Clinton releases tax returns

Posted: Friday, April 04, 2008 4:12 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
Here’s the press release on the Clinton tax returns (link to the returns). MORE TO COME…

*** UPDATE *** Here are the links to each of the years: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 summary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 4, 2008
Statement of Jay Carson, Clinton Campaign Spokesman
Today Senator Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton are releasing their tax returns for the years 2000 through 2006, and are providing information regarding their 2007 taxes as well. The Clintons have now made public thirty years of tax returns, a record matched by few people in public service. None of Hillary Clinton's presidential opponents have revealed anything close to this amount of personal financial information.

What the Clintons' tax returns show is that they paid more than $33,000,000 in federal taxes and donated more than $10,000,000 to charities over the past eight years. They paid taxes and made charitable contributions at a higher rate than taxpayers at their income level.

2000 - 2007 TAX RETURN SUMMARY HILLARY & BILL CLINTON TAXES PAID: $33,783,507
The Clintons paid $33,783,507 in federal taxes - 31% of their adjusted gross income. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, in 2005 taxpayers earning $10,000,000 or more paid on average 20.8% of their adjusted gross income in taxes.

CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS: $10,256,741 The Clintons donated $10,256,741 to charity - 9.5% of their adjusted gross income. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, in 2005 taxpayers earning $10,000,000 or more contributed 3.1% of their adjusted gross income in cash contributions to charity. Information about the Clinton Family Foundation, including a list of charities to which the Clintons contributed through the Foundation, is available online in the Foundation's publicly available tax returns (www.foundationcenter.org).

AFTER TAX EARNINGS: $57,157,297 CUMULATIVE TOTAL(GROSS) INCOME: $109,175,175 Including, among other items: Senator Clinton's Senate Salary: $1,051,606 President Clinton's Presidential Pension: $1,217,250 Senator Clinton's Book Income: $10,457,083 President Clinton's Book Income: $29,580,525 President Clinton's Speech Income: $51,855,599

SENATOR CLINTON'S BOOK INCOME: $10,457,083 Senator Clinton's book income is comprised of earnings for Living History ($10,267,895), including an $8,000,000 advance, and It Takes a Village ($189,188). The earnings for It Takes a Village were donated to charity. Since the release of It Takes a Village in 1996, Senator Clinton has donated over $1,100,000 to charity.

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S BOOK INCOME: $29,580,525 President Clinton's book income is comprised of earnings for My Life ($23,280,525), including a $15,000,000 advance, and Giving ($6,300,000). The President donated $1,000,000 of his income from Giving in 2007 to charity.

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S SPEECH INCOME: $51,855,599 NOTE: The figures in this summary include 2007 estimates. Annual tax information is available for download here:

###

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Actually eight years 2000-2007 (preliminary) = 8 years.

I congratulate them on their successes, but I fail to see how that makes them "working class" like the "lunch pail" blue collar democrats they are so ardently wooing.

Wow, compared to the Clintons, the Obamas are dirt poor. The Clinton's have an average annual gross income of over 13.6 million for the last 8 years. I'm a wee bit envious.

Carol, Long Valley NJ (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:36 PM)

All of this is just pointing to the tip of the iceberg. Politicians in general and ex-Presidents especially have shown an increasing and alarming tendency to become filthy rich after leaving office. Actually I believe the worst offender is yet to come with George W. Bush who has spent his whole time in office focused on benefiting those who will take care of him. This endowment program is really a clear indication of how payback for favors rendered while in office is kept legal but under the table and truly has very extreme negative consequences for the average American (example - the last eight years). The Clintons no doubt took more advantage of this system then most before them but they surly are not alone and the current administration will likely leave them way back in the dust. Maybe that is why Hillary wants to win so bad ... she knows what it really pays and this time she wants to get it all and not leave any on the table (Bush-Cheney style). It would sure be nice if this wasn't true, if they weren't corrupted by their greed and instead motivated by altruistic concerns, but to change the system we would have to look to the politicians to correct the circumstances and that doesn't seem likely to happen. Isn't a few million dollars a year really enough?

REG in AZ (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:37 PM)

Oh, I'm sure those mindless sheep (I'm talking to you college students) who are pining for Obama will find something they can exploit in the Clinton's tax returns. If not, I'm sure they will make it up.

Keep it up, Hillary! We all know you're going to be triumphant in the end.

Evie, Boise, Idaho (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:38 PM)

from Politico:

UPDATE: The interesting part, of course, is the roughly $18 million that the summary doesn't account for.

Bill, Brooklyn (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:38 PM)

Hmmm..judgment...

Hillary--he fooled around on you and you kept him--for many years.

well women of the world, what do you think of Hillary's judgment concerning Bill.

Considering the money involved--we can clearly see where Hillary priorities are--Republican spin for superdelgates to look at concern electability.

This could be a big negative concerning Hillary's judgment and electibility.

Electibility (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:38 PM)

Could you all please refer to your math books? If you are rich or you are poor, you can still donate 10% of your income. If it is $1 or $1 million, it can be used to help others. Stop saying they gave 10% because they are wealthy. Everybody can and should share even a small portion of their resources with those less fortunate. If money is tight ... volunteerism is another form of giving.

