This is the problem with liberals in charge

[Texsox]

Why does something have to be done about it? Who is it hurting?

 

In theory, it is the same debate that circles when public funding for sports stadiums, entertainment venues, etc. comes up. What are they costing the local communities versus what are they paying. Since we really have no objective evidence it is all a theoretical converstion at this point.

 

I think if a local town or county could show that the University is costing this and is contributing this, and, there is a significant delta between the two, some dialogue should take place. Just like a business may negotiate for tax breaks, and some businesses accept additional taxes, dialogue isn't bad.

[lostfan]

Well the purpose of an endowment is to spend the interest not the principle. Trust me, my employer was hurting for funds and more than a few people wanted to "borrow" from the endowment instead of the bank. That was quickly shot down and fast.

As opposed to quickly shot down and slow, or gradually shot down and fast?

[Texsox]

As opposed to quickly shot down and slow, or gradually shot down and fast?

I saw that after I posted but was too lazy to go back and edit. I figured who reads my posts anyways, half the board has me on ignore.

[southsider2k5]

In theory, it is the same debate that circles when public funding for sports stadiums, entertainment venues, etc. comes up. What are they costing the local communities versus what are they paying. Since we really have no objective evidence it is all a theoretical converstion at this point.

 

I think if a local town or county could show that the University is costing this and is contributing this, and, there is a significant delta between the two, some dialogue should take place. Just like a business may negotiate for tax breaks, and some businesses accept additional taxes, dialogue isn't bad.

 

But this isn't public funding we are talking about. These are PRIVATE donations to a university.

[Balta1701]

But this isn't public funding we are talking about. These are PRIVATE donations to a university.

Actually...with the endowments, it's not just private donations...it's also large amounts of growth in the endowments due to the quality of the investment people they're able to hire (Which again comes back to their tax-advantaged status). These endowments haven't doubled in the last 5 years because Harvard and Yale have been given an additional $20 billion, they've done so through their investments.

[Texsox]

But this isn't public funding we are talking about. These are PRIVATE donations to a university.

 

Correct, so perhaps that is not the area to look to if it is decided that Universities need to increase their contribution to the tax base. But what portion of their income would not be considered private?

[southsider2k5]

Actually...with the endowments, it's not just private donations...it's also large amounts of growth in the endowments due to the quality of the investment people they're able to hire (Which again comes back to their tax-advantaged status). These endowments haven't doubled in the last 5 years because Harvard and Yale have been given an additional $20 billion, they've done so through their investments.

 

Again, who does that hurt? This money got to these universities through private donations, which was then succesfully invested. What does that change? Nothing in my eyes. People made a choice to give money to the university knowing that they couldn't control what to do with it. Just because some universities are more successful at it than others, why should they be penalized? If people don't like what the universities are doing, or not doing, with their money, they should quit giving to them. I'll bet that changes the way they spend their money quicker than any tax would. Again to me it isn't worth the risk of hurting institutions in general to penalize these universities.

[southsider2k5]

Correct, so perhaps that is not the area to look to if it is decided that Universities need to increase their contribution to the tax base. But what portion of their income would not be considered private?

 

Look up the difference in earning power for a student who finishes HS and one who finishes a 4 year degree. That is a direct result of a college education. Start multiplying those differences times what that person would pay in taxes over a lifetime on that additional income, and times that times the amount of students who would be hurt by a tax on education. I don't think it would even come close.

[Texsox]

Look up the difference in earning power for a student who finishes HS and one who finishes a 4 year degree. That is a direct result of a college education. Start multiplying those differences times what that person would pay in taxes over a lifetime on that additional income, and times that times the amount of students who would be hurt by a tax on education. I don't think it would even come close.

 

Again, I said if it was shown there was a delta. And I think it should go both ways, there may be some Universities that deserve more of a tax break, or some public services to help them out.

 

We agree there are benefits, I can't believe anyone would debate that point. We both know that future benefits do not pay current bills. If a town is going broke hiring extra cops, widening streets, bigger jails, whatever, ~~and~~ the University is phat in cash, then there needs to be some dialog. Certainly having the local tax base pay for the University doesn't seem totally fair. If they are not spending all the interest, a tax on the retained earnings would encourage them to spend it on education, perhaps more scholarships, etc. I don't think the principle should even be discussed. But the earnings maybe.

 

BTW, I rejected the argument that because the student would be benefiting so much that slightly higher costs to the student would be worth it. Personally, especially attending a historically Hispanic University in a low income area, I know how much the slightest increase hurts. Currently at the University of Texas - Pan American a qualifying student living at home would have zero out of pocket expenses. Raise that even a little, and we'd have kids forced to drop out.

[StrangeSox]

Look up the difference in earning power for a student who finishes HS and one who finishes a 4 year degree. That is a direct result of a college education. Start multiplying those differences times what that person would pay in taxes over a lifetime on that additional income, and times that times the amount of students who would be hurt by a tax on education. I don't think it would even come close.

 

And not just on a tax-basis, but an educated person benefits society more than an uneducated person. They'll generally be able to do and accomplish more.