14 ms·

LoL - why it makes any sense to do this for universities and not billionaires is beyond me, but I'm sure half the country can explain it to me like I'm 5.

pqtyw 2y ago
Doesn't this tax only apply to "net investment income"/realized gains? Billionaires technically already have to pay it at a higher rate. And well they generally do? I mean when they personally actually sell stock and or receive dividends and interest.
- peterbecich 2y ago
  Agreed. For the revenue tax activists want from billionaires, it would necessitate a wealth tax, which I believe is unconstitutional. The non-profit tax exemption fight is about "income taxes" which billionaires already have to pay (but avoid). So it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - nrclark 2y ago
    what is unconstitutional about a wealth tax?
    - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
      It’s not totally clear if it would be but here’s a summary: https://city-countyobserver.com/the-constitutionality-of-a-wealth-tax-a-legal-analysis/ https://city-countyobserver.com/the-constitutionality-of-a-w...
    - peterbecich 2y ago
      I'm not a lawyer but my reasoning is this: - as far as I know, double taxation by any given entity (Federal Gov) is unconstitutional - a given dollar is taxed once as income. A federal wealth tax on the remainder of that dollar would be double taxation. That does not prohibit the Federal Gov from taxing once, and your residential state from taxing you a second time. There are other arguments about "direct taxation" I don't fully understand.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        "Double taxation" is absolutely constitutional. Tons of things are double, triple, quadruple and more taxed. I make a W2 salary. I pay federal income taxes on it. I pay FICA taxes on it. My employer pays payroll taxes on it. I might pay state income taxes on it. One event, tons of taxes. I take that quadruple taxed money and buy a dinner with a beer. Sales taxes on the overall sale, additional taxes on the alcohol, additional sales tax riders because I bought it in the touristy night life area. Triple taxes on my quadruple taxes, good lord! Unconstitutional! Worthless phrase, "double taxation". > That does not prohibit the Federal Gov from taxing once, and your residential state from taxing you a second time. Once again, the several different taxes applied to my salary income. Then on that I go buy a gallon of gasoline, uh oh, federal gas taxes on that. Or I buy a plane ticket and that gets Federal Excise Tax (7.5% of the base fare), the Federal Segment Fee (currently $5.20 per segment), the TSA Security Fee ($5.60 per passenger), and more. Oof, "double taxation"! Even at the federal level!
    - rufus_foreman 2y ago
      >> what is unconstitutional about a wealth tax? Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken" A wealth tax is generally considered to be a direct tax. If you wanted to enact one at the federal level, my understanding is that it would have to be done in proportion to the census. So, given that Mississippi is around 1% of the total US population, Mississippi would have to pay 1% of the wealth tax. Mississippi is the poorest US state, so that would be a very regressive tax. An income tax is also considered to be a direct tax, that's why it took an amendment to the Constitution to enact one. The Constitution applies to taxes at the federal level, not state. States could enact a wealth tax the same way they enact property taxes now (depending on their state Constitutions). The problem for them is that wealth is a bit more mobile than property. And yes there are arguments about what a direct tax really meant in the language at the time the Constitution was written, there are arguments that the income tax should have been legal without an amendment. But that's not how it went down.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > it would necessitate a wealth tax, which I believe is unconstitutional I take it you haven't heard of property taxes.
    - peterbecich 2y ago
      I'm not a lawyer but I do not consider a property tax to be the same thing as a wealth tax. If I own a house or condominium in San Francisco, at a fundamental level I do not own the land or space the residence is sitting on. "Ownership" is basically a lease of the parcel from the city. The house structure is an improvement on leased land; this ties the property tax calculation to the value of the structure. The property tax is the rent on the land/space. I believe this is the constitutional justification for property taxes (no opposition from me).
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > If I own a house or condominium in San Francisco, at a fundamental level I do not own the land or space the residence is sitting on. "Ownership" is basically a lease of the parcel from the city. It's interesting to me that medieval European peasants "renting" the land they farmed had much stronger ownership rights than Americans who "own" land do today. > I believe this is the constitutional justification for property taxes It isn't. The constitutional justification for property taxes is that they're assessed by the states, not by the federal government. The federal government is free to assess property taxes too, except that it must apportion them between the states: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C4-1/ALDE_00013592/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C4-1/... > An 1861 federal tax on real property illustrates how the rule of apportionment operates. Congress enacted a direct tax of $20 million. After apportioning the direct tax among the states, territories, and the District of Columbia, the State of New York was liable for the largest portion of the tax [...] What this meant was that the federal government delegated tax quotas to the states and the states were responsible for collecting them as they saw fit.
