5 ms·

Malcolm Gladwell rips into Stanford University's request for donations

40 points by WheelsAtLarge 10y ago

nafizh 10y ago
Anyone knows why rich universities keep that amount of money lying in the bank?
- setr 10y ago
  I imagine banked money isn't taxed, but any spent would be, so every expenditure shoots up a bonus 20-40% relative to the value of just leaving it alone. Which means any revenue has to match, and exceed, the tax to actually be profitable (versus sitting on it) Same way, I think, apple keeps $800bn unspent; not spending is simply more profitable than spending And i guess at that level of money, its generally not worth doing much unless its big (due to all the overhead necessary to keep such funds available and tracked).
  - allcentury 10y ago
    I'm not a tax expert so I can't answer the question on why universities would do that. As far as Apple goes, I'll assume they'd like to at least beat inflation and holding cash is usually done for regulatory reasons.
  - t3soro 10y ago
    Apple is different than Stanford. Stanford's fund is not an IRA - there is no tax either when they withdraw from the fund. Apple has all that money stashed because they can't repatriate it to the United States and their shareholders, without realizing corporate income tax on it in the US. So as long as they keep it overseas, the value of their stock goes up because they control the cash, but they can't award it back to their shareholders as dividends without biting the dividend tax bullet.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- JauntTrooper 10y ago
  It's not in the bank, it's invested in assets like stocks and bonds. They use the returns to fund 21% - 25% of their budget every year (~$1.4 billion of $5.5 billion in 2015-2016). The endowment contributes more annually than tuition does. [0] [0] http://facts.stanford.edu/administration/finances http://facts.stanford.edu/administration/finances
t3soro 10y ago
Okay, Malcom, let's tax private universities so nobody gets a great education. You're insane if you think those dollars should be taken from private universities and be spent on public schools!
- cprayingmantis 10y ago
  I went to a state school and received a great education that was very cheap. Not sure what your comment was meant to imply?
geebee 10y ago
I think that tax exemptions for universities should come with a lot more strings attached. These exemptions are actually worth considerably more per undergraduate that even the best state funded public institutions receive per undergraduate. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/09/harvard_yale_stanford_endowments_is_it_time_to_tax_them.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/09/harv... Here's the report http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/09/harvard_yale_stanford_endowments_is_it_time_to_tax_them.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/09/harv... Personally, I think one condition should be to increase the scale of undergraduate admission. Berkeley and UCLA, for instance, enroll around 25,000 undergraduates, whereas Harvard and Stanford are in the 6,000-8,000 range. This is of course a favorable arrangement for Stanford - enrolling very few undergraduates keeps the US News numbers happy, and allows them to focus mainly on research and graduate students. They shower a massive amount of money on a small and largely affluent student body, and enjoy a huge tax advantage because they benefit the public. Although these institutions are generous with low income students, keep in mind that they 1) enroll a much lower percentage of low income students than UCLA or Berkeley, and 2) enroll far fewer students overall. As a result, Berkeley enrolls more low income students than the entire Ivy League combined. This is true of UCLA and several other UC campuses. Why are we giving Harvard and Stanford a huge tax break in order to shower benefits on a tiny and largely affluent student body? The state funding for Berkeley and UCLA comes with all kinds of strings attached, and it's considerably less per undergrad than the value of this tax break. We have, through policy, put our public institutions at a severe financial disadvantage. This isn't just a result of market forces or choice, this is built into our tax code and regulatory state.

40 points by WheelsAtLarge 10y ago

nafizh 10y ago

Anyone knows why rich universities keep that amount of money lying in the bank?

setr 10y ago
I imagine banked money isn't taxed, but any spent would be, so every expenditure shoots up a bonus 20-40% relative to the value of just leaving it alone. Which means any revenue has to match, and exceed, the tax to actually be profitable (versus sitting on it) Same way, I think, apple keeps $800bn unspent; not spending is simply more profitable than spending And i guess at that level of money, its generally not worth doing much unless its big (due to all the overhead necessary to keep such funds available and tracked).
- allcentury 10y ago
  I'm not a tax expert so I can't answer the question on why universities would do that. As far as Apple goes, I'll assume they'd like to at least beat inflation and holding cash is usually done for regulatory reasons.
- t3soro 10y ago
  Apple is different than Stanford. Stanford's fund is not an IRA - there is no tax either when they withdraw from the fund. Apple has all that money stashed because they can't repatriate it to the United States and their shareholders, without realizing corporate income tax on it in the US. So as long as they keep it overseas, the value of their stock goes up because they control the cash, but they can't award it back to their shareholders as dividends without biting the dividend tax bullet.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
JauntTrooper 10y ago
It's not in the bank, it's invested in assets like stocks and bonds. They use the returns to fund 21% - 25% of their budget every year (~$1.4 billion of $5.5 billion in 2015-2016). The endowment contributes more annually than tuition does. [0] [0] http://facts.stanford.edu/administration/finances http://facts.stanford.edu/administration/finances

t3soro 10y ago

Okay, Malcom, let's tax private universities so nobody gets a great education. You're insane if you think those dollars should be taken from private universities and be spent on public schools!

cprayingmantis 10y ago
I went to a state school and received a great education that was very cheap. Not sure what your comment was meant to imply?

geebee 10y ago

I think that tax exemptions for universities should come with a lot more strings attached. These exemptions are actually worth considerably more per undergraduate that even the best state funded public institutions receive per undergraduate. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/09/harvard_yale_stanford_endowments_is_it_time_to_tax_them.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/09/harv... Here's the report http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/09/harvard_yale_stanford_endowments_is_it_time_to_tax_them.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/09/harv... Personally, I think one condition should be to increase the scale of undergraduate admission. Berkeley and UCLA, for instance, enroll around 25,000 undergraduates, whereas Harvard and Stanford are in the 6,000-8,000 range. This is of course a favorable arrangement for Stanford - enrolling very few undergraduates keeps the US News numbers happy, and allows them to focus mainly on research and graduate students. They shower a massive amount of money on a small and largely affluent student body, and enjoy a huge tax advantage because they benefit the public. Although these institutions are generous with low income students, keep in mind that they 1) enroll a much lower percentage of low income students than UCLA or Berkeley, and 2) enroll far fewer students overall. As a result, Berkeley enrolls more low income students than the entire Ivy League combined. This is true of UCLA and several other UC campuses. Why are we giving Harvard and Stanford a huge tax break in order to shower benefits on a tiny and largely affluent student body? The state funding for Berkeley and UCLA comes with all kinds of strings attached, and it's considerably less per undergrad than the value of this tax break. We have, through policy, put our public institutions at a severe financial disadvantage. This isn't just a result of market forces or choice, this is built into our tax code and regulatory state.