Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, November 10, 2017

Last week, Republicans in Congress proposed a tax on wealthy private-college endowments as part of their make-or-break tax bill. The new tax, if passed, would bring in an estimated $3 billion from 2018 to 2027.

University leaders were shocked. Had Republicans in Washington forgotten their own Ivy League roots?

But it would be a mistake to dismiss this move as just partisan pandering. Democrats have also proposed state-level endowment taxes in Connecticut and Massachusetts, homes to some of the nation's wealthiest schools.

It's an increasingly bipartisan view that elite private colleges are islands of wealth. And there's good reason for that: It's true.

An investigative report this week by The New York Times, based on a leak of offshore financial records known as the Paradise Papers, revealed that dozens of wealthy college endowments use Caribbean islands as offshore tax havens for their investments.

More

Endowments pay taxes on the money they earn that way because it is not related to their educational mission -- unless they hide that money with the help of offshore investment corporations.

Private colleges and universities have increased their endowments spectacularly through aggressive fund-raising and these kinds of investment and tax-avoidance techniques. Stanford University, one of the schools found to use offshoring, increased its endowment to $18 billion in 2012 from $2 billion in 1977. Harvard's endowment grew to $32 billion (in inflation-adjusted dollars) from $6 billion during the same period.

The problem with enormous endowment growth is that private institutions have not used the resource boom to provide greater benefits to the public.

According to the Stanford economist Raj Chetty, the top 38 private colleges today enroll more students from the top 1 percent of the nation's income spectrum than from the bottom 60 percent. Basically, what wealthy colleges end up spending on low-income students is a drop in the bucket compared with what they could be doing.

America's top public universities, on the other hand, have substantially increased their enrollments since the 1970s despite shrinking state funding. They also tend to enroll low-income students at much higher rates. The University of California, Berkeley, enrolls more low-income students than the entire Ivy League.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Why is this important, you might ask?

"It would be easier to turn a blind eye to the increasingly lavish exclusiveness of the Ivies if it didn't come at such great public expense. Just three tax breaks related to endowments now come at a cost of nearly $20 billion in reduced federal tax revenue annually. If that $20 billion was captured as federal revenue instead, it would provide nearly enough funds to double the federal Pell Grant program for low-income students."

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-10 04:34 PM | Reply

The progressive elites in academia sure know how to feather their nest.

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-10 04:42 PM | Reply

The progressive elites in academia sure know how to feather their nest.

#2 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2017-11-10 04:42 PM | FLAG: Jealous

#3 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-10 04:51 PM | Reply

Capitalism can be a real bitch

You would think the DR "capitalists" purists would know this already

#4 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-10 05:10 PM | Reply

The progressive elites in academia sure know how to feather their nest.

#2 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Your mistake is thinking that the asshats who run universities are "progressives".

Also, you'd do well to realize this sort of thing has arisen because schools are being run as businesses, not institutions of higher learning. Education has taken a back seat to many other irrelevant things.

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-10 11:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I agree with taxing the endowments.

However, I think it should be done in a way that incentivizes actually spending said money on the student's education, as it should be.

And no, that doesn't mean posh new dorms, state of the art student centers or shiny new sports arenas. It means actually on education, even if it's used to defuse costs and avoid annual tuition/fees increases.

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-10 11:29 PM | Reply

The progressive elites in academia sure know how to feather their nest.

#2 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS
----
Your mistake is thinking that the asshats who run universities are "progressives".

That's EXACTLY who and what they are. They sure as hell aren't liberals I'm the classic sense or even in the modern sense, to a lesser extent.

Also, you'd do well to realize this sort of thing has arisen because schools are being run as businesses, not institutions of higher learning. Education has taken a back seat to many other irrelevant things.

#5 | POSTED BY JPW

I have seen ZERO effort on the Left to rein-in inflationary education costs: Zero. The efforts made by the right to do so via - Charter schools, school choice, vouchers, Online-education, state funding caps for higher-education, curbs on teacher-union powers, initiatives I neglected to mention, etc.... have been universally-derided by the left.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-10 11:42 PM | Reply

The efforts made by the right to do so via - Charter schools, school choice, vouchers, Online-education, state funding caps for higher-education, curbs on teacher-union powers, initiatives I neglected to mention, etc.... have been universally-derided by the left.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-10 11:42 PM | Reply

Translated to mean the right advocates taking money which would be earmarked for the public school system and placing it in private schools. Public schools are already short funded. They want to make it even worse. The way teachers have historically been treated they NEED union powers.