        killjoywashere 2y ago
- andoando 2y ago
  Most of the wealth being in stock is really tricky. You can't really tax stock ownership, but at the same time stock can be leveraged against business deals (Musk for example bought Twitter with largely stock, without having to sell it first and therefore being subject to tax), and you can take out loans with stock as collateral.
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    It's not that tricky. All you have to do is make it a taxable event to collateralize stock.
    - phkahler 2y ago
      How? That makes little sense to me from an implementation standpoint.
      - NewJazz 2y ago
        Lenders would have to report loan origination for secured loans where some specific asset classes are acting as the collateral.
      - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
        If I get something of worth, non-related to the stock/ownership, for the current value on my stock/ownership, I should pay taxes on that amount. I am using the stocks value to gain something. If I take out a loan for businesses needs, that is in the interest of the thing I own. If I take out a loan to buy a separate thing, I have leveraged the current value and have therefor realized the current value and should pay accordingly.
      - arrosenberg 2y ago
        When I bought my home I had to sell $XXX,XXX of stock to make the down payment. If Jeff Bezos wants to buy the same house, he would use a line of credit from the bank, collateralized by his Amazon shares (or whatever source of wealth) and pay with that. I paid 15% in long-term capital gains, he pays 0%. Under my plan, he would pay 15% LTCG for collateralizing his stock,. If I had to pay it, then it's entirely fair and reasonable that we expect him to pay his fair share too.
gaze 2y ago
if you hate universities it makes obvious sense
- gosub100 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - esalman 2y ago
    Do you cut off your head when you have a headache?
    - gosub100 2y ago
      Chronic migraines do lead to suicide in extreme cases.
      - croes 2y ago
        Do you consider that a cure for migraines or is it just a strawman?
    - vixen99 2y ago
      You think this is a good analogy?
      - esalman 2y ago
        Why not?
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Pretty good metaphor for the current happenings, yes.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
palmotea 2y ago
>> College endowments are typically tax-exempt, but a 2017 law imposed a 1.4% tax on investment income for a small group of wealthy private universities. > LoL - why it makes any sense to do this for universities and not billionaires is beyond me, but I'm sure half the country can explain it to me like I'm 5. Because they already do it for billionaires: unlike university endowments, billionaire investment income is not tax-exempt by default, it's already subject to income tax [1]. [1] At least theoretically, ignoring the loopholes and tax-dodges billionaires can take advantage of with literal armies of accountants.
VincentEvans 2y ago
… or churches
hnburnsy 2y ago
Billionaires pay 37% or 20% on their investment gains, can't really explain it to a 5 year old because congress and the IRS make it complex.
- radicaldreamer 2y ago
  They don't pay anywhere close to that, there are tons of tricks to avoid paying that % on gains and the more money you have the more leeway for loopholes. Very relevant in startup ecosystem as well (look up exchange funds, opportunity zones etc.)
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    40% of Federal income tax revenue comes from the top 1%.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      What percent of all income do they make? Edit: it's an honest question. Maybe the top 1% paying 40% of all income taxes is too much tax. Maybe it's not enough. Without knowing how much of all the income they make it's a meaningless number.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        20%. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before-tax-wid https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before...
      - crmd 2y ago
        According to the Tax Foundation[1], for tax year 2021, the top 1% of U.S. earners—those with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $682,577 or more—accounted for 26.3% of total AGI and paid 45.8% of all federal income taxes. My personal opinion is that income tax should be more progressive, but I know that plenty of smart people disagree on that. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...
radicaldreamer 2y ago
Politics of resentment where elite colleges and universities are unjust scams and billionaires are just the pinnacle of self actualization.
