Finally got ya to do yer home work.....Reservoir_Dog wrote:It's funny when you copy and paste and then try to pass it off like you typed it and they're your words.honour thief wrote:Hillary Clinton wants to increase the estate tax to 65 percent on the wealthiest Americans, according to her latest tax plan.
The Clinton campaign estimates that the increase would raise an addition $75 billion in revenue over the next decade. The current rate maxes out at 40 percent.
But Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill have created a number of tax shelters in recent years to dramatically limit their payment of the very same tax. As Bloomberg reported back in 2014: “To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth.”
In 2010 the Clinton created “residential trusts” and the following year moved their Chappaqua estate into the trust, according to their financial records. As David Scott Sloan, a partner at the firm Holland Knight explained the Clinton trust to CBS News, “You’re creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die.”
The move will save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, according to accountants quoted by Bloomberg.
Even more substantial, the Clintons created a life insurance trust in 2010, which will shelter life insurance payments from estate taxes. This is their second such trust. The first was created in 1996, according to financial disclosures.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... er-family/
CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)
-
Pudfark
Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)
- callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
-
Pudfark
Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)
I don't care what ya call R_D....callmeslick wrote:so you're proud to quote fascists?
- Reservoir_Dog
- Posts: 8858
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:46 pm
- Location: Kicking and a' gouging in the mud and the blood and the beer.
Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)
Nice try, plagiarizer. You got caught, bitch.Pudfark wrote:Finally got ya to do yer home work.....Reservoir_Dog wrote:It's funny when you copy and paste and then try to pass it off like you typed it and they're your words.honour thief wrote:Hillary Clinton wants to increase the estate tax to 65 percent on the wealthiest Americans, according to her latest tax plan.
The Clinton campaign estimates that the increase would raise an addition $75 billion in revenue over the next decade. The current rate maxes out at 40 percent.
But Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill have created a number of tax shelters in recent years to dramatically limit their payment of the very same tax. As Bloomberg reported back in 2014: “To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth.”
In 2010 the Clinton created “residential trusts” and the following year moved their Chappaqua estate into the trust, according to their financial records. As David Scott Sloan, a partner at the firm Holland Knight explained the Clinton trust to CBS News, “You’re creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die.”
The move will save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, according to accountants quoted by Bloomberg.
Even more substantial, the Clintons created a life insurance trust in 2010, which will shelter life insurance payments from estate taxes. This is their second such trust. The first was created in 1996, according to financial disclosures.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... er-family/![]()
![]()
![]()
Good doggie....
- callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)
at this stage, Res, do you really think any string of lucid words more than, say, 4, is potentially written by Pud? That cretin is lucky that he learned cut and paste. 
-
Pudfark
Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)
Been doing that for years.....
I've always said you were stupid....now adding 'slow' to the list.
Old Pudfark sez: " Funny how he's never said anything....about the Huff-Po shit, ya post.....
- Reservoir_Dog
- Posts: 8858
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:46 pm
- Location: Kicking and a' gouging in the mud and the blood and the beer.
Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)
Nice try, plagiarizer. You got caught, bitch.Pudfark wrote:![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Been doing that for years.....![]()
![]()
![]()
just like you and Slick.....
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
at the wad...yer knickers are in...
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I've always said you were stupid....now adding 'slow' to the list.![]()
Old Pudfark sez: " Funny how he's never said anything....about the Huff-Po shit, ya post.....![]()
![]()
"
All the laughing smilies in the world ain't gonna change that.
- callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)
there really should be a smiley quota or something.
- Reservoir_Dog
- Posts: 8858
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:46 pm
- Location: Kicking and a' gouging in the mud and the blood and the beer.
Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)
The guy plagiarizes ... admits he's been doing it for years ... and laughs about it.callmeslick wrote:there really should be a smiley quota or something.
It is any wonder we think he's a joke.
-
Pudfark
Re: CLINTON WANTS 65% ESTATE TAXES (BUT NOT ON HER FAMILY)
It's obvious, to all, this thread is 'taxing' you both....Reservoir_Dog wrote:The guy plagiarizes ... admits he's been doing it for years ... and laughs about it.callmeslick wrote:there really should be a smiley quota or something.
It is any wonder we think he's a joke.