4 ms·

"To look at it another way, the private university provides what most people consider a "better" education without receiving any public funds; clearly we need m

by dalke 11y ago

"To look at it another way, the private university provides what most people consider a "better" education without receiving any public funds; clearly we need more such institutions if possible." If Harvard were taxed, would it still provide better education? For accounting purposes, what's the difference between the non-profit status and a subsidy on the equivalent service provided by a for-profit company? Because I don't see a difference. It's the same as having a deduction on my taxes vs. paying less taxes, no? The end result on what I pay is the same. Which is why I think that tax free status on "investments that range from stocks and bonds to California wine vineyards" does count as being similar to a subsidy on the for-profit equivalent. Which is why I see this as a policy question - is it better to have one person with a "better" education at a private school, or use the same money to have two people receive a college education at a public school? I don't dismiss your point regarding past evidence. However, I think that's symptomatic of a different structural failure, where the cult of hiring MBAs running something "like a business" has taken over schools, health care, government and other organizations which should not have the high rate of failures seen in businesses. (Eg, Cooper Union.) That topic is quite outside of this discussion, and I'm willing to accept your conclusion. Regarding "looking at the contents of someone else's bank account and wishing it was yours" - that's a wealth tax, and it exists in France, Norway, Spain, and several other countries, so it does make sense to some.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> If Harvard were taxed, would it still provide better education? To fewer people, and in particular to fewer non-wealthy people, most likely. That money has to come from somewhere. > Which is why I see this as a policy question - is it better to have one person with a "better" education at a private school, or use the same money to have two people receive a college education at a public school? Sure, it's a policy question. That does not automatically make it government business; that policy has already been made by the people who decided to donate their funds to a private university rather than to some other cause. I don't favor the Darth Vader approach to government policymaking ("I am altering the deal; pray I don't alter it any further"). We have a set of tax laws about non-profits. If we're going to poke holes in those laws to collect more money, we should not do so while listening to arguments about where the money would be "better" spent, unless it is to be put into a special untouchable budget for only those purposes. Laws that say "we'll collect these funds for this purpose" fall flat when the budget doesn't work that way; the funds spent are not in any way tied to the funds collected, nor are the two kept connected in future laws. > I don't dismiss your point regarding past evidence. However, I think that's symptomatic of a different structural failure, where the cult of hiring MBAs running something "like a business" has taken over schools, health care, government and other organizations which should not have the high rate of failures seen in businesses. "like a business" seems to only get used when convenient, and discarded otherwise. When people talk about wanting to keep extra money in the budget when returning it, they talk about running the government like a business, and saving the funds for future expenses. Yet governments people have no problem spending more money than they have, and either raising taxes to cover the difference or simply going into debt. > Regarding "looking at the contents of someone else's bank account and wishing it was yours" - that's a wealth tax, and it exists in France, Norway, Spain, and several other countries, so it does make sense to some. Yes, some other governments have an even more entitled attitude over other people's money. That doesn't make it right. The justifications used for wealth taxes are even more tenuous than those used to justify income taxes. Might does not make right. And getting half of voters to agree to take money from the other half is tantamount to rustling up a mob to take what they feel entitled to, but with more diffusion of responsibility.
- dalke 11y ago
  "Sure, it's a policy question. That does not automatically make it government business" We grant something non-profit status because we think it's in the public interest. Thus, it's already 'government business.' "We have a set of tax laws about non-profits." Certainly. And we change those laws over time to reflect changing circumstances. "Yet governments people have no problem spending more money than they have" That blanket statement is as true as the statement that companies have no problem spending more money than they have. I mentioned Cooper Union as an example of how non-profit universities are also not immune. "That doesn't make it right." Who am I likely to believe more, you or Piketty?
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > Certainly. And we change those laws over time to reflect changing circumstances. Which would be quite different from the article's positioning that acts entitled to that money in the first place. But at that point, it would be reasonable to ask why such a change should target non-profit educational institutions in particular, rather than non-profits in general. (Obvious answer: because that would be wildly unpopular, and would threaten some of the primary organizations that non-profit laws were created for, which have enormous lobbying power.) > That blanket statement is as true as the statement that companies have no problem spending more money than they have. And those companies doing so typically go out of business, which is strong encouragement not to do that. Government departments have no such controls or requirements in place to enforce fiscal responsibility; when they spend more than they have, they still get more to spend in the future. And lo and behold, they often demonstrate extreme fiscal irresponsibility. > I mentioned Cooper Union as an example of how non-profit universities are also not immune. And they very nearly went under due to (as far as I can tell) epic mismanagement, yes. Mismanagement occurs in many places. It's worse when it happens with other people's voluntarily donated money, and even worse when it happens with taxes. > Who am I likely to believe more, you or Piketty? I'm hardly the first or only person to argue against what is commonly euphemized "wealth redistribution" on moral/ethical grounds. Whether you're inclined to believe those arguments depends rather heavily on your political beliefs and morals, as it's a question not solely decidable based on economics. Sounds like you've already made up your mind that "wealth redistribution" is acceptable to you, which is a political viewpoint, not solely an economic one.

