive.

And by the way Bill isnt running. Or are you saying Hillary cannot do anything Bill doesnt approve are. Are yousaying she is just his female appendage of Pres Bill Clinton?

And FDR may as well be ancient history. Cicero sounds like a pretty sincere fellow but I doubt his virtues could be imparted to the Clintons.

You are also insinuating that Hillary = Bill. Its misogynistic

Argue something relevant.

Elizabeth Warren (net worth: $14.5 million) is pretending too? After all, isn't her whole thing about income inequity?

This is bordering on misogyny

Well, we managed to move from the border of Misogyny deep into the State of Absurdity, at the intersection of Weak-Sauce and Sorry Excuses Blvd.

Noting someone who preaches social justice and income equality hypocritically takes advantage of carve-outs, shelters and trusts is not misogyny; it's noting someone who preaches social justice and income equality is a hypocrite.

As if she is just an appendage of him. As if they are of one mind. Appaerently she caanot have one of her own. THATS misogyny!

I'm married. My husband and I have the same last name. We have joint bank accounts. We both signed the mortgage. We file our taxes jointly (though we don't get the shelters the Clintons do). Our mailbox reads, "The Unicorns."

And yet, I manage to be my own person, an independent and equal individual in my own right.

Your weak distraction isn't fooling anyone.

Keep trying to dig out of THAT ditch

but it's kinda normal to talk about a couple.

And what part of Bill's record did she ever refudiate?

It was hard to tell because her 2008 campaign was mostly based on "Hillary is inevitable. Look, she just picked up another endorsement."

And it would be no different. If Hillary was President from 1992-2000 and Bill was running now, he'd have to answer for HER record, and people would talk about "the Rodhams".

edit - whoops, it was the OP too, but you started the sub-thread replying to me and it seemed like you thought you were still talking to me.

Hmm ... does the square peg go in the round hole?

Something doesn't fit ....

Just because a person favors higher taxes on the rich, it doesn't mean they are willing to unilaterally pay those higher taxes while others legally avoid them.

pay more than current law requires just to prove some sort of point.

To me, it's enough that some rich Democrats are willing to vote for tax changes that would cost them money. But when those changes don't pass, I'd never expect them to voluntarily live by them anyway. That just isn't fair.

Which, based on observing human nature, seems most likely?

Republican crazies are chasing Wall Street and the CEO class out of their party, and the Democrats are welcoming them with open arms. But that comes at a price.

Those who crave power/money/sex/whatever to destructive ends will pursue the object(s) of their desire. And others will cater to them because that too is a source of power/money/sex/whatever.

People are too frail and fallen.

blinded by petty tribal distinctions. But we don't have that. We have a country where most adults are disengaged and don't vote, and many of those who do vote, do so based on reasoning that would not make sense to a well-informed middle-school student.

Even rarer than the idea of an honest politician. Even at a supposedly homogenous and engaged sanctuary as DU you can find the bitterest factionalism. Never mind the gender wars or discussions of white privilege, we can't even talk about something as trivial as patronizing Olive Garden without a weeks-long flaring of tempers.

Olive Garden, that is.

Personally, I do not.

I know, I know--"not fair" to apply that standard to the Clintons! The richer people are, the less is expected of them.

Did you send your Bush tax cuts back to the government in the 2000's?

I opposed those tax cuts. I thought that were unaffordable. But I spent the hell out of them when I got them anyway. Why should I pay more taxes than a Republican?

You didn't send back your Bush tax cuts either.

Likewise, I don't have a problem with the Clintons, or any other prominent Democrats, using legal means to reduce their taxes.

If you want to criticize the Clintons, talk about what Bill did to our welfare system ... or about the repeal of Glass-Steagall ... or NAFTA ... or Hillary's vote on Iraq.

You didn't send the money back to the government because you opposed the change in rates, did you?

For that matter, I can only speculate, but I bet you take currently take advantage of every legal deduction that you are allowed to take when computing your taxes.

That's not an insult. Most people do.

But most people have simple returns, and there isn't really all that much they *can* take advantage of other than personal exemptions and the standard deduction.

Maybe, if you had the income and assets of the Clintons, you would willingly pay more taxes than they do, just out of the goodness of your heart. But I'm not going to hold them to that standard.

the system.

So you probably don't get any credit for not having one of those.

(But if you do have that much, then good for you.)

For what it's worth, I do know a thing or two about taxes. Most taxpayers don't even have enough deductions to make it worthwhile for them to itemize. But for those who do, I would never criticize them for taking advantage of legitimate deductions that are provided for in the tax code.