WalterBright 2y ago
Billionaires do pay income tax on investment income.
- sunflowerfly 2y ago
  Not at rates anywhere near tax rates on wages of a middle class worker.
  - rtp4me 2y ago
    Because investment income is not the same as wage income. Nor should they be.
    - brewdad 2y ago
      Why not? Money is fungible. A dollar is a dollar. Why should investment dollars be taxed less than those earned through the sweat of one's brow?
      - rtp4me 2y ago
        Mainly to encourage people to save their money. You know, "work smarter, not harder"...
        t-3 2y ago
        Financial policy is very specifically against people saving their money though - that's why a certain level of inflation is considered desirable to mainstream economists. Spending and borrowing is heavily encouraged at all levels, while investment opportunities are gated based on wealth and income to prevent the poor from being able to "work smarter".
        WalterBright 2y ago
        > investment opportunities are gated based on wealth and income Anyone can install robinhood on their phone and trade using their credit card. > Financial policy is very specifically against people saving their money No, it isn't. People who save money are terrified of risk. There's nothing stopping anyone from investing the money. > that's why a certain level of inflation is considered desirable to mainstream economists That's the excuse the government makes to inflate the money. You'll never see a politician point out the real reason for inflation. It's so they can spend it without raising taxes, but it does cause inflation, and inflation has to be blamed on something else. Anything but the truth.
rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- ascendantlogic 2y ago
  I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
  - totalkikedeath 2y ago
    [dead]
zeroonetwothree 2y ago
Billionaires do not get a tax exemption
- killjoywashere 2y ago
  No but their earnings are mainly in their companies, and those can hire fleets of tax attorneys and accountants to crush their tax burden. Once the money is in stocks, it doesn't get taxed unless you draw on it, but the billionaires can use strategies like buy, borrow, die (which last I checked only really works if you're north of ~ $300M) to avoid personal taxes.
- Retric 2y ago
  Billionaires benefit most from the largest tax exceptions. No tricky accounting needed it’s baked blatantly into the tax code. Long term capital gains are specifically lower than short term capital gains. Further gains are only taxed on sale allowing a lifetime of growth to pass to the next generation tax free. They also operate at a scale where many tax breaks become viable. CEO owners aren’t paying themselves nominal salaries because they are actually working for free. Creating a shell company to own your 50k car isn’t useful but it’s damn well worth it if you’re buying a 50+m dollar yacht for personal use. Turning depreciation into a nominal loss offsetting capital gains etc. Meanwhile people of lesser means get stuck with all kinds of crap like a 10% early withdrawal penalty on 401k plans.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Retric 2y ago
      If only governments weren’t so damn useful we could all avoid taxes. Instead it’s mostly a question around who pays what share, and there’s some massive winners and losers.
Braxton1980 2y ago
The current admin is openly anti-intellectual. Edit: "We need to attack the universities in this country" "The professors are the enemy" Specific clip https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/1ichg58/yale_grad_vp_vance_states_that_professors/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/1ichg58/ya... If you want the full speech it's on YT so if you reply with "context" you should back that up
- imgabe 2y ago
  Current universities are openly anti intellectual.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    What evidence do you have of this?
    - imgabe 2y ago
      What evidence does the parent comment provide?
      - Braxton1980 2y ago
        Just edited my comment. How many quotes do you need? I can supply many
        imgabe 2y ago
        [flagged]
        anonymars 2y ago
        Could you perhaps spell out your definition of anti-intellectual for us then? > Current universities are openly anti intellectual.
aikinai 2y ago
I’m not half the country, but I can explain it to you. Billionaires already pay tax on investment income. Universities are exempt but now the proposal is that they pay as well, just like individuals (including billionaires) and other profit-making groups.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Why do you expect a billionaire to steal from billionaires? a portion of non-essential stealing comes from respct, and of course these billionaires are all a part of the same club. The other lens is simple as well: big fish don't go after the other big fish. That just ends in two hurt fish and no food. Trump thought he was going after a small fry and underestimated the response. just because Columbia folded doesn't mean all universities will. lens #3: this clip explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbWnJGlyMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbWnJGlyMU He's a bully but if everyone realizes they outnumber (and outmatch him) he loses his power).

