<p>dstark,</p>
<p>Your posts suggest a lot of envy and resentment of places like Harvard. I’m sorry that things in your life have made you feel that way.</p>
<p>RE: "And so only the rich will be able to send their kids to college? "</p>
<p>In speaking to a trustee of a private college, I was told just the reverse: rich kids go to State universities, and poor kids go to private college. Why? The privates have the endowments to afford both need-based and merit-based aid, whereas the State schools don’t. Thus, the rich kids pay full freight at State because they can’t afford the privates, who are giving their money to the “poor.” He also informed me that 88% of all students in college receive some sort of financial aid.</p>
<p>The Pennsylvania governor a few months ago tried to get a 50% cut in state funds to all state-related and state-owned universities. He also proposed a drastic cut for community colleges (which are already completely overwhelmed with exploding enrollments). Fortunately, there was a public uproar, and the Republican-controlled legislature approved less draconian cuts.</p>
<p>These cuts were on top of several years in which state funding to colleges had been reduced after considering inflation. Before these cuts, PA. was already towards the bottom half of states in funding for public universities.</p>
<p>In reference to Penn State’s sidewalks, remember that State College is at a high elevation and gets lots of ice. It probably is labor intensive to keep the sidewalks clear of ice, particularly with the constant freeze and thaw that is common much of the colder season.</p>
<p>dadinator …and taxpayers helped pay for that…</p>
<p>No sewhappy…I just find it amazing that some people have no problem subsidizing billion dollar institutions…while telling poor and relatively poor people to take a walk…</p>
<p>Interesting priorities…</p>
<p>If you have a kid at Harvard…the government is subsidizing your kid…even if the kid is a full payer…</p>
<p>Harvard would not be Harvard without the government’s help…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps the people posting here do not realize it, but the biggest share of post-secondary enrollment is at “local” schools – community colleges, local state universities, and private “career colleges”.</p>
<p>dstark,</p>
<p>You do know that our rather liberal president and much of his key administration hails from the evil taxpayer abusing halls of Harvard?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Might not be so absurd if the football coach nets a profit to the university (the gain from winning more with the expensive coach is greater than the added cost of the expensive coach over a cheap coach that loses more). In NCAA Division I FBS, football is often a profit maker for the school. Of course, it comes with other compromises (e.g. academic standards for the admission of the student-athletes).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most students (rich or poor) do not attend the few very generous-with-financial-aid private universities. Community colleges, local state universities, and private “career colleges” have far larger enrollments than the few very generous-with-financial-aid private universities.</p>
<p>That is a little off topic…sewhappy…</p>
<p>I am talking about people who don’t mind the government subsidizing billion dollar institutions…but of course have a hard time admitting that the government is subsidizing these very institutions…</p>
<p>but want the government to cut back subsidizing public institutions…</p>
<p>I’m not talking about you sewhappy, am I?</p>
<p>You do realize that Harvard is heavily subsidized by various governments, sewhappy?</p>
<p>The point I’m trying to make with Dstark is that schools like Harvard are doing socially conscious things with the nonprofit status that allows them to avoid some taxes. Those kids they accept and practically fund at 100 percent to attend are not taking up the likely merit awards they would be getting from their state Us. Their families are presumably paying state taxes, funding the state U but not sending a kid there and taking up any of those taxpayer funded resources. Then there’s all the research that goes on at places like Harvard which to a very great extent is targeted toward social justice, health, social programs. Technological innovation that comes out of these schools, of course, leads to profitable industries and jobs, more tax revenue, etc.</p>
<p>I think Dstark is making a preposterous argument on this. Taxpayers are getting an excellent deal on Harvard, maybe not so great with their state U’s, it probably varies a lot in how intelligently the money is getting spent.</p>
<p>Poli Sci 101:
do you want to give government the choice of where to spend the tax dollars?
or do YOU want to choose where your extra funds go?</p>
<p>This CC discussion demonstrates that, via taxes, we give the government the money and then we hope they spend it on what we consider the “right” things". Much money is spent on influencing these decisions. And is the government spending used as efficiently as possible, or would private donations be used more efficiently?</p>
<p>We are all agreeing with the “Tea Partiers” (I am NOT one if these, just explicating!) by showing that we have differences of opinion about where our tax dollars go.
