"I was suggesting that citing one economist ..." My comments are a reply to your earlier statement "Looking at tax you wish you could collect but have no legal

"I was suggesting that citing one economist ..." My comments are a reply to your earlier statement "Looking at tax you wish you could collect but have no legal right to and salivating over it makes as much sense as looking at the contents of someone else's bank account and wishing it was yours." I pointed out that there are countries where this is a legal right, and where there are people who believe it makes sense. (With the proviso that it appears to contribute to capital flight, so requires a global wealth tax; which Picketty believes is more Utopian than politically achievable.) Certainly the utility of such a law is up for debate, but your starting position was that the idea was beyond the pale, which is not correct. "it doesn't make sense to specifically call out private universities for consideration of revoking that status, without broader consideration of non-profits in general" Page 2 of the commentary does consider that point. I quote: > A tax like Schneider’s would still raise other philosophical and logistical questions. For starters, why tax giant endowments at colleges but not other nonprofits? The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York commands a roughly $3 billion endowment—it’s hard to think of a coherent reason why it should escape the Internal Revenue Service if, say, Fordham University in the Bronx (endowment: $675 million) can’t. It then mentions two other difficulties with the idea ("why take a cut of wealth from colleges when we don’t do it to individuals?" and "unintended consequences"). It may not cover it in the depth you want, but that's hardly reason to say that it doesn't consider non-profits in general.