And, whether we approve of it or not, the estate planning techniques being used by the Clintons are well within what the law allows. I don't know all of their specific details, but typically these trusts involve making a current gift of a portion of the ownership rights to the residence. The couple will then file gift tax returns to report the value of the gift, and any taxes due will be paid with the gift tax returns. Typically, there is enough estate tax credit to absorb the taxable amount of the gift without forcing an actual payment of cash. But the couple's estate tax exemption will be permanently reduced by the amount of credit used, so theoretically that might mean paying more estate tax later. The couple is essentially gambling that the value of the property will rise, so by "paying" the tax now instead of later, the total tax will be less.

Such a plan could actually backfire, but it isn't likely.

Where things get really tricky is coming up with the number used to represent the current fair market value of the ownership interests that were gifted. This is where rich people sometimes get way too .... "creative". (And I *would* fault someone for that.) But not knowing the details of the Clintons' transaction, I have no way of judging whether their valuation was reasonable or not.

to pay as little taxes as possible.

Although for the first two years of the Obama administration I was not collecting my refund.

My intention was to just lend that money to the government at 0% interest by including that amount owed to me on line 74 - amount applied to next years taxes.

But there are a couple of differences.

First, I am not a multi-millionaire trying to hang on to more, more, more and even more.

Second, I do not have nearly as much power to either change the rules or to fight to change the rules.

The ten million dollar question becomes - how hard will THEY fight to change the rules when they are raking in the benefits from those rules?

Hard to not be cynical and suspect - not very hard at all.

Only Nixon can go to China. Only a Clinton can sell out working people (NAFTA, e.g.) with that down-home, awwww-shucks homey charm.

Dont think she can. Bill is no longer eligibe fo that office

Yourself

This thread is about Bill and Hillary's tax avoiding schemes. So I made a comment about Bill's overall values and character in response.

I'm not sure what point you are arguing regarding Hillary Clinton's Presidential bid. You may be thinking of a different thread?

lie down with dogs wake up with fleas don't ya know?

What an odd argument. More like an attempt to force an argument.

then they are both equally open to criticism. And I say that as someone who defends their estate-planning strategies.

The tax code permits them to do this; they are playing by the rules. The tax code permits me to itemize my deductions and lower my tax burden; should I take the standard deduction istead, just because I believe taxes (including my own) shoudl be higher?

the law. No one claims the money hoarders are sticking people up at gunpoint. The entire complaint is that the legal framework allows some to realize advantages in deductions, shelters, etc. that are not available to others. The fact that it is all done within the law is the most maddening part.

The housing crash of 2008 was perfectly legal. Selling mortgage derivatives was perfectly legal. The bailouts were perfectly legal.

THAT is the problem!

Demanding that the Clinton's altruistically forego legally maximizing Chelsea's inheritance puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Now, if they refuse to support changes in the system that disadvantage themselves but benefit society as a whole, then you've got something to work with.

Show me (435 + 100 + 1) * 0.51 honest politicians.

extrapolate from that what you wish. I am done here.

To criticize someone for using the tax system the way all people would use it, is a waste of our time.

Romney was a punk, but he uses the tax system the same way any of us would given the opportunity.

Now, I wish I could say that Hillary or any mainstream politician is capable of making drastic changes to our tax system to make it fair and to squash these ridiculous family dynasties like the Walton's, but I dont think a single mainstream American politician has any intention of making any meaningful changes, if I am wrong I would love to be, show me.

Hey, if you dont like the Clinton's, just say so, I am not a huge fan (unless I am comparing either of them to any or all rightwingers, then they are gods)...

But this?

Obama just signed into law and many Democrats voted for, and nobody ever talks about (besides me on my tiny little soapbox here)

permanent tax cuts for the Waltons - about $100,000,000 per year by my calculations. Each one of them, that is.

Their dividends are only taxed at 20% instead of the top rate of 39.6%, saving them that approximately $100,000,000 in taxes every year.

Is THAT a meaningful change?

then perhaps Congressional Democrats would have fought against it and informed the public.

Unlike now. When all the hypocrites who claimed the Bush tax cuts were bad, say nothing about how bad it is that 85% of them are now permanent.

Something President Romney may not have been able to accomplish.

Those of us who pay attention know who and what the Clintons really are.

Are you actually suggesting a person should pay higher taxes than required by law?

The Clintons are not populists. The Populist Movement ended a century ago. Bill Clinton was quite openly a third way politician and never pretended to have an antagonistic relationship with capital and therefore doesn't qualify as a populist by any definition.

It's somehow news to you that politicians talk crap?

And until the law is changed then everyone has every right to do so; there's nothing wrong with it.

of their wealth in a fit of magnanimous charity. If they wanted to they could do that now.

It's not a 90% tax on the entire income; it's only on income over a certain level. It wouldn't "sign away 90% of their wealth".

self-administered anesthetics meant to pacify. The 1% and the PTB aren't going to slit their own financial throats on our behalf. The dreamers can have their 90% marginal rate but there will still be plenty of shelters and trusts to preserve what they want to keep for themselves. At the end of the day nothing will change.

It's like the fable about the scorpion and the frog. "It's my nature."