#8 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-11 12:06 AM | Reply

That's EXACTLY who and what they are. They sure as hell aren't liberals I'm the classic sense or even in the modern sense, to a lesser extent.

--------. Many university execs are overpaid weenies running the school like a business.

Nothing about how large, well off universities are run is liberal, classic or otherwise, nor progressive.

Get out more. It'll do you some good.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 12:10 AM | Reply

have been universally-derided by the left.

Because they're all largely money grab schemes where education is merely the sales pitch, not the product.

Same as large universities in many ways, ironically.

Like I said, get out more.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 12:11 AM | Reply

--------. Many university execs are overpaid weenies running the school like a business.?

Right. And they are all self-avowed conservatives. Is that your position?

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-11 12:17 AM | Reply

Like I said, get out more.

#10 | POSTED BY JPW

Here's a middle-finger emoji.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-11 12:18 AM | Reply

Right. And they are all self-avowed conservatives. Is that your position?

Right. And Roy Moore is a "Christian".

Actions speak louder than words.

Here's a middle-finger emoji.

emoji monkey emoji poop

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 12:24 AM | Reply

I love you too man.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 12:25 AM | Reply

Nothing about how large, well off universities are run is liberal, classic or otherwise, nor progressive....
.

#9 | POSTED BY JPW A

I agree completely.

So, what in the heck are we arguing about?

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-11 12:25 AM | Reply

JPW,

Please stop the cryptic nonsense and lay out a position, choosing "sides" in the process....

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-11 12:27 AM | Reply

"Charter schools"

I used to live just down the street from a charter school and there is another charter school in the mall.

But maybe San Diego isn't liberal enough to count.

Vouchers don't cut costs. They just redistribute money.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-11 12:29 AM | Reply

Right. And they are all self-avowed conservatives. Is that your position?
---
Right. And Roy Moore is a "Christian".

Apparently not.

Actions speak louder than words.

#13 | POSTED BY JPW

Of course they do.

Compare/contrast the number of obvious right-v-left invited speakers who have been subjected to the "Heckler's veto" and then let's look at how these, according to you, stealth conservatives, "dealt" with these situations.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-11 12:33 AM | Reply

Vouchers don't cut costs. They just redistribute money.

#17 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yes and no.

Vouchers introduce competition which ostensibly reduces costs. Vouchers obviously redistribute money, but that isn't a bad thing by itself.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-11 12:36 AM | Reply

So, what in the heck are we arguing about?

#15 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

---- if I know.

Please stop the cryptic nonsense and lay out a position, choosing "sides" in the process....

I didn't think I was being cryptic at all.

I think the large endowments held by many prominent universities are a joke to their claim of being for higher education is a bigger joke.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 12:46 AM | Reply

---- if I know.

:-)

I didn't think I was being cryptic at all.

I didn't follow your point and I thought you were being a dick.

I think the large endowments held by many prominent universities are a joke to their claim of being for higher education is a bigger joke.

#20 | POSTED BY JPW

Agreed. Completely! Your characterization was the problem. The gilded are no longer conservatives and Republicans. Look at the coasts - tech is extremely left-wing. And that just scratches the surface. Wittingly or unwittingly (I'm with the latter) Trump tapped into something cultural.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-11 12:55 AM | Reply

"Vouchers introduce competition which ostensibly reduces costs."

Explain how competition reduces public education costs when you're talking about a service like education where demand has next to nothing to do with cost.

Ostensibly indeed.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-11 12:58 AM | Reply

Compare/contrast the number of obvious right-v-left invited speakers who have been subjected to the "Heckler's veto" and then let's look at how these, according to you, stealth conservatives, "dealt" with these situations.

#18 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Catering to the students is rather in line with paying exorbitant amounts of money for obscene dorms/amenities.

You're assuming their actions is based on their own politics instead of their business decisions for the "school".

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 01:05 AM | Reply

Have you ever taken an Econ101 course?

