Yes. And that one pantsuit comes in black only and already crusty.
Posted on 11/13/2005 4:48:38 PM PST by wagglebee
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.
Hillary's campaign did not declare the approximate $1.6 million that Peter Paul gave in 2000 (such receipts presented to David Kendall), and she did not declare it on the income tax return.
And there is absolutely no telling what Marc Rich gave them, also the audits of the Klintoon Library-Peep Show has shown a lot of discrepancies.
That would be one pantsuit, right?
Remember the $5 a pair deduction for used underwear?
Seriously, this is very old news. It is never going to get traction. The average voter has the attention span of a gnat. This happened a lifetime ago in political time.
not a car... a broom".
There are some people in this country who are just above the laws that the rest of us must live by. The Clintons are among them.
Yes. And that one pantsuit comes in black only and already crusty.
"Just throw them in jail already!"
Awwwwwwwwwww....can't we keel-haul" them instead? That works for me!!
The AMT don't apply to them? Figures
One word, ARKANCIDE.
Now if only we could get some of our Republican politicians out from under their desks and on to the floor of Congress to talk about some of this stuff......
bump
<< Why in the world isn't the IRS going after these sorry ass people? >>
Same reason the Mafia didn't go after John Gotti.
It's all one gang.
bookmark
I remember when x-42 donated his undershorts to charity (before monicagate), he claimed the value of each as $2.00! (Rush reported this).
After the Monica story broke, I was setting with our tax accountant and commented to him about x-42's deduction, "...they must be worth a lot more now!" (I can still hear George laughing!!)
....in the sports section : )
almost as good as what the meaning of is,is : )
Hey, thanks very much!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.