SO- to solve this the TP says,
cut taxes and let citizens, corps, etc. give directly to the causes of your choice and pay full freight for services if you can.
That is called privatization.</p>
<p>As to Harvard et al, the private universities: vote to take away their tax benefits as non-profits. You can easily point to their endowments as huge earning assets (well, in good times, anyway!)
However, remember that the endowments are made up of funds donated “privately” by individuals and corporations and foundations, with profits after tax in many cases. AND charitable giving, to the cause of YOUR choice, is primed by tax benefits/deductions, too.</p>
<p>ok…good, sewhappy. The taxpayers are supporting a non-public, multi-billion dollar institution.</p>
<p>So much for smaller government…</p>
<p>I think dstark’s argument is fascinating. If we have limited resources why are they going to support a select few instead of as many as possible? Because those few are worth more? Who gets to decide this?</p>
<p>Dstark, Harvard does not make a “profit” to be taxed in the sense of a corporation. I guess what you want to see is their charitable donations to be taxed as if it’s income? They are voluntarily paying a not inconsiderable sum in lieu of property taxes in Cambridge because they are uncomfortable with their nonprofit status enabling then to not contribute to the communities around them.</p>
<p>I don’t know where you’re trying to go with this. My sense is that you just think all tax dollars should come to you in a form a check? Would that satisfy you?</p>
<p>Clock is ticking… for a lock.</p>
<p>" Harvard was able to build its endowment from $4.7 billion in 1990 to $37 billion in 2008 because it did not pay taxes on those gains. Relative to businesses, the federal government is subsidizing Harvard’s investment fund."</p>
<p>“In addition, Harvard does not pay real-estate taxes. Instead, it makes voluntary payments in lieu of taxes. Last year, for all of Harvard’s property, it paid $1.9 million in lieu of taxes to the City of Boston. Boston officials estimate these payments would be 10 times as large if Harvard paid real-estate taxes.”</p>
<p>And Harvard received stimulus money too…I wonder if that money was well spent…I thought all the stimulus money went down a rat hole…</p>
<p>As a nonprofit, Harvard also benefits from tax-deductible donations and a significant amount of federal grant money. Last year, Harvard received $651 million in donations. If donations to Harvard were not tax-deductible, this number would be a small fraction of this total. According to Harvard’s Office of Government, Community, and Public Affairs, Harvard received $535 million in federal grants in fiscal year 2008 that accounted for 82 percent of Harvard’s research revenue. Under the federal stimulus package, federal grants to Harvard are expected to increase considerably. Non-federally funded research is made possible through tax deductions on donations made by corporations and foundations."</p>
<p>Ahhh. . . I think Dstark and alh are really bothered by the fact that only a few exceptional students are getting the FA at Harvard. Well, those students hail from every segment of our society. I guess you guys want those property taxes Harvard is able to avoid to come to your states so that your states will give the money to the state university and it will benefit your own kids who are not going to be attending schools like Harvard.</p>
<p>Got it now.</p>
<p>Grant money goes to all research universities, btw. Have you checked Penn State, Berkeley, UNC, Michigan. A hella lot of those grants go to public U’s. </p>
<p>The real upset against Harvard is the perception that only a few kids benefit.</p>
<p>Harvard is treated like all religious organizations and charities, but it has a really big endowment (usually) earning big returns, that most NP’s do not, and maybe they should…! Since it is allowed–is that right or wrong?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you say “a select few?” All of the 4000+ non-profit colleges in the country get the same deal as Harvard, and more, if they are also public institutions receiving direct taxpayer appropriations.</p>