That said, to have the kind of income the Obamas enjoy and to give 1% of your income to charity is selfish. He and his wife should be ashamed.

To whom much is given, much is expected.

Beth, Orlando, FL (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:39 PM)

Did she contribute any money (27000)to any hate preachers? GOD DAMN AMERICA maybe so maybe so we will see.

kenn (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:39 PM)

Instead of donating money to a racist black power church it looks like the Clintons were much more "american" in their giving than the obamas...very interesting

Rick, NC (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:39 PM)

he paid 11% more on taxes. He adjusted to pay what a middle class family pays. Not what a top 1% person pays.

Michael (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:39 PM)

From the Washington Post, February 27, 2007:

Article Title: Clintons' Charity Not Listed On Senate Disclosure Forms

"Among the institutions receiving grants from the Clinton Family Foundation were Yale University, where both attended law school; groups named for deceased heads of state in Israel and Jordan; and a charity connected to the Arkansas businessman who helped Hillary Clinton make $100,000 on a commodities trade that stirred controversy a decade ago, Internal Revenue Service reports show."

Looks like there is always an angle....

JP Homestead, FL (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:40 PM)

Too bad the obamas haven't had real jobs where they could pay some taxes. There is nothing worse than a liberal who wants higher taxes but doesn't pay them

Bill, NYC (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:40 PM)

The timing of this is a little suspicious, it seems like it might be an attempt to deflect the Penn/Columbia story. They might have had it waiting in the wings for a few days. It just seems to close to be a coincidence, right as major news outlets were picking up the Penn thing.

Jeff, Chicago (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:41 PM)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Great timing to distract from the MARK PENN behind-the-doors schmoozer snake tricks!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Now, come one, where's the NON-SPEECH MONEY???
We ALL know about that money...
What about the REAL money ("investments", "favors")

SHOW...ME...THE...***REAL***...MONEY!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

jmp, northern mn (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:41 PM)

As long as their ligit I'm okay with that... but to compare what they pay and donate to anotehr couple that makes less than 1% they make is RIDICULOUS!!!

grow up and learn about finances before you make dumb comments Jack!

Obama FAN, Chicago, IL (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:42 PM)

Enough, nobody cares about released tax returns or records anymore. It's over. Obama vs Clinton supporters...you guys are individuals aren't you. How about instead of repeating silly campaign talking points...go by the facts of the day. I come here to read opinion, not talking points...geez.

CJ (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:42 PM)

How much of the charitable contributions were sent to a charitable entity they controlled, or were compensated by?

Bill, Atlanta, GA (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:42 PM)

Population of the USA is a little over 300 million. Obama , I heard on cnn, has spent 230 million on his campaign. This is what u should be asking questions about or making comments on..........Where did it come from????

Catherine Bombac (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:43 PM)

9.5 % to charity, spread over 7 yrs, is only about 1.4%....

DonnaInMichigan (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:44 PM)

It's here,
See these is why the Clintons didn't want anybody to see thier tax records. They are rich and rich people help rich become more rice. Do you think honestly the Sen Clinton is going to care about the Poor in America. That's why she fighting to get to the Whitehouse, they owe some favors around for all that money President Clinton got. So with that said, who do you trust. I'm voting for Sen Obama, but if it her or Sen McCain, I will vote McCain. Because again he is Republican, but he's not a rich one. With that said the proof is in the pudding about the Clintons. Funny they release the record on a Friday, hoping they died out by Monday. BUT big mistake, wait till MOonday that press and TV is going to be all over this story for the next 3 weeks.

Joe, Frisco, Texas (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:44 PM)

FIRST READ Why dont you post my comment about PETER PAUL? too bias to secure Hillary's position?

Some of her income has blood/corruption involved...

Joseph (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:44 PM)

"It's a lot easier to donate 10 percent when you made $100 million." -- jj

That doesn't mean they had to. --EJ

It also gave them a nice tax break...I agree with jj

Terri (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:44 PM)

no wonder hillary wants mccain to beat obama - she wants the tax cuts.

tom, philly (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:44 PM)

I definitely respect the fact they donated 10 percent of their income, but c'mon people it's a lot easier to donate when your a multi-multi millionaire. What took them so long to this, everyone knew they were filthy rich, what were they afraid of.

Charles (Santa Monica Ca) (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:45 PM)

Guys,
Charitable contributions are comendable, no argument there. But for those in higher income brackets, they make great tax breaks. All contributions come right off the top of their income. Any rich fool would be a fool not to contribute generously. Also, the more money you make, the wiser you would be to up those contributions( you can certainly afford it)
This is basic personal financial savy.

Bonnie (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:45 PM)

Electibility (sic):

I am sick of people referring to the fact that Hillary stayed with Bill despite his indiscretions as a lack of judgment. Women...please...get a grip. There are lots of women who would make the choice to keep their families together as opposed to taking off. And it doesn't mean that she stayed with him to further her political ambitions. I have no doubt that she would have done just fine on her own had she left him. And the money you point to as a reason for staying probably would have been part hers anyway in any kind of divorce settlement.

I suspect this is now what you are resorting to since you no longer can post one-line comments that refer to the location of her tax returns.

Jill F., Tulsa, OK (Sent Friday, April 04, 2008 4:45 PM)

<< Previous

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=860588