55 ms·

It is just insane that 1.8B should be spent on just Johns Hopkins. This doesn't sound like anywhere near the most efficient way to help the most students who a

It is just insane that 1.8B should be spent on just Johns Hopkins. This doesn't sound like anywhere near the most efficient way to help the most students who are missing out on places because the institution looks at their ability to pay. Does Bloomberg have an alterior motive to limit his donations to just his Alma Mater? Does he just want a wing of the library named after him or something? I'm frustrated reading this article, it compares poorly to the Gates foundation model of trying to help the maximum number of people per dollar.

evanelias 8y ago
> Does he just want a wing of the library named after him or something No, as there are already numerous Hopkins things bearing Bloomberg's name for many years -- including a 7-story physics/astronomy building, and the entire graduate public health school. The new $1.8B is in addition to previous total gifts of $1.5B. Bloomberg previously established a scholarship program for high-achieving incoming undergrads, but it was limited in size to a few dozen students a year. It sounds like the new money will allow this to expand to all students in need. Some universities like Harvard already did this, but Hopkins never did, due to its endowment being smaller than its peer institutions. This could be very good for the future of Baltimore. Many decades ago, a decent percentage of Hopkins undergrads came from Baltimore public schools, and that percentage has plummeted precipitously as Baltimore's fortunes declined. I do understand your overall point, but it's Bloomberg's money, and it's his decision how to spend it. I'd also suspect he gives money to other causes, although perhaps not on this scale.
- Retric 8y ago
  > it's Bloomberg's money A large chunk of that money is subsidized by tax payers, as he would not keep the 1.8 Billion if he had bought a sports team or other vanity project that was not tax deductible. I am not saying spending taxpayer money to promote giving is a bad idea, but it is an expensive one that’s generally forgotten about.
  - joemi 8y ago
    If I’m understanding you correctly, it should be noted that paying for something (or donating to something) that does not require you to pay taxes is not the same thing at all as using taxpayer money. It’s not subsidized, is it? It’s just not taxed. (Do correct me if I’m wrong though.)
    - Retric 8y ago
      If you donate 100 $ and then get X dollars rebated from your taxes you donated 100 - X dollars.
      - michaelt 8y ago
        What do you think should be the difference in tax between a rich business owner donating money directly from their company, and a regular joe donating money from their paycheck? And what do you think the current difference in tax is?
        Retric 8y ago
        I am not making an argument for what should be, only what is. Companies also get tax deductions. Should or should not is a different issue, but currently they do.
  - evanelias 8y ago
    I don't follow this line of reasoning. It's his money, not taxpayer money. If he simply held on to the money, he would not owe additional tax on it either. Perhaps it will eliminate his personal tax bill for 2018, but his yearly income is far less than $1.8B, and his tax bill is only a portion of his yearly income... the tax implications of this gift are only a small portion of the amount.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Unless he is an idiot, he donated aprecated assets like stock. If he sells the stock he needs to pay taxes on that stock. That’s true even if he buys something by directly handing someone stock. Even if he had 1.8 Billion in cash and ‘only’ got to deduct from his current tax bill that still means the US population is giving up money to support his cause. Taxes are not about the government. They are a shared burden by tax payers and anyone paying less is increasing that burden for everyone else. The only way to reduce it is for the government to sped less money.