by dalke 11y ago

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> If Harvard were taxed, would it still provide better education? To fewer people, and in particular to fewer non-wealthy people, most likely. That money has to come from somewhere. > Which is why I see this as a policy question - is it better to have one person with a "better" education at a private school, or use the same money to have two people receive a college education at a public school? Sure, it's a policy question. That does not automatically make it government business; that policy has already been made by the people who decided to donate their funds to a private university rather than to some other cause. I don't favor the Darth Vader approach to government policymaking ("I am altering the deal; pray I don't alter it any further"). We have a set of tax laws about non-profits. If we're going to poke holes in those laws to collect more money, we should not do so while listening to arguments about where the money would be "better" spent, unless it is to be put into a special untouchable budget for only those purposes. Laws that say "we'll collect these funds for this purpose" fall flat when the budget doesn't work that way; the funds spent are not in any way tied to the funds collected, nor are the two kept connected in future laws. > I don't dismiss your point regarding past evidence. However, I think that's symptomatic of a different structural failure, where the cult of hiring MBAs running something "like a business" has taken over schools, health care, government and other organizations which should not have the high rate of failures seen in businesses. "like a business" seems to only get used when convenient, and discarded otherwise. When people talk about wanting to keep extra money in the budget when returning it, they talk about running the government like a business, and saving the funds for future expenses. Yet governments people have no problem spending more money than they have, and either raising taxes to cover the difference or simply going into debt. > Regarding "looking at the contents of someone else's bank account and wishing it was yours" - that's a wealth tax, and it exists in France, Norway, Spain, and several other countries, so it does make sense to some. Yes, some other governments have an even more entitled attitude over other people's money. That doesn't make it right. The justifications used for wealth taxes are even more tenuous than those used to justify income taxes. Might does not make right. And getting half of voters to agree to take money from the other half is tantamount to rustling up a mob to take what they feel entitled to, but with more diffusion of responsibility.

dalke 11y ago
"Sure, it's a policy question. That does not automatically make it government business" We grant something non-profit status because we think it's in the public interest. Thus, it's already 'government business.' "We have a set of tax laws about non-profits." Certainly. And we change those laws over time to reflect changing circumstances. "Yet governments people have no problem spending more money than they have" That blanket statement is as true as the statement that companies have no problem spending more money than they have. I mentioned Cooper Union as an example of how non-profit universities are also not immune. "That doesn't make it right." Who am I likely to believe more, you or Piketty?
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > Certainly. And we change those laws over time to reflect changing circumstances. Which would be quite different from the article's positioning that acts entitled to that money in the first place. But at that point, it would be reasonable to ask why such a change should target non-profit educational institutions in particular, rather than non-profits in general. (Obvious answer: because that would be wildly unpopular, and would threaten some of the primary organizations that non-profit laws were created for, which have enormous lobbying power.) > That blanket statement is as true as the statement that companies have no problem spending more money than they have. And those companies doing so typically go out of business, which is strong encouragement not to do that. Government departments have no such controls or requirements in place to enforce fiscal responsibility; when they spend more than they have, they still get more to spend in the future. And lo and behold, they often demonstrate extreme fiscal irresponsibility. > I mentioned Cooper Union as an example of how non-profit universities are also not immune. And they very nearly went under due to (as far as I can tell) epic mismanagement, yes. Mismanagement occurs in many places. It's worse when it happens with other people's voluntarily donated money, and even worse when it happens with taxes. > Who am I likely to believe more, you or Piketty? I'm hardly the first or only person to argue against what is commonly euphemized "wealth redistribution" on moral/ethical grounds. Whether you're inclined to believe those arguments depends rather heavily on your political beliefs and morals, as it's a question not solely decidable based on economics. Sounds like you've already made up your mind that "wealth redistribution" is acceptable to you, which is a political viewpoint, not solely an economic one.