<p>I really don’t care what the Tax Code says, and whether a place like Princeton meets the letter of the law. I’m sure they have a whole team of lawyers guarding their precious 501c3 classification. I’m trying to argue a bigger point.</p>
<p>No one is arguing that education isn’t a “public good”, however at some point when the “good” becomes a tiny part of the whole, it should stop being subsidized by the public. When an organization like Princeton becomes large enough to afford it, I see no reason why they can’t contribute their share to society like every other business.</p>
<p>
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the T needs fewer trains and fewer employees, or get other savings by not having all those student passengers. And it doesn’t really matter - if you use something, you should pay for your share of it, whichever way the marginal costs go.</p>
<p>
Please. 99% of the “research” that goes on at universities creates nothing more than an article in some obscure journal that 12 people will read. On the off chance they do produce something commercially viable they make a ton of money they are not paying taxes on, just because the rest of the organization meets some tax code. Is this the way it should be?</p>
<p>
Do you not see the irony of using this verse to defend some of the most money-grubbing institutions around?</p>
<p>
If they are making profits, and can contribute their fair share without jeopardizing the mission of the non-profit… why shouldn’t they?</p>