yelloweyes 8y ago
1.8B is not that much, really. at 50k tuition, that's only 36k people.
- rhizome 8y ago
  Hey as long as we're calculating here, let's talk about 1.8B as tax revenue. What tax rate would that be for someone like Bloomberg? Now apply that across the board to everybody making that much, how much tax revenue does it come out to? Extrapolating even further, based on today's split of public money going to education, what would this mean for public school (including universities) funding?
- Gustomaximus 8y ago
  Thats 36k people for a year.... Also you probably need to factor in living allowance if supporting underprivileged and once you give a scholarship you're looking at a 3-6 year commitment to that person. Plus if you want the scholarships to run in perpetuity you can only spend at a rate that keeps the endowment at certain payout rate that does not reduce its value + inflation So at say 6% being spent a year, divided by $80k to cover tuition and living cost, average 4 year course commitment your looking at 338 new scholarships a year. That whittles down fast doesn't it....
- kristianp 8y ago
  There's only 5407 undergraduates at JHU[1] (for all years). If 10% of those qualify for aid that's 541 in total. Nowhere near 36k people. If we assume a degree takes 4 years, then 137 per year of intake, then those 36k people would be spread over 263 years. [1] https://apply.jhu.edu/discover-jhu/get-the-facts/ https://apply.jhu.edu/discover-jhu/get-the-facts/
- evanelias 8y ago
  Coincidentally (or not?), Harvard's equivalent program has awarded $1.8B in need-based grants since it was launched in 2005 [1]. Perhaps that gives a rough ballpark of how long this amount of money will last. [1] https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/the-personal-dimension-of-harvard-financial-aid/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/the-personal-...
born_a_beetle 8y ago
I disagree. Good behavior starts at the top. When all the best universities go need-blind and start offering only need-based scholarships, the bad actors in the education system will be left out on their own and we can start dealing with them separately.
- bytematic 8y ago
  The money will go to a school which likely could not possibly go bankrupt based on their current endowment. It could be much better spent across hundreds of state schools who do not have the same liberty or vaults.
  - born_a_beetle 8y ago
    Public schools shouldn't be dependent on the whims of philanthropic billionaires. They should be supported by the state. It goes against everything they were set up as.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      Is anyone arguing that "Public schools should be dependent on the whims of philanthropic billionaires"?
      - 1123581321 8y ago
        If you follow the chain you replied to, born_a_beetle is saying that a consequence of such a donation to a state school would be a dependence on Bloomberg that is inappriate for public education. It’s clear that he or she is concerned about that as an unintended consequence of such a donation. No one is advocating for the unintended consequence to happen, but they are arguing for a course of action that born_a_beetle believes will have the negative consequence. There’s a good article on unintended consequences here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences A lot of debate in philanthropy policy deals with these, so it’s important to understand how someone can disagree with something no one has explicitly advocated for, but could happen if the advocated course is taken.

