6 ms·

I've always wondered why the family that pays full price for tuition does not get the tax credit for their charitable contribution to some other student whom th

I've always wondered why the family that pays full price for tuition does not get the tax credit for their charitable contribution to some other student whom they subsidize. If I donated $20k to a university, I'd get to write that off as a charitable contribution in my taxes. If I pay full tuition and 1/3 of that goes to a student needing aid, I get no deduction.

vernon99 3y ago
That’s the only thing that bothers you? :) How about we outlaw the price discrimination described in the parent comment? I think everything else just pushed the conversation deeper in the weeds and does us all a disservice.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  So no more youth ticket prices, senior discounts, etc.? Price discrimination is a very commonly-used tactic, and it goes by many different names.
  - desmosxxx 3y ago
    Nuance can be introduced. Allow aged based price discrimination but not descrimination that is based on actual income numbers?
  - rgovostes 3y ago
    Senior discounts: When the median US senior citizen is significantly wealthier than younger adults, absolutely yes. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/28/americans-median-net-worth-by-age.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/28/americans-median-net-worth-b... France grants free museum admission to adults under 26, which strikes me as a better policy than charging the highest price to access cultural works to the people who (a) have the least earned wealth, (b) the least lifetime exposure to those things.
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      Yep, I think senior discounts are partly/largely about willingness to pay, not ability to pay. For example, senior citizens aren't the target demographic for most movies. Theaters get full freight from the 18-45 crowd, who want to see the movies the most. Then they entice senior citizens to come watch movies that they don't love by giving them better pricing. Same applies for theme parks, where the target audience is young adults and families with small kids. I'm not defending any of this — just pointing out that price discrimination is sometimes about ATP, and sometimes about WTP.
      - anamax 3y ago
        Senior discounts are also used to smooth out/move usage. "Seniors pay 20% less for movie tickets at Tuesday at 1 pm" sells tickets that few people with jobs would buy, regardless of price.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      The deal with being a senior, your net worth is falling, not rising. You basically have whatever you earned and saved before 65 plus some social security. Somebody who is only worth only $300k at 70 and is pretty healthy is in a lot of trouble if they live to be 85. Some better social safety nets would make this less of a concern, but we really don’t have those.
  - anon373839 3y ago
    Demand for university degrees is relatively inelastic, though, so people will do what they have to do (pay exorbitant tuition for their kids, take on exorbitant loans for themselves) to get access to the kind of life opportunities that elite degrees provide. That, in my mind, makes it more unseemly - especially since many of these schools don’t actually need the money.
rendang 3y ago
It's typically the opposite of what you say - the true expenses/student that a private university pays is much higher than even the richest kid pays (difference made up for by the endowment's income) So the better question is why they don't raise prices such that the rich kids have to pay the true full price & have more money for aid for the less-rich.
- floor2 3y ago
  No that's not the better question. If private universities are truly spending so irresponsibly and profligately that their sticker price isn't covering their expenses, then their entire administration should be thrown out and replaced. It's only incompetence or corruption that could excuse such costs.
  - AgentOrange1234 3y ago
    Throwing out the entire administration and then only replacing a small fraction of it would work even better!
- StressedDev 3y ago
  I have a hard time believing this. Every course I took in college had at least 15 people and usually 30-50 people. Large classes like Calculus 1-2, Linear Algebra, and Differential Equations had at least 300 people. There is no way you cannot pay the salary + legitimate overhead for 1 profess, and 1-10 TAs with these class sizes. My guess is a lot of the money does not go to instruction but goes to administration, sports palaces (stadiums), luxury dorms, etc. Colleges used to be MUCH cheaper in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. The education was just as good but cost far less. The big problem with colleges today is they are "non-profit" in name only. Instead, of giving profits to shareholders, they are giving them to employees and insiders. This hurts students and the United States. However, colleges do not care because they, their employees, and friends benefit.
  - wakawaka28 3y ago
    Sports more or less pays for itself in most cases and even brings in profits. That's why even public colleges have active sports programs. You are right about other luxury amenities. But even basic facilities cost pretty serious money, even if they are only built every 50-100 years or so. If I had to estimate, I'd say no school currently pays more than 25% of tuition on actual teaching. Administrators and luxury facilities account for most of the other spending. The real cause of these escalating costs is easy credit for tuition. There would simply be no big market for the current overpriced programs if people couldn't get loans regardless of outcomes. I would like creditors to have to prove how the students will pay for the median salary of a person with the same degree before loaning the money. You should not be able to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars for stupid stuff that will never pay off.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

vernon99 3y ago

That’s the only thing that bothers you? :) How about we outlaw the price discrimination described in the parent comment? I think everything else just pushed the conversation deeper in the weeds and does us all a disservice.