pqtyw 2y ago

Doesn't this tax only apply to "net investment income"/realized gains? Billionaires technically already have to pay it at a higher rate. And well they generally do? I mean when they personally actually sell stock and or receive dividends and interest.

peterbecich 2y ago
Agreed. For the revenue tax activists want from billionaires, it would necessitate a wealth tax, which I believe is unconstitutional. The non-profit tax exemption fight is about "income taxes" which billionaires already have to pay (but avoid). So it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nrclark 2y ago
  what is unconstitutional about a wealth tax?
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    It’s not totally clear if it would be but here’s a summary: https://city-countyobserver.com/the-constitutionality-of-a-wealth-tax-a-legal-analysis/ https://city-countyobserver.com/the-constitutionality-of-a-w...
  - peterbecich 2y ago
    I'm not a lawyer but my reasoning is this: - as far as I know, double taxation by any given entity (Federal Gov) is unconstitutional - a given dollar is taxed once as income. A federal wealth tax on the remainder of that dollar would be double taxation. That does not prohibit the Federal Gov from taxing once, and your residential state from taxing you a second time. There are other arguments about "direct taxation" I don't fully understand.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      "Double taxation" is absolutely constitutional. Tons of things are double, triple, quadruple and more taxed. I make a W2 salary. I pay federal income taxes on it. I pay FICA taxes on it. My employer pays payroll taxes on it. I might pay state income taxes on it. One event, tons of taxes. I take that quadruple taxed money and buy a dinner with a beer. Sales taxes on the overall sale, additional taxes on the alcohol, additional sales tax riders because I bought it in the touristy night life area. Triple taxes on my quadruple taxes, good lord! Unconstitutional! Worthless phrase, "double taxation". > That does not prohibit the Federal Gov from taxing once, and your residential state from taxing you a second time. Once again, the several different taxes applied to my salary income. Then on that I go buy a gallon of gasoline, uh oh, federal gas taxes on that. Or I buy a plane ticket and that gets Federal Excise Tax (7.5% of the base fare), the Federal Segment Fee (currently $5.20 per segment), the TSA Security Fee ($5.60 per passenger), and more. Oof, "double taxation"! Even at the federal level!
  - rufus_foreman 2y ago
    >> what is unconstitutional about a wealth tax? Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken" A wealth tax is generally considered to be a direct tax. If you wanted to enact one at the federal level, my understanding is that it would have to be done in proportion to the census. So, given that Mississippi is around 1% of the total US population, Mississippi would have to pay 1% of the wealth tax. Mississippi is the poorest US state, so that would be a very regressive tax. An income tax is also considered to be a direct tax, that's why it took an amendment to the Constitution to enact one. The Constitution applies to taxes at the federal level, not state. States could enact a wealth tax the same way they enact property taxes now (depending on their state Constitutions). The problem for them is that wealth is a bit more mobile than property. And yes there are arguments about what a direct tax really meant in the language at the time the Constitution was written, there are arguments that the income tax should have been legal without an amendment. But that's not how it went down.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > it would necessitate a wealth tax, which I believe is unconstitutional I take it you haven't heard of property taxes.
  - peterbecich 2y ago
    I'm not a lawyer but I do not consider a property tax to be the same thing as a wealth tax. If I own a house or condominium in San Francisco, at a fundamental level I do not own the land or space the residence is sitting on. "Ownership" is basically a lease of the parcel from the city. The house structure is an improvement on leased land; this ties the property tax calculation to the value of the structure. The property tax is the rent on the land/space. I believe this is the constitutional justification for property taxes (no opposition from me).
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > If I own a house or condominium in San Francisco, at a fundamental level I do not own the land or space the residence is sitting on. "Ownership" is basically a lease of the parcel from the city. It's interesting to me that medieval European peasants "renting" the land they farmed had much stronger ownership rights than Americans who "own" land do today. > I believe this is the constitutional justification for property taxes It isn't. The constitutional justification for property taxes is that they're assessed by the states, not by the federal government. The federal government is free to assess property taxes too, except that it must apportion them between the states: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C4-1/ALDE_00013592/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C4-1/... > An 1861 federal tax on real property illustrates how the rule of apportionment operates. Congress enacted a direct tax of $20 million. After apportioning the direct tax among the states, territories, and the District of Columbia, the State of New York was liable for the largest portion of the tax [...] What this meant was that the federal government delegated tax quotas to the states and the states were responsible for collecting them as they saw fit.
      - killjoywashere 2y ago
andoando 2y ago
Most of the wealth being in stock is really tricky. You can't really tax stock ownership, but at the same time stock can be leveraged against business deals (Musk for example bought Twitter with largely stock, without having to sell it first and therefore being subject to tax), and you can take out loans with stock as collateral.
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  It's not that tricky. All you have to do is make it a taxable event to collateralize stock.
  - phkahler 2y ago
    How? That makes little sense to me from an implementation standpoint.
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      Lenders would have to report loan origination for secured loans where some specific asset classes are acting as the collateral.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      If I get something of worth, non-related to the stock/ownership, for the current value on my stock/ownership, I should pay taxes on that amount. I am using the stocks value to gain something. If I take out a loan for businesses needs, that is in the interest of the thing I own. If I take out a loan to buy a separate thing, I have leveraged the current value and have therefor realized the current value and should pay accordingly.
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      When I bought my home I had to sell $XXX,XXX of stock to make the down payment. If Jeff Bezos wants to buy the same house, he would use a line of credit from the bank, collateralized by his Amazon shares (or whatever source of wealth) and pay with that. I paid 15% in long-term capital gains, he pays 0%. Under my plan, he would pay 15% LTCG for collateralizing his stock,. If I had to pay it, then it's entirely fair and reasonable that we expect him to pay his fair share too.