evanelias 8y ago

> Does he just want a wing of the library named after him or something No, as there are already numerous Hopkins things bearing Bloomberg's name for many years -- including a 7-story physics/astronomy building, and the entire graduate public health school. The new $1.8B is in addition to previous total gifts of $1.5B. Bloomberg previously established a scholarship program for high-achieving incoming undergrads, but it was limited in size to a few dozen students a year. It sounds like the new money will allow this to expand to all students in need. Some universities like Harvard already did this, but Hopkins never did, due to its endowment being smaller than its peer institutions. This could be very good for the future of Baltimore. Many decades ago, a decent percentage of Hopkins undergrads came from Baltimore public schools, and that percentage has plummeted precipitously as Baltimore's fortunes declined. I do understand your overall point, but it's Bloomberg's money, and it's his decision how to spend it. I'd also suspect he gives money to other causes, although perhaps not on this scale.

Retric 8y ago
> it's Bloomberg's money A large chunk of that money is subsidized by tax payers, as he would not keep the 1.8 Billion if he had bought a sports team or other vanity project that was not tax deductible. I am not saying spending taxpayer money to promote giving is a bad idea, but it is an expensive one that’s generally forgotten about.
- joemi 8y ago
  If I’m understanding you correctly, it should be noted that paying for something (or donating to something) that does not require you to pay taxes is not the same thing at all as using taxpayer money. It’s not subsidized, is it? It’s just not taxed. (Do correct me if I’m wrong though.)
  - Retric 8y ago
    If you donate 100 $ and then get X dollars rebated from your taxes you donated 100 - X dollars.
    - michaelt 8y ago
      What do you think should be the difference in tax between a rich business owner donating money directly from their company, and a regular joe donating money from their paycheck? And what do you think the current difference in tax is?
      - Retric 8y ago
        I am not making an argument for what should be, only what is. Companies also get tax deductions. Should or should not is a different issue, but currently they do.
- evanelias 8y ago
  I don't follow this line of reasoning. It's his money, not taxpayer money. If he simply held on to the money, he would not owe additional tax on it either. Perhaps it will eliminate his personal tax bill for 2018, but his yearly income is far less than $1.8B, and his tax bill is only a portion of his yearly income... the tax implications of this gift are only a small portion of the amount.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Unless he is an idiot, he donated aprecated assets like stock. If he sells the stock he needs to pay taxes on that stock. That’s true even if he buys something by directly handing someone stock. Even if he had 1.8 Billion in cash and ‘only’ got to deduct from his current tax bill that still means the US population is giving up money to support his cause. Taxes are not about the government. They are a shared burden by tax payers and anyone paying less is increasing that burden for everyone else. The only way to reduce it is for the government to sped less money.

yelloweyes 8y ago

1.8B is not that much, really. at 50k tuition, that's only 36k people.

rhizome 8y ago
Hey as long as we're calculating here, let's talk about 1.8B as tax revenue. What tax rate would that be for someone like Bloomberg? Now apply that across the board to everybody making that much, how much tax revenue does it come out to? Extrapolating even further, based on today's split of public money going to education, what would this mean for public school (including universities) funding?
Gustomaximus 8y ago
Thats 36k people for a year.... Also you probably need to factor in living allowance if supporting underprivileged and once you give a scholarship you're looking at a 3-6 year commitment to that person. Plus if you want the scholarships to run in perpetuity you can only spend at a rate that keeps the endowment at certain payout rate that does not reduce its value + inflation So at say 6% being spent a year, divided by $80k to cover tuition and living cost, average 4 year course commitment your looking at 338 new scholarships a year. That whittles down fast doesn't it....
kristianp 8y ago
There's only 5407 undergraduates at JHU[1] (for all years). If 10% of those qualify for aid that's 541 in total. Nowhere near 36k people. If we assume a degree takes 4 years, then 137 per year of intake, then those 36k people would be spread over 263 years. [1] https://apply.jhu.edu/discover-jhu/get-the-facts/ https://apply.jhu.edu/discover-jhu/get-the-facts/
evanelias 8y ago
Coincidentally (or not?), Harvard's equivalent program has awarded $1.8B in need-based grants since it was launched in 2005 [1]. Perhaps that gives a rough ballpark of how long this amount of money will last. [1] https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/the-personal-dimension-of-harvard-financial-aid/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/the-personal-...

born_a_beetle 8y ago

I disagree. Good behavior starts at the top. When all the best universities go need-blind and start offering only need-based scholarships, the bad actors in the education system will be left out on their own and we can start dealing with them separately.

bytematic 8y ago
The money will go to a school which likely could not possibly go bankrupt based on their current endowment. It could be much better spent across hundreds of state schools who do not have the same liberty or vaults.
- born_a_beetle 8y ago
  Public schools shouldn't be dependent on the whims of philanthropic billionaires. They should be supported by the state. It goes against everything they were set up as.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    Is anyone arguing that "Public schools should be dependent on the whims of philanthropic billionaires"?
    - 1123581321 8y ago
      If you follow the chain you replied to, born_a_beetle is saying that a consequence of such a donation to a state school would be a dependence on Bloomberg that is inappriate for public education. It’s clear that he or she is concerned about that as an unintended consequence of such a donation. No one is advocating for the unintended consequence to happen, but they are arguing for a course of action that born_a_beetle believes will have the negative consequence. There’s a good article on unintended consequences here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences A lot of debate in philanthropy policy deals with these, so it’s important to understand how someone can disagree with something no one has explicitly advocated for, but could happen if the advocated course is taken.