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-11 01:06 AM | Reply

Catering to the students is rather in line with paying exorbitant amounts of money for obscene dorms/amenities.
You're assuming their actions is based on their own politics instead of their business decisions for the "school".

#23 | POSTED BY JPW

Then why is the "catering" so 1-sided?

Why are invited conservative speakers "heckled out" at a disproportionate-degree but that conservative speakers are already invited to a far less degree?

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-11 01:10 AM | Reply

When was the last time a Left-wing speaker required $600,00 in security measures?

And to put it more in perspective - this speaker was Ben Shapiro. This wasn't a Milo or Coulter situation (which is still absurd, but is a different subject).

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-11 01:12 AM | Reply

$600,000 In security measures. At Berkeley. For a mild conservative speaker.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-11 01:14 AM | Reply

The gilded are no longer conservatives and Republicans.

Oh please. They're not exclusively conservative and Republicans.

Look at the coasts - tech is extremely left-wing.

Yet the culture is still left-wing and hasn't turned into the Kansas ---- show of "Conservative" values.

And that just scratches the surface. Wittingly or unwittingly (I'm with the latter) Trump tapped into something cultural.

What he tapped into wasn't cultural.

He tapped into the abscessed cyst with a fistula to the colon on the ------- of America. His ascension is nothing more riding the wave of retarded turds stumbling into voting booths.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 01:29 AM | Reply

Have you ever taken an Econ101 course?

I have better things to do than sit through that retarded, self-absorbed ----.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 01:33 AM | Reply

Then why is the "catering" so 1-sided?

Because "liberal" or "progressive" students are loud enough about that stuff to make them obnoxious enough to have to be addressed by higher ups.

Conservative students are cool so long as Jeebus isn't affronted and evolution isn't pushed, which is an admittedly low bar.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 01:37 AM | Reply

"He tapped into the abscessed cyst with a fistula to the colon on the ------- of America. His ascension is nothing more riding the wave of retarded turds stumbling into voting booths."

Naw, I'm pretty sure it was Hillary's fault. I mean, we could have had Bernie.

But have a beer/and or bong hit on me.

#31 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-11 01:40 AM | Reply

When was the last time a Left-wing speaker required $600,00 in security measures?
And to put it more in perspective - this speaker was Ben Shapiro.

Who is, objectively, a rabble rouser.

Mess with the bull, get the horns, right?

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 01:47 AM | Reply

Naw, I'm pretty sure it was Hillary's fault. I mean, we could have had Bernie.

I think people overestimate Bernie's chances to win the general election. Bernie didn't face a single attack ad in the election. Trump and the Republicans would have thrown millions of dollars into making Americans hate him for his longtime socialist statements and associations.

Bernie also would have faced an electorate that likes to throw the president's party out of the White House after eight years.

Could he have won? Sure. Was it a slam dunk? Not even close.

#33 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-11 07:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Have you ever taken an Econ101 course?"

I have.
Vouchers didn't come up.
Argue from lack of authority more though, it's funny when you flail.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-11 11:45 AM | Reply

"Bernie didn't face a single attack ad in the election"

Rs would have (falsely) claimed Bernie was a Socialist and a Communist.

They would have also (correctly) claimed Bernie wanted to increase your taxes, bigly.

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-11 11:57 AM | Reply

Naw, I'm pretty sure it was Hillary's fault.

The lack of enthusiasm for Hillary certainly didn't help anything.

But at its core, the election of Trump was owing to his playing to the negatives of our society-fear, racist/anti-immigration bigotry and shamelessly childish antics and name calling.

The sad thing is is that many of the negative things he tapped in to, namely economic issues, is real and is shared by voters across the spectrum. But they were merely a vehicle for Trump and he's showing that he has every intention of making them worse while claiming he's making life better for his voters.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-11 12:07 PM | Reply

"Why are invited conservative speakers "heckled out" at a disproportionate-degree but that conservative speakers are already invited to a far less degree?"

Why are conservative speakers invited by outside organizations to speak at liberal campuses?

To troll liberals.

Yes?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-11 12:17 PM | Reply

#27 snoofy: Why are conservative speakers invited by outside organizations to speak at liberal campuses?

It's called "diversity of thought", you frigging moran. That's sort of like diversity of skin color or gender, but with your mind.

#38 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-13 07:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort