One State's Approach To Solvency - Raid The Colleges' Endowments (Trees And Things)

Steve Urkel: Re: So now we're taxing assets eh?

Tue, 20 May 2008 17:15:26 EST

That was a joke about the general leftwinginess of academia.

slavdude: Re: So now we're taxing assets eh?

Tue, 20 May 2008 16:55:02 EST

These colleges live by the credo "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," so taxing the shit out of them is entirely appropriate.

Uh, where does this come from (linky, please)? Your own evidence

gerrymander: Re: Perspective

Tue, 13 May 2008 11:08:32 EST

People who go to Harvard are either smart, rich, or smart and rich. Those kinds of people don't need a helping hand.

In the first place, there are plenty of smart kids whose families aren't rich, and contra your assertion, they certainly c

thefadd: Re: Hadn't thought of this till just now

Tue, 13 May 2008 02:24:30 EST

I don't know the specifics in Mass but most states exempt non-profits from the majority of property tax, although the degree of exemption varies from state to state. The other option would be for Cambridge to secede from MA.

Lou: Hadn't thought of this till just now

Mon, 12 May 2008 21:52:52 EST

IIRC, there was a bit of a fight centering around a prestigious liberal arts college in my old central Maine home. In centered on the college buying up property around the campus and turning it into offices, student and staff housing. (I dated

thefadd: Re: So now we're taxing assets eh?

Mon, 12 May 2008 20:57:35 EST

I think that's when the degree from the Ivy becomes all that much more valuable.

pO157: Re: So now we're taxing assets eh?

Mon, 12 May 2008 20:17:48 EST

You may be right about people going to med school. For those that aren't, I'm guessing the connections alone more than compensate for the higher price. And a law degree from an Ivy is worth probably 10 times that of one from Sketchy U Law School. <

thefadd: A Bluff That Will Work

Mon, 12 May 2008 19:12:58 EST

I'm torn on whether it's right or wrong to attempt something like this, although a more conservative version of gerrymander's suggestion would in my opinion be the best way to go about it, if the state were to go about this. But I think this is irrelevant,

Steve Urkel: Re: So now we're taxing assets eh?

Mon, 12 May 2008 17:48:06 EST

pO157: Re: So now we're taxing assets eh?

Mon, 12 May 2008 17:35:19 EST

Joking aside, isn't a little bit curious just how stellar Harvard's returns are?

Sometimes I wonder about the wisdom of people who attend Ivy League schools. For example, I have a cousin on a varsity wrestling team at an Ivy. Due to the v

Steve Urkel: Re: So now we're taxing assets eh?

Mon, 12 May 2008 16:55:13 EST

"All you've shown is that Harvard graduates tend to be richer (and dare I say higher taxpayers?) than church folk."

Gerry M. wants to give free educations to the rich, now you want to tax the poor instead of the rich. And people say I'm a monster.

thefadd: Re: So now we're taxing assets eh?

Mon, 12 May 2008 14:57:00 EST

This is the power of compounding.

You are right and Harvard compounds in plenty of other ways as well. The stellar product of their education keeps return customers and they take advantage of this--as an alum you can pay into your child's tuit

wetkarma: Re: So now we're taxing assets eh?

Mon, 12 May 2008 14:50:45 EST

Steve,
All you've shown is that Harvard graduates tend to be richer (and dare I say higher taxpayers?) than church folk.

Still there is some amount of dissembling here -- first off, the size of Harvard's endowment is attributable primarily to Harva

port1080: Re: Perspective

Mon, 12 May 2008 13:49:54 EST

Doesn't that imply that tuition is unnecessary

Harvard already gives free tuition to most students (although this is a relatively new program). Many other Ivy League private schools are now following suit as well.

I gen

Steve Urkel: Re: Perspective

Mon, 12 May 2008 13:23:53 EST

Free tuition? People who go to Harvard are either smart, rich, or smart and rich. Those kinds of people don't need a helping hand. Charity should be reserved for the poor and stupid, who really need it.

Steve Urkel: Re: So now we're taxing assets eh?

Mon, 12 May 2008 13:16:22 EST

These colleges live by the credo "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," so taxing the shit out of them is entirely appropriate.

Church assets aren't in the same league. For example the Mormon church has been estimated to h

gerrymander: Re: Perspective

Mon, 12 May 2008 10:38:10 EST

A better way to do it might be to tie it to net income for that year - that way you're not requiring the school to spend down its reserves if donations or enrollment should substantially decrease for some reason (such as the "perfect storm" that schools

wetkarma: So now we're taxing assets eh?

Mon, 12 May 2008 04:53:22 EST
I've never been a fan of democracy, and here is an exemplerary reason of why.
This is a cash grab no different from the land grabs of American history.
The whole concept disgusts me and I'm loathe to comment intelligibly on the subject.
Still it

port1080: Perspective

Sun, 11 May 2008 20:45:33 EST
I helped proof a book one of my undergrad professors wrote about the history of a small private university, and that gives me the background to sort of understand why a lot of schools sock so much away in endowments. A lot of it comes out of the 1970

gerrymander: different plan

Sun, 11 May 2008 18:11:40 EST
I'm not at all fan of taxing assets (as opposed to income); in fact, I'm absolutely sure it's a very dangerous road to start down. But I'm also not a big fan of the rich disingenuously crying poor, and even less so when the rich have gotten that way by gam