6 ms·

Columbia and NYU Would Lose $327M in Tax Breaks Under Proposal

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ChrisBland 3y ago
At some point we do need to look at the hedge funds that have a school attached as well. The endowments at some of these universities is astounding.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  I can only guess that you're downvoted by all the Princeton and Yale readers here
- throwaway-blaze 3y ago
  Agreed. If they are, as claimed, in the business of educating students, why not use some of that endowment money to open more campuses and educate more students? Columbia offers admittance to fewer than 3% of the people who apply. More people than those admitted have the requisite grades etc to think they'd perform well at an elite school; why not offer more of the admittance and use the endowment to make it happen? Or, use the endowment to further lower the list price of the education (approaching $500k for 4 years)?
  - neuromantik8086 3y ago
    Because endowments aren't piggy banks. They're regulated by UPMIFA [1], which states that universiteis can't draw down more than 7% of the total funds in the endowment unless they can prove that it would be prudent to do so, and the burden of proof is extremely high. Even without UPMIFA, endowments are a mix of unrestricted and restricted funds, and donor restrictions can and do prevent universities from using money when they might otherwise want to. Even if a university desired to draw down the full 7% allowed without triggering red tape, it's unlikely that they would be able to draw it all without running afoul of donor intent.[2] If anything, the system is to blame here, not the universities themselves necessarily (not to excuse bad apples in academic administration). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Prudent_Management_of_Institutional_Funds_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Prudent_Management_of_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donor_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donor_intent
crazygringo 3y ago
No -- these two targeted institutions shouldn't be taxed when other colleges and universities in the city continue to be exempt. That's not fair -- -- BUT, I think it's absolutely fair to keep tax breaks only for buildings used primarily for educational/research and related activities (like dorm rooms and student centers and research labs). Because if Columbia and NYU are investing in real estate as part of their endowment, e.g. residential and office buildings unconnected to their educational mission, then those should be taxed normally. And the same for any other nonprofit -- no reason to single them out.
- lvl102 3y ago
  This is very true. NYU and Columbia should not be treated as not-for-profit because they’re not. And they also take money from sovereign and let them influence research and curriculum. They do not deliver the value even remotely commensurate with tax savings they enjoy. Especially NYU. Only schools of value at NYU is medical, law, and film. So roughly 3,000 students. They enjoy billions in tax savings and not even remotely close to what’s returned by those 3,000 students remaining in NYC after graduation.
  - yowzadave 3y ago
    > Only schools of value at NYU is medical, law, and film. So roughly 3,000 students. NYU has 26,000 undergraduate students--is this not of value? Seems like a very broad brush with which to paint the largest university in New York.
    - lvl102 3y ago
      NYU is run like a business and for-profit. Undergraduate is mediocre at best for underperforming students.
      - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        NYU is literally a non-profit. What do you mean by "run like a for-profit"?
GenerWork 3y ago
Archive link: https://archive.is/u50OG https://archive.is/u50OG
compiler-guy 3y ago
I think you can make a case for targeting Columbia in particular, even to the exclusion of other schools. Columbia was a major beneficiary of the city's power of eminent domain in the early 2000s, killing small business and other local flavor in favor of their expansion and planned urban renewal, which is kind of slimy already. The big arguments were that it couldn't expand and maintain its status without it. So now time to pay the piper. All those places used to pay property taxes, now they don't. "In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that barred the state from using its power of eminent domain to take private property in the 17-acre expansion zone west of Broadway without the property owner’s consent. The ruling held that the courts must give deference to the state’s determination that the area was “blighted” and that condemnation on behalf of a university served a public purpose, two requirements under the law. Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, said he was grateful for the state’s hard work in the case. “This is an extremely important moment in the history of Columbia,” he said. “It’s only fair to say that the opportunity to build a new campus comes along very rarely.”" https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/nyregion/25columbia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/nyregion/25columbia.html
- meepmorp 3y ago
  > I think you can make a case for targeting Columbia in particular, even to the exclusion of other schools. Said case would be a court case because such a law would be a bill of attainder, which are explicitly unconstitutional.
  - mountain_lion 3y ago
    That's not how Bills of Attainder work. They are primarily about punishments without findings of guilt. Particularly, denial of civil rights without trial. Whatever the merits of this case, removing a tax break is not a criminal finding, and having an organization paying the same taxes as most others is not a denial of civil rights. "The two main criteria that the courts use to determine whether legislation is a bill of attainder are (1) whether “specific” individuals, groups, or entities are affected by the statute, and (2) whether the legislation inflicts a “punishment” on those individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court has also identified three types of legislation that would fulfill the “punishment” prong of the test: (1) where the burden is such as has “traditionally” been found to be punitive (historical test); (2) where the type and severity of burdens imposed are the “functional equivalent” of punishment because they cannot reasonably be said to further “non-punitive legislative purposes” (functional test); and (3) where the legislative record evinces a “congressional intent to punish (motivational test).” ... "It would appear that the identification of papers and recordings under the control of a named person (the former President) would meet the per se requirement. The Court in Nixon, however, found that the statute was constitutional despite this specificity. In Nixon, the Court found that the bill failed the second prong (punishment) of the test for a bill of attainder, since the act fulfilled the valid regulatory purpose of preserving information which was needed to prosecute Watergaterelated crimes and was of historical interest.31 As part of this analysis, however, the Court even questioned whether the statute in question met the specificity prong of the two-part test, finding that naming an individual could be “fairly and rationally understood” as designating a “legitimate class of one.”32 Thus, it has been suggested that Nixon stands for the proposition that any level of specificity is acceptable, even the naming of individuals, as long as a rational, non-punitive basis for the legislation can be established." https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40826.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40826.pdf Property taxes are not traditionally punishments. The type and severity of the property taxes in this case are entirely in line with taxes that most everyone else pays, and the purpose here entire furthers non-punitive legislative purposes. Even the single class-member herewould like meet the "rational, non-punitive" test. There are also a mountain of very carefully crafted tax breaks and subsidies designed to benefit the one particular corporation that qualifies. I have no idea if the above proposal is a good idea or a bad one, but I would be very surprised if it qualified as a Bill of Attainder.
ianbutler 3y ago
Having gone to NYU, the institution is bloated, the quality of education could be way better for many disciplines and they could charge less tuition to students and still be completely fine. If you look at their budget every year they have an "other" line that's very big and comprises all these types of dealings. It's scummy and doesn't fulfill the mission of teaching people, but it sure does enrich specific people. I still remember taking a course under Julian Togelius where we had to translate some statement from hex or something that amounted to "Columbia is better than NYU". So even the well respected research professors agree on the quality of the education. Shout out to the various student run labs and individual professors I worked with that made the experience more worthwhile and who actually care to foster curious students. NYU continues to have the audacity to reach out to me for handouts though.
renewiltord 3y ago
This kind of thing is really annoying. Other orgs have been able to exploit this to get off the ground. I'm trying to get something like Academy of Art in SF (real-estate corp protected by 501c3) going and being tax free is a big advantage. I think, ultimately, we'll be protected. Usually you can trot someone out like "tell that to this first-gen college student" and shit like that. I think SF is ripe for this.
eli_gottlieb 3y ago
Good.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