gaze 2y ago

if you hate universities it makes obvious sense

gosub100 2y ago
[flagged]
- esalman 2y ago
  Do you cut off your head when you have a headache?
  - gosub100 2y ago
    Chronic migraines do lead to suicide in extreme cases.
    - croes 2y ago
      Do you consider that a cure for migraines or is it just a strawman?
  - vixen99 2y ago
    You think this is a good analogy?
    - esalman 2y ago
      Why not?
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Pretty good metaphor for the current happenings, yes.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

palmotea 2y ago

>> College endowments are typically tax-exempt, but a 2017 law imposed a 1.4% tax on investment income for a small group of wealthy private universities. > LoL - why it makes any sense to do this for universities and not billionaires is beyond me, but I'm sure half the country can explain it to me like I'm 5. Because they already do it for billionaires: unlike university endowments, billionaire investment income is not tax-exempt by default, it's already subject to income tax [1]. [1] At least theoretically, ignoring the loopholes and tax-dodges billionaires can take advantage of with literal armies of accountants.

VincentEvans 2y ago

… or churches

hnburnsy 2y ago

Billionaires pay 37% or 20% on their investment gains, can't really explain it to a 5 year old because congress and the IRS make it complex.

radicaldreamer 2y ago
They don't pay anywhere close to that, there are tons of tricks to avoid paying that % on gains and the more money you have the more leeway for loopholes. Very relevant in startup ecosystem as well (look up exchange funds, opportunity zones etc.)
- WalterBright 2y ago
  40% of Federal income tax revenue comes from the top 1%.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    What percent of all income do they make? Edit: it's an honest question. Maybe the top 1% paying 40% of all income taxes is too much tax. Maybe it's not enough. Without knowing how much of all the income they make it's a meaningless number.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      20%. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before-tax-wid https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/income-share-top-1-before...
    - crmd 2y ago
      According to the Tax Foundation[1], for tax year 2021, the top 1% of U.S. earners—those with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $682,577 or more—accounted for 26.3% of total AGI and paid 45.8% of all federal income taxes. My personal opinion is that income tax should be more progressive, but I know that plenty of smart people disagree on that. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in...

radicaldreamer 2y ago

Politics of resentment where elite colleges and universities are unjust scams and billionaires are just the pinnacle of self actualization.