gnicholas 3y ago
So no more youth ticket prices, senior discounts, etc.? Price discrimination is a very commonly-used tactic, and it goes by many different names.
- desmosxxx 3y ago
  Nuance can be introduced. Allow aged based price discrimination but not descrimination that is based on actual income numbers?
- rgovostes 3y ago
  Senior discounts: When the median US senior citizen is significantly wealthier than younger adults, absolutely yes. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/28/americans-median-net-worth-by-age.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/28/americans-median-net-worth-b... France grants free museum admission to adults under 26, which strikes me as a better policy than charging the highest price to access cultural works to the people who (a) have the least earned wealth, (b) the least lifetime exposure to those things.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    Yep, I think senior discounts are partly/largely about willingness to pay, not ability to pay. For example, senior citizens aren't the target demographic for most movies. Theaters get full freight from the 18-45 crowd, who want to see the movies the most. Then they entice senior citizens to come watch movies that they don't love by giving them better pricing. Same applies for theme parks, where the target audience is young adults and families with small kids. I'm not defending any of this — just pointing out that price discrimination is sometimes about ATP, and sometimes about WTP.
    - anamax 3y ago
      Senior discounts are also used to smooth out/move usage. "Seniors pay 20% less for movie tickets at Tuesday at 1 pm" sells tickets that few people with jobs would buy, regardless of price.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    The deal with being a senior, your net worth is falling, not rising. You basically have whatever you earned and saved before 65 plus some social security. Somebody who is only worth only $300k at 70 and is pretty healthy is in a lot of trouble if they live to be 85. Some better social safety nets would make this less of a concern, but we really don’t have those.
- anon373839 3y ago
  Demand for university degrees is relatively inelastic, though, so people will do what they have to do (pay exorbitant tuition for their kids, take on exorbitant loans for themselves) to get access to the kind of life opportunities that elite degrees provide. That, in my mind, makes it more unseemly - especially since many of these schools don’t actually need the money.

rendang 3y ago

It's typically the opposite of what you say - the true expenses/student that a private university pays is much higher than even the richest kid pays (difference made up for by the endowment's income) So the better question is why they don't raise prices such that the rich kids have to pay the true full price & have more money for aid for the less-rich.

floor2 3y ago
No that's not the better question. If private universities are truly spending so irresponsibly and profligately that their sticker price isn't covering their expenses, then their entire administration should be thrown out and replaced. It's only incompetence or corruption that could excuse such costs.
- AgentOrange1234 3y ago
  Throwing out the entire administration and then only replacing a small fraction of it would work even better!
StressedDev 3y ago
I have a hard time believing this. Every course I took in college had at least 15 people and usually 30-50 people. Large classes like Calculus 1-2, Linear Algebra, and Differential Equations had at least 300 people. There is no way you cannot pay the salary + legitimate overhead for 1 profess, and 1-10 TAs with these class sizes. My guess is a lot of the money does not go to instruction but goes to administration, sports palaces (stadiums), luxury dorms, etc. Colleges used to be MUCH cheaper in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. The education was just as good but cost far less. The big problem with colleges today is they are "non-profit" in name only. Instead, of giving profits to shareholders, they are giving them to employees and insiders. This hurts students and the United States. However, colleges do not care because they, their employees, and friends benefit.
- wakawaka28 3y ago
  Sports more or less pays for itself in most cases and even brings in profits. That's why even public colleges have active sports programs. You are right about other luxury amenities. But even basic facilities cost pretty serious money, even if they are only built every 50-100 years or so. If I had to estimate, I'd say no school currently pays more than 25% of tuition on actual teaching. Administrators and luxury facilities account for most of the other spending. The real cause of these escalating costs is easy credit for tuition. There would simply be no big market for the current overpriced programs if people couldn't get loans regardless of outcomes. I would like creditors to have to prove how the students will pay for the median salary of a person with the same degree before loaning the money. You should not be able to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars for stupid stuff that will never pay off.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]