From an editorial in Crains Chicago Business:
Wow! I think there are some Bernie supporters on the Crains staff.
The University of Chicago is not responsible for 50 years of corruption, massive union benefits, underfunded pensions and general bad management in the state of Illinois. If you want some good examples of what will happen look at what Newark PS did with Zuckerberg’s $100 million donation. It will all be wasted by the endemic incompetence and corruption of the machine politicians and their cronies.
It’s the same formula used by Venezuela aka socialism.
Are you sure this isn’t an April fools editorial?
I agree. Sorry for the Illinois budget mess but the people who donate to those private universities get to determine what they want that money used for.
These two writers are perfectly able to open up their pocketbooks and donate to their institutions as they see fit.
How long would those excellent resources last if the institutions were nationalized?
Don’t blame Newark for whatever was done with the Zuckerberg money. Their schools have been under state control for a generation. Ask the Christie administration what they did with the money.
I don’t see why private universities should have to share their wealth w private ones. But I also don’t see why taxpayers should subsidize extreme private hoarding with privileged tax status.
When writers use the term “modest proposal” I immediately assume it’s satire. If it isn’t, they really shouldn’t use the term.
You have to wonder why wealthy donors keep sending coal to Newcastle.
Mr. Rowan, an MIT alumni, made a large donation to Glassboro State College in NJ to start an engineering school about 15 or 20 years ago. It’s now Rowan university, with a well respected undergrad engineering program. The donation is one of the largest ever for a public university. The money could have been all frittered away, given the nature of NJ politics and patronage, and the inefficiency of public higher ed in general. However, it worked out very well. Not sure how much the late Mr. Rowan was involved in the creation of the program but it’s a success story, for sure.
I think someone made it a mistake and published a day too early.
Written by a “Professor of Education and Women and Gender Studies at Northeastern Illinois University.” Her position might sit well as she further indoctrinates her self-selected, histrionic, and hyperbolic students. Others will quickly shake their head, roll their eyes and move on.
The proposal is illegal. Private not-for-profits can’t give the money to new causes. So there’s that.
Wealthy donors give money to wealthy institutions because their management have proven their ability to grow their endowments. Wealthy people (I’m generalizing here) don’t like stuffing hundred dollar bills down the toilet. It would be lovely to fund all the organizations which are perpetually running a deficit, whose endowments are scratching out a .5% return, and who can’t figure out how to mow the lawn AND keep the infrastructure repaired… but somehow they don’t inspire the same level of confidence that a well run organization can.
If I donate a piece of art to the MFA in Boston I don’t sit up at night worrying that it will be left out in the rain. They don’t need more art- they’ve got enough. But they’ve proven they know how to protect, maintain and preserve the objects that they’ve been given.
Yes, to coals to newcastle.
Taxpayers should not be subsidizing these private entities.
Do you mean taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize donations to educational private entities only (such as the U of Chicago in this example), or any private entities (so, including the MFA that Blossom referenced?).
Are you referring to the tax exemption for such donations? I think it’s a stretch to call that “subsidizing”.
(Of course it’s a stretch. I was just using dstark’s wording)
^Why not? If donors are in 39.6% bracket, when they donate $100, $40 comes from savings on tax. In other words, taxpayers are matching the gift by 1.5 to 1. Every dollar you give, taxpayers match 66 cents. Would you really match their cause? Not me. I think all nonprofits should be reexamined. There aren’t that many causes I feel compelled enough to match almost 1 to 1 voluntarily. Make it only partially deductible if at all. In addition their earning are also tax exempt. The income they make from endowment is tax free. It’s a bit like taxpayers contribute a third of your roth and it grows tax free forever benefiting only you.
“Are you referring to the tax exemption for such donations? I think it’s a stretch to call that “subsidizing”.”
I consider it a subsidy. A big one.
Yes, it’s a big one. When Bill Gates set up a charity and fund it with 100 billion dollars instead of leaving it to his heirs, tax payers lose out on 40 billion dollars in estate tax alone. Are his causes so dear to you that you would happily fund a third of it with your money? Besides, when charities get that big, it may become shadow government influencing social choices. I may not like the government but I don’t trust individuals that they would make right choices for all people. You also don’t have a recourse to vote them out when you don’t like what they do.
^ I think all that has more to do with tax exemptions for non-profits in general than education specifically though. I don’t really want to subsidize donations to certain churches or organizations either. But we don’t get to pick and choose what our taxes subsidize in this case.