WalterBright 2y ago

Billionaires do pay income tax on investment income.

sunflowerfly 2y ago
Not at rates anywhere near tax rates on wages of a middle class worker.
- rtp4me 2y ago
  Because investment income is not the same as wage income. Nor should they be.
  - brewdad 2y ago
    Why not? Money is fungible. A dollar is a dollar. Why should investment dollars be taxed less than those earned through the sweat of one's brow?
    - rtp4me 2y ago
      Mainly to encourage people to save their money. You know, "work smarter, not harder"...
      - t-3 2y ago
        Financial policy is very specifically against people saving their money though - that's why a certain level of inflation is considered desirable to mainstream economists. Spending and borrowing is heavily encouraged at all levels, while investment opportunities are gated based on wealth and income to prevent the poor from being able to "work smarter".
        WalterBright 2y ago
        > investment opportunities are gated based on wealth and income Anyone can install robinhood on their phone and trade using their credit card. > Financial policy is very specifically against people saving their money No, it isn't. People who save money are terrified of risk. There's nothing stopping anyone from investing the money. > that's why a certain level of inflation is considered desirable to mainstream economists That's the excuse the government makes to inflate the money. You'll never see a politician point out the real reason for inflation. It's so they can spend it without raising taxes, but it does cause inflation, and inflation has to be blamed on something else. Anything but the truth.

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

ascendantlogic 2y ago
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
- totalkikedeath 2y ago
  [dead]

zeroonetwothree 2y ago

Billionaires do not get a tax exemption

killjoywashere 2y ago
No but their earnings are mainly in their companies, and those can hire fleets of tax attorneys and accountants to crush their tax burden. Once the money is in stocks, it doesn't get taxed unless you draw on it, but the billionaires can use strategies like buy, borrow, die (which last I checked only really works if you're north of ~ $300M) to avoid personal taxes.
Retric 2y ago
Billionaires benefit most from the largest tax exceptions. No tricky accounting needed it’s baked blatantly into the tax code. Long term capital gains are specifically lower than short term capital gains. Further gains are only taxed on sale allowing a lifetime of growth to pass to the next generation tax free. They also operate at a scale where many tax breaks become viable. CEO owners aren’t paying themselves nominal salaries because they are actually working for free. Creating a shell company to own your 50k car isn’t useful but it’s damn well worth it if you’re buying a 50+m dollar yacht for personal use. Turning depreciation into a nominal loss offsetting capital gains etc. Meanwhile people of lesser means get stuck with all kinds of crap like a 10% early withdrawal penalty on 401k plans.
- gosub100 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Retric 2y ago
    If only governments weren’t so damn useful we could all avoid taxes. Instead it’s mostly a question around who pays what share, and there’s some massive winners and losers.

Braxton1980 2y ago

The current admin is openly anti-intellectual. Edit: "We need to attack the universities in this country" "The professors are the enemy" Specific clip https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/1ichg58/yale_grad_vp_vance_states_that_professors/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/1ichg58/ya... If you want the full speech it's on YT so if you reply with "context" you should back that up

imgabe 2y ago
Current universities are openly anti intellectual.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  What evidence do you have of this?
  - imgabe 2y ago
    What evidence does the parent comment provide?
    - Braxton1980 2y ago
      Just edited my comment. How many quotes do you need? I can supply many
      - imgabe 2y ago
        [flagged]
        anonymars 2y ago
        Could you perhaps spell out your definition of anti-intellectual for us then? > Current universities are openly anti intellectual.

aikinai 2y ago

I’m not half the country, but I can explain it to you. Billionaires already pay tax on investment income. Universities are exempt but now the proposal is that they pay as well, just like individuals (including billionaires) and other profit-making groups.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

Why do you expect a billionaire to steal from billionaires? a portion of non-essential stealing comes from respct, and of course these billionaires are all a part of the same club. The other lens is simple as well: big fish don't go after the other big fish. That just ends in two hurt fish and no food. Trump thought he was going after a small fry and underestimated the response. just because Columbia folded doesn't mean all universities will. lens #3: this clip explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbWnJGlyMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbWnJGlyMU He's a bully but if everyone realizes they outnumber (and outmatch him) he loses his power).