Comments on: It’s the endowment, stupid

By: photoncourier.blogspot.com

photoncourier.blogspot.com — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:47:59 +0000

Following up on Thom’s point: doesn’t the tax exemption for endowments of all types mean that these endowments will become increasingly-powerful and unaccountable centers of power? What is the social rationale for assuming all “nonprofits” are better than all “for profits”? The former may not pay shareholder dividends, but many of them certainly support very nice lifestyles for their executives. And if it came down to it, which would you rather have continue in existence: the Ford Foundation (nonprofit) or the Union Pacific Railroad (for-profit)?

Perhaps it’s time to consider a tax on the income of “nonprofits” with the tax rate being (1)a progressive function of the amount of that income, and (2)a function of the length of time the institution has been in existence.

By: Thom

Thom — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:49:07 +0000

There is no reason why schools with endowments as large as Yale’s, Harvard’s etc. should continue to receive preferential tax treatment. Perhaps we could get behind a bill to end the tax-exempt status of educational institutions with endowments over $500 mill. Earnings on the current endowments would be taxed, and future gifts would not be tax-deductible by the donor.

By: Fausta

Fausta — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:31:19 +0000

As John Fund said when quoting Yale history professor Don Kagan , The only way Yale officials can be embarrassed is if a major donor publicly declares he is no longer giving to them. Otherwise, they simply don’t care what the outside world thinks.”

These universities have substantial enough endowments (in the billion$$) that the situation Kevin describes above can endure for a long, long time.

By: Kevin Peters

Kevin Peters — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:20:59 +0000

Roger:

In the sixties it was the radical chic lionizing the “liberation from american hegemony” movement that academia embraced. They ignored the fact that many of these groups and leaders were Stalinist or Maoist thugs who just wanted control of the tyranical ships of state so they could impose their version of tyranny onto the victims of the previous regimes. Many wallowed in a sad self loathing of their country and praised people who would go on to produce more pain and misery then the states they were fighting. Now it’s the Islamo Fascists turn to lecture these enlightened men of learning on what a corrupt society they live in. There will be little to no examination of the societies that many of these “victims” want to impose on their countries or the world because one musn’t intefere with the self rightous flagellation that the Academic world of the west loves to practice. “oh, you are right, we are the great satan, you have no choice but to fight us and impose a 12th century form of theocratic dictatorship over the entire world, please beat us some more we are so, so bad.” After all, look at the Boston Tea Party, you used violence to overthrow British rule, so that means the Taliban really are the same as your founding fathers.

By: Anthony (Los Angeles)

Anthony (Los Angeles) — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:59:38 +0000

At least Qaddafi isn’t a pathological misogynist like the leaders of the Taliban.

How could he be? The man travels with an all-female bodyguard: http://img77.photobucket.com/albums/v235/hiwamy/gaddafi.jpg