Trump's Tax Returns Or Hillary's Wall Street Speeches, Which Gets Released First?

[Pull Up the Roots]

She paid all them taxes to pay for this headline, I would guess.
I'm more interested in what she paid in 2005, 2008, 2011. Got any headlines on that?

You can't seriously believe this, can you?

Anyway, why not just look things up? The tax returns from 2000-2014 have been released.

[Comms] Tax Returns

If that's not good enough:

Tax History Project -- Presidential Tax Returns

 

[Idaeo]

Streets saying Putin been keeping Trump's computers putin. Trump gonna release them when the Kremlin says so

 

[Shogun]

You can't seriously believe this, can you?

Anyway, why not just look things up? The tax returns from 2000-2014 have been released.

[Comms] Tax Returns

If that's not good enough:

Tax History Project -- Presidential Tax Returns

Take it easy, breh. Thats why I asked
Is it really unfathomable that she would prepare for the inevitable tax inquiry knowing she was going to run for president?

 

[5n0man]

I remember when Romney had his speech to wealthy doners leak, it fukked up his campaign permanently. Dude flat out called 47% of the population freeloaders.

I think the people have a right to know what these politicians are promising the wealthy. If it's something that is detrimental to the middle and lower class (tax cuts, trade deals, deregulation) then I think we need to hear it and decide for ourselves.

If she didn't say anything damaging then I don't see why she wont just put them out there just to shut people up.

 

[BucciMane]

reading is fundamental

You tiptoed around his question and point. Clearly you have some severe reading comprehension issues.

We already know a lot of Trump's money comes frim overseas, so your questioning about where his money comes from is moot.

The speeches are far more important as she may be saying one thing to those with major financial influence, and something else to sheep like yourself. Trump may not be as wealthy as he claims, but that is not as important as her Wall Street speeches.

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

This is just money that was directly paid to Hillary and Bill. That 34% tax rate is highly misleading considering they shelter a good portion of their wealth through their foundation.

That's not how that works.

 

[ill]

That's not how that works.

Thanks. I know how it works and how wealthy people hide money. Their tax returns are for individual gains. The massive inflows of capital into the Clinton Foundation are not taxed as they're listed as a nonprofit. Go check how much their foundation earned this year and stop your nonsense. This is a political play to show Hillary pays the same rates as common people while ignoring the massive wealth she's harboring tax free in the foundation.

 

[alybaba]

I don't see why the speeches are going to be some sort of bombshell. Does anyone actually expect Hillary to not pander to Wall Street in her speeches to them? As a politician and as a professional speaker, its basically your job to pander to your audience. A few hundred thousand in speaking fees is not going to make her beholden to them for life, but consistent donations and bundling to her campaign and SuperPACs in the millions will definitely have more of an influence. And that's why the speech to Goldman Sachs bit is just a distraction in the grand scheme of things.

 

[ill]

I don't see why the speeches are going to be some sort of bombshell. Does anyone actually expect Hillary to not pander to Wall Street in her speeches to them? As a politician and as a professional speaker, its basically your job to pander to your audience. A few hundred thousand in speaking fees is not going to make her beholden to them for life, but consistent donations and bundling to her campaign and SuperPACs in the millions will definitely have more of an influence. And that's why the speech to Goldman Sachs bit is just a distraction in the grand scheme of things.

Its true that one speech doesn't create a trend. However, donations from financial institutions and their employees over the course of her career tell a different story.

Sen. Hillary Clinton: Campaign Finance/Money - Top Donors - Senator Career | OpenSecrets

 

[alybaba]

Thanks. I know how it works and how wealthy people hide money. Their tax returns are for individual gains. The massive inflows of capital into the Clinton Foundation are not taxed as they're listed as a nonprofit. Go check how much their foundation earned this year and stop your nonsense. This is a political play to show Hillary pays the same rates as common people while ignoring the massive wealth she's harboring tax free in the foundation.

Are you saying that The Clinton Foundation is breaking non-profit tax rules or that tax rules for non-profits are too lax? Can you be more specific as to how the foundation's assets are for the benefit of the Clintons? They publish their annual report every year, so anyone can go and examine their balance sheet and see what the foundation is spending money on.

 

[ill]

Are you saying that The Clinton Foundation is breaking non-profit tax rules or that tax rules for non-profits are too lax? Can you be more specific as to how the foundation's assets are for the benefit of the Clintons? They publish their annual report every year, so anyone can go and examine their balance sheet and see what the foundation is spending money on.

