I’m impressed by the amount of CC handwringing over access to education at Harvard, a school which because of its admissions standards only an infinitesimal number of students have any real chance of attending, while the question of access to a reasonably priced, high quality state university education gets little play.
Perhaps it’s because of the perception that making Harvard free would cost “them”, the wealthy university and its donors, while lowering the cost of public education would cost “us”, the taxpayers.
Just because you say it is the same, does not mean it is the same.
Look, 40-45% of Americans pay no federal income tax. That is the ultimate tax shelter. True, they almost certainly do not have disposable income to invest in stocks and bonds, but their tax treatment is more favorable, and that is the point.
There are about 25.8 million IRAs, where interest, dividend and capital gain income goes untaxed until it is withdrawn and capital gains and dividend income are then taxed at favorable rates. You can even get a tax break for your contribution each year. (Not so for Roths which are not taxed when tapped) I would have thought many CC posters have IRAs or are aware of them.
I do not know how many people have savings beyond IRAs. All of these savings may/can be put into capital investments that produce gains, dividends, and/or interest—with risk.
And you are saying the availability of earning tax-favored income is about the same as the chance of becoming a runway model in Paris? Entertaining line, but complete fallacy (Reminds me of a Presidential candidate or two)
If this forum is a microcosm of the country’s financial literacy, I think there is a lot of work to be done
I am not pushing for Harvard to expand its offer of free tuition to everyone, just the continued and improved outreach of notification of what it does.
I found it a little eyebrow-raising that the institution cites the scholarships to local students as part of the good works and community contribution that it does which should relieve it of further payments to the local municipalities. Some part of me found it specious to lay claim to these good works, though I can’t put my finger on the why of that sentiment.
I think they should have to document all those good works to justify the fact that they don’t pay taxes. Does it have to be dollar for dollar? I am not sure.
In lookingforward’s link it refers to the number of Massachusetts students enrolled. It is vague as to whether it is just undergrad or all schools. I think that goes to Pizza Girl’s point that there is a strong regional aspect of the school.
H wants to be a good “Boston neighbor.” There are a lot of alumni and fac brats in the area. And, of course, their overall applicant pool is skewed to the northeast. You simply don’t know whether they “over favor” or “under favor” Massachusetts kids. Ditto, by the way, for Oklahoma kids. You don’t know if they over favor or under favor them either, just because relatively few are at H. It could very well be a function of how many / few applied.
Totally agreed, was just talking about H specifically. I doubt there is a top school which doesn’t have a “good neighbor” policy re kids in their local area - particularly underprivileged ones.
Harvard is an economic boom to the Boston area. It provides well paying jobs. The people spend their money on restaurants and stores and hotels in the Boston area. Harvard as stated previously is paying for a 25 million dollar train station in Allston. Their need aid is one of the best in the country.
I don’t see any advantage to making Harvard totally free. A comment was made the other day by one of the presidential contenders that the top “.1” per cent of the wage earners in this country make as much money as the bottom 90 per cent. With a small little extra tax on that group with all their wealth , college for all in this country could probably be free.
A relatively large percentage of American college students are enrolled in private institutions. So we’d be facing a large percentage (as well as large absolute numbers) of students who would need to be newly-covered by tax dollars (if that’s how we wanted to finance higher education for all).