Sure, lots of us do like having a choice. But what about all the poor schleps that don’t have the choice since they don’t have enough to itemize? Maybe they don’t give $60,000, but $60.00 per year to their alma mater. Yet, for them its not deductible, or at least visibly so.
Why not eliminate the deception for everyone, and raise the standard deduction accordingly?
They still have that choice. It’s just that the government doesn’t reduce their taxable income accordingly, that’s all.
bluebayou,
They do have the choice. They could itemize but instead choose the standard deduction, as it favors them. The standard deduction is another measure (perhaps @dstark would call this a “subsidy”) to ensure the tax system remains highly progressive.
This is a joke, taxing the endowment would be equal to taxing the money in your 401k account.
Anyone up for taxing endowment should pull their 401k and other retirement plans and put it in liquid funds or in other longterm investment plans so that they also get taxed.
If under current law we are allowed to donate money then we have every right to use it to our benefit. As far as the non for profit college, if a school is for profit… well you don’t want to go there.
Schools at the top of the rankings do not need to share the wealth with schools like Chicago State. Donors want to invest into schools that matter to them and that will fund successful students.
Wealthy donors will put money into Harvard over UMASS Amherst, especially if they are alum. There is no need for any of the money to go anywhere else.
As long as these heavily endowed schools keep on pumping out great minds and making school affordable for even the poorest students. Then god bless them and let them be.
Harvard makes sure cost isn’t a factor in the decision, so do many ivies. They are able to give grants because of the big endowment.
So all the people who can’t handle the tax status of these schools, well… TOO BAD, it’s perfectly fine and fair. Just because your kid can’t get in doesn’t mean you have to try to destroy the school which produces so many great people.
Well, you’re getting a little carried away here. Those schools aren’t the “only ones” that produce fine human beings and are a benefit to society. And surely you are aware that people donate big bucks to schools lower on the food chain. After all, that new dorm costs $8 million to build regardless of what its future inhabitants’ SAT scores look like.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/10/07/The-Rich-University-The-Mother-of-all-Tax-Breaks
“The Mother of all Tax Breaks”
I like that title.
Just for the record, it’s rap not wrap. 
It sounds awesome to me. I am suffused with pride 
Sigh. This guy’s $x million tax break does not translate into my tax bill somehow magically being raised simultaneously. What, does the IRS review my taxes, review his and then raise mine?
Good for him, frankly.
My school, my wife’s school, my son’s school and my daughter’s school are all on the list of schools (post 125) that received the most charitable contributions.
I guess I should change my mind. 
@Pizzagirl, you know better than what you wrote in post 128.
These tax breaks in aggregate do affect taxes paid by others.
No, they borrow the shortfall from China.
Yes, presumably they do. But whether they have a net positive or net negative effect is open to analysis and discussion.
Is it better for Phil Knight to give $400M to Stanford and $0 to the IRS, or for Phil Knight to give $240M to Stanford and $160M to the IRS? I suppose that really depends on what Stanford or the federal government do with the money.
I’m not a doctrinaire anti-government conservative. In fact, the reason I’d put that money 100% behind Stanford is because I don’t trust the doctrinaire anti-government conservatives in Congress to invest that money effectively in the kinds of things I care about (e.g. addressing climate change, finding cures for terrible diseases, studying the causes of gun violence and opioid addiction, or staying ahead of China in S&T innovation.)
It is not presumably. Why do you think there are so many lobbyists?
Phil Knight did not give Stanford $400 million and 0 to the IRS.
Using the estimates in the article…
Stanford received $400 million.
Phil Knight gave Stanford $240 million.
The US treasury lost $160 million in revenue.
These are estimates. If Phil Knight gave Stanford appreciated assets like Nike stock…his tax break could be a lot larger. A lot. The loss to the US treasury could be a lot more.
If Phil Knight did not give away appreciated assets to Stanford, and his marginal tax bracket is less than 40 percent…the US treasury lost less.
Didn’t Steven Speilberg make a generous donation to Longbeach as well as USC?
“So all the people who can’t handle the tax status of these schools, well… TOO BAD, it’s perfectly fine and fair. Just because your kid can’t get in doesn’t mean you have to try to destroy the school which produces so many great people.”
Such vitriol…heaven forbid people debate a significant issue: inequality of FA wealth!
Yes, the IRS is out $160M of tax revenue from $400M of Phil Knight’s earnings.
On the other hand, we don’t really know how much good might result from that gift. Maybe some Stanford scientist finds a cure for cancer worth way more to the American people than $160M.
We can speculate that there must be some point beyond which more money really cannot be absorbed by productive work such as cancer research. Perhaps Phil Knight considered that before he cut his check.
Yet the government does fund these very things, via research grants to…universities, among others
Dstark, discussing things with you is frustrating when you constantly move goalposts.
Which means they are spending too much and definitely wasting too much.
Hum… which would I rather have the money, a government that we know spends and wastes too much or a university that actually has something to show for the money? Answer seems easy to me.
I always find it interesting that people talk about taking other people’s money as if government is going to turn around and give them some and they would they would be better off. No, government will just spend more and waste more and the same people complain year after year - funny how that works. Seems a bit idiotic to want to increase the feeding of a beast that has shown zero appetite for any restraint.