I'm saying they harbor their wealth in their foundation so their individual tax returns are misleading. I don't have a problem with the tax shelter. They donated $1mill to their own foundation to lower their taxable rate on their individual returns. They control massive capital within their foundation and they direct how that money is spent, in essence, its their personal slush fund. Again, I don't have a problem with them sheltering money in a tax-free foundation, I just view it as highly disingenuous to say they paid 34% on "all" of their earnings last year. They employ tax saving methods that every wealthy person also takes advantage of (while in her DNC speech she stated she was going to go after the 1% who do this exact thing). The foundation money can be reinvested and have tremendous growth and then somewhere down the line, they will pay themselves for doing work for the foundation based off those investments. Its all a manipulation game Imo.

 

[King Kreole]

I don't see why the speeches are going to be some sort of bombshell. Does anyone actually expect Hillary to not pander to Wall Street in her speeches to them? As a politician and as a professional speaker, its basically your job to pander to your audience. A few hundred thousand in speaking fees is not going to make her beholden to them for life, but consistent donations and bundling to her campaign and SuperPACs in the millions will definitely have more of an influence. And that's why the speech to Goldman Sachs bit is just a distraction in the grand scheme of things.

It's not just one speech, breh, it's a history of speeches, donations and connections to Wall Street and big money. I suspect the transcripts of the speeches are a little ugly, but I would be very surprised if they were devastating. Probably more stuff like this:
.

She would have to be a complete and total idiot to say some wild shyt in her speeches. But you'd have to be an even bigger idiot if you think these people are paying her 6 figures to hear a speech. It's about access. She gives the speech, then mingles with those in attendance and that's where deals and policies are made. The people who can afford tables at these speeches are the same people who benefit from greasing the wheels of regulation or government policy.

 

[alybaba]

I'm saying they harbor their wealth in their foundation so their individual tax returns are misleading. I don't have a problem with the tax shelter. They donated $1mill to their own foundation to lower their taxable rate on their individual returns. They control massive capital within their foundation and they direct how that money is spent, in essence, its their personal slush fund. Again, I don't have a problem with them sheltering money in a tax-free foundation, I just view it as highly disingenuous to say they paid 34% on "all" of their earnings last year. They employ tax saving methods that every wealthy person also takes advantage of (while in her DNC speech she stated she was going to go after the 1% who do this exact thing). The foundation money can be reinvested and have tremendous growth and then somewhere down the line, they will pay themselves for doing work for the foundation based off those investments. Its all a manipulation game Imo.

Are you classifying third-party donations to their foundations as earnings? I find that disingenuous. Private income is not subject to limitations, oversight and disclosure as funds received by a foundation that publishes an annual report publicly. This is not what I interpret Clinton referring to when she talks about tax loopholes used by the rich, since there are tons of vehicles, especially in non-US jurisdictions, that ultimately let you control your funds and are not subject to disclosure, while acting as tax shelters.

If you bothered to look up their foundation's annual report, you would realize that they have significant restricted contributions and the endowment is a measly $55 million and barely earned 1.6 million last year on its investments. The vast majority of the program's assets is made up of funds earmarked for specific programs, funds invested in specific programs, and pledges and grants yet to be received.

 

[ill]

Are you classifying third-party donations to their foundations as earnings? I find that disingenuous. Private income is not subject to limitations, oversight and disclosure as funds received by a foundation that publishes an annual report publicly. This is not what I interpret Clinton referring to when she talks about tax loopholes used by the rich, since there are tons of vehicles, especially in non-US jurisdictions, that ultimately let you control your funds and are not subject to disclosure, while acting as tax shelters.

If you bothered to look up their foundation's annual report, you would realize that they have significant restricted contributions and the endowment is a measly $55 million and barely earned 1.6 million last year on its investments. The vast majority of the program's assets is made up of funds earmarked for specific programs, funds invested in specific programs, and pledges and grants yet to be received.

If you dig deeper into those programs, you may find how the Clintons went from broke to $100mill. Many of the programs are positive but the inner workings may not be all that great. Look at the Clinton Foundations role in Haiti for an example. They use the foundation to enrich themselves and those around them.

 

[superunknown23]

Take it easy, breh. Thats why I asked
Is it really unfathomable that she would prepare for the inevitable tax inquiry knowing she was going to run for president?

The Clintons taxes are publicly available dating back to 1977!
I doubt that any other couple has their shyt out there like that