At some point we do need to look at the hedge funds that have a school attached as well. The endowments at some of these universities is astounding.

readthenotes1 3y ago
I can only guess that you're downvoted by all the Princeton and Yale readers here
throwaway-blaze 3y ago
Agreed. If they are, as claimed, in the business of educating students, why not use some of that endowment money to open more campuses and educate more students? Columbia offers admittance to fewer than 3% of the people who apply. More people than those admitted have the requisite grades etc to think they'd perform well at an elite school; why not offer more of the admittance and use the endowment to make it happen? Or, use the endowment to further lower the list price of the education (approaching $500k for 4 years)?
- neuromantik8086 3y ago
  Because endowments aren't piggy banks. They're regulated by UPMIFA [1], which states that universiteis can't draw down more than 7% of the total funds in the endowment unless they can prove that it would be prudent to do so, and the burden of proof is extremely high. Even without UPMIFA, endowments are a mix of unrestricted and restricted funds, and donor restrictions can and do prevent universities from using money when they might otherwise want to. Even if a university desired to draw down the full 7% allowed without triggering red tape, it's unlikely that they would be able to draw it all without running afoul of donor intent.[2] If anything, the system is to blame here, not the universities themselves necessarily (not to excuse bad apples in academic administration). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Prudent_Management_of_Institutional_Funds_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Prudent_Management_of_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donor_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donor_intent

crazygringo 3y ago

No -- these two targeted institutions shouldn't be taxed when other colleges and universities in the city continue to be exempt. That's not fair -- -- BUT, I think it's absolutely fair to keep tax breaks only for buildings used primarily for educational/research and related activities (like dorm rooms and student centers and research labs). Because if Columbia and NYU are investing in real estate as part of their endowment, e.g. residential and office buildings unconnected to their educational mission, then those should be taxed normally. And the same for any other nonprofit -- no reason to single them out.

lvl102 3y ago
This is very true. NYU and Columbia should not be treated as not-for-profit because they’re not. And they also take money from sovereign and let them influence research and curriculum. They do not deliver the value even remotely commensurate with tax savings they enjoy. Especially NYU. Only schools of value at NYU is medical, law, and film. So roughly 3,000 students. They enjoy billions in tax savings and not even remotely close to what’s returned by those 3,000 students remaining in NYC after graduation.
- yowzadave 3y ago
  > Only schools of value at NYU is medical, law, and film. So roughly 3,000 students. NYU has 26,000 undergraduate students--is this not of value? Seems like a very broad brush with which to paint the largest university in New York.
  - lvl102 3y ago
    NYU is run like a business and for-profit. Undergraduate is mediocre at best for underperforming students.
    - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
      NYU is literally a non-profit. What do you mean by "run like a for-profit"?

GenerWork 3y ago

Archive link: https://archive.is/u50OG https://archive.is/u50OG

compiler-guy 3y ago

I think you can make a case for targeting Columbia in particular, even to the exclusion of other schools. Columbia was a major beneficiary of the city's power of eminent domain in the early 2000s, killing small business and other local flavor in favor of their expansion and planned urban renewal, which is kind of slimy already. The big arguments were that it couldn't expand and maintain its status without it. So now time to pay the piper. All those places used to pay property taxes, now they don't. "In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that barred the state from using its power of eminent domain to take private property in the 17-acre expansion zone west of Broadway without the property owner’s consent. The ruling held that the courts must give deference to the state’s determination that the area was “blighted” and that condemnation on behalf of a university served a public purpose, two requirements under the law. Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, said he was grateful for the state’s hard work in the case. “This is an extremely important moment in the history of Columbia,” he said. “It’s only fair to say that the opportunity to build a new campus comes along very rarely.”" https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/nyregion/25columbia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/nyregion/25columbia.html

meepmorp 3y ago
> I think you can make a case for targeting Columbia in particular, even to the exclusion of other schools. Said case would be a court case because such a law would be a bill of attainder, which are explicitly unconstitutional.
- mountain_lion 3y ago
  That's not how Bills of Attainder work. They are primarily about punishments without findings of guilt. Particularly, denial of civil rights without trial. Whatever the merits of this case, removing a tax break is not a criminal finding, and having an organization paying the same taxes as most others is not a denial of civil rights. "The two main criteria that the courts use to determine whether legislation is a bill of attainder are (1) whether “specific” individuals, groups, or entities are affected by the statute, and (2) whether the legislation inflicts a “punishment” on those individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court has also identified three types of legislation that would fulfill the “punishment” prong of the test: (1) where the burden is such as has “traditionally” been found to be punitive (historical test); (2) where the type and severity of burdens imposed are the “functional equivalent” of punishment because they cannot reasonably be said to further “non-punitive legislative purposes” (functional test); and (3) where the legislative record evinces a “congressional intent to punish (motivational test).” ... "It would appear that the identification of papers and recordings under the control of a named person (the former President) would meet the per se requirement. The Court in Nixon, however, found that the statute was constitutional despite this specificity. In Nixon, the Court found that the bill failed the second prong (punishment) of the test for a bill of attainder, since the act fulfilled the valid regulatory purpose of preserving information which was needed to prosecute Watergaterelated crimes and was of historical interest.31 As part of this analysis, however, the Court even questioned whether the statute in question met the specificity prong of the two-part test, finding that naming an individual could be “fairly and rationally understood” as designating a “legitimate class of one.”32 Thus, it has been suggested that Nixon stands for the proposition that any level of specificity is acceptable, even the naming of individuals, as long as a rational, non-punitive basis for the legislation can be established." https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40826.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40826.pdf Property taxes are not traditionally punishments. The type and severity of the property taxes in this case are entirely in line with taxes that most everyone else pays, and the purpose here entire furthers non-punitive legislative purposes. Even the single class-member herewould like meet the "rational, non-punitive" test. There are also a mountain of very carefully crafted tax breaks and subsidies designed to benefit the one particular corporation that qualifies. I have no idea if the above proposal is a good idea or a bad one, but I would be very surprised if it qualified as a Bill of Attainder.

ianbutler 3y ago

Having gone to NYU, the institution is bloated, the quality of education could be way better for many disciplines and they could charge less tuition to students and still be completely fine. If you look at their budget every year they have an "other" line that's very big and comprises all these types of dealings. It's scummy and doesn't fulfill the mission of teaching people, but it sure does enrich specific people. I still remember taking a course under Julian Togelius where we had to translate some statement from hex or something that amounted to "Columbia is better than NYU". So even the well respected research professors agree on the quality of the education. Shout out to the various student run labs and individual professors I worked with that made the experience more worthwhile and who actually care to foster curious students. NYU continues to have the audacity to reach out to me for handouts though.

renewiltord 3y ago

This kind of thing is really annoying. Other orgs have been able to exploit this to get off the ground. I'm trying to get something like Academy of Art in SF (real-estate corp protected by 501c3) going and being tax free is a big advantage. I think, ultimately, we'll be protected. Usually you can trot someone out like "tell that to this first-gen college student" and shit like that. I think SF is ripe for this.

eli_gottlieb 3y ago

Good.