The New America: Elite Privates forever out of reach for UMC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Income isn't the only variable. Assets matter too, as well as a host of other factors (special situations such as substantial medical expenses, special needs child, etc.). Those who were both in a position to start saving early, and in fact did save early, may still find it possible.

If a college isn't affordable, then find another college. Elite privates are not the only way to skin the cat. No one is entitled to an elite private, nor is that necessary for success. There is always another way.

Now apply that logic to poor people and minorities. Let ‘em all go to community college, right?

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

you clearly don't know what poor means. Even CC is out of reach for the truly poor.

Ivies are out of reach for me at full price and I make $240k. So in the context of this discussion, I am poor.

Then don't go to an ivy. There are plenty of other more affordable schools for you. I would like to go to a fancy restaurant, but I can't afford or am unwilling to pay, then I go to a less fancy one. I still have a nice meal and I am happy. So what's the problem?

Is the fancy restaurant jacking up its prices to let some people eat for free, making it full price unattainable for this who otherwise might be able to afford it. The difference between the Ivys and the restaurant is that the Ivys are getting a huge tax break and are still increasing their tuition in amounts that way outpaces inflation. You're right, an Ivy education is not a necessity so maybe my tax dollars should not be supplementing tax breaks to provide select segments of society a free luxury. If as you say a state school is good enough for donut hole families, it's also good enough for poor families. There should be no tax exemption for Ivys, and the rich can fully fund the schools so their kids can go their. If my tax dollars aren't supplementing luxuries for others, then the fact that I can't afford the luxury doesn't offend me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Income isn't the only variable. Assets matter too, as well as a host of other factors (special situations such as substantial medical expenses, special needs child, etc.). Those who were both in a position to start saving early, and in fact did save early, may still find it possible.

If a college isn't affordable, then find another college. Elite privates are not the only way to skin the cat. No one is entitled to an elite private, nor is that necessary for success. There is always another way.

Now apply that logic to poor people and minorities. Let ‘em all go to community college, right?

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

you clearly don't know what poor means. Even CC is out of reach for the truly poor.

Ivies are out of reach for me at full price and I make $240k. So in the context of this discussion, I am poor.

Then don't go to an ivy. There are plenty of other more affordable schools for you. I would like to go to a fancy restaurant, but I can't afford or am unwilling to pay, then I go to a less fancy one. I still have a nice meal and I am happy. So what's the problem?

Is the fancy restaurant jacking up its prices to let some people eat for free, making it full price unattainable for this who otherwise might be able to afford it. The difference between the Ivys and the restaurant is that the Ivys are getting a huge tax break and are still increasing their tuition in amounts that way outpaces inflation. You're right, an Ivy education is not a necessity so maybe my tax dollars should not be supplementing tax breaks to provide select segments of society a free luxury. If as you say a state school is good enough for donut hole families, it's also good enough for poor families. There should be no tax exemption for Ivys, and the rich can fully fund the schools so their kids can go their. If my tax dollars aren't supplementing luxuries for others, then the fact that I can't afford the luxury doesn't offend me.

Maybe Senator Warren can get on this issue to help fund her free public college for everyone. Why are taxpayer dollars being diverted to luxury colleges in the form of tax exempt status. The increased revenue from the multi billion dollar endowments losing tax exempt status should help in some way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Is the fancy restaurant jacking up its prices to let some people eat for free, making it full price unattainable for this who otherwise might be able to afford it.

Another incredibly stupid and ignorant argument. Colleges lower prices for students with financial needs so they can get the students they WANT. It's not charitable.

The difference between the Ivys and the restaurant is that the Ivys are getting a huge tax break and are still increasing their tuition in amounts that way outpaces inflation.

"the Ivys are getting a huge tax break" Yeah so is every non-profit, including non-ivy colleges, the Red Cross, the corner church, and your local gun club. Ridiculous and misleading to imply "The Ivys" are getting some special consideration.

You're right, an Ivy education is not a necessity so maybe my tax dollars should not be supplementing tax breaks to provide select segments of society a free luxury. If as you say a state school is good enough for donut hole families, it's also good enough for poor families.

They are good enough for poor families. But why should poor kids go there when a better school wants them? (Oh, and PS, Einstein, state schools, especially directionals and such, are MOSTLY poor kids.)

There should be no tax exemption for Ivys, and the rich can fully fund the schools so their kids can go their.

There isn't a "tax exemption for Ivys". WTF are you thinking?

If my tax dollars aren't supplementing luxuries for others, then the fact that I can't afford the luxury doesn't offend me.

Yeah and I don't get free donuts, so no tax break for the Red Cross either! And I don't go to your church, so tax that MFer!

The difference is others think you CAN afford it. Who gets to decide if you do or not? Only you. No one is making you pay.

[Anonymous]

I went to high school in the early 80s, and even then $200k income wasn’t a lot. HS was $10k back then, which wasn’t what did well was, but it was a decent chunk of change for my parents.

[Anonymous]

The other thing is that the benefit of universities is not just to an individual that attends--the number of scientific discoveries that are required to be made public, the scholarship on key issues, policy and economic analyses.
Sure some academic scholarship may be arcane and esoteric, but in sum, universities have contributed a lot of to our understanding and functioning of the world. They train the people who make the world run. This idea of education as merely a private good, a private luxury is so problematic.

Private companies take that knowledge, design something based on it, patent it, keep it secret and charge a fortune. Their R&D is highly protected while university researchers are required to share everything. The US is getting a lot for it's fairly minimal investment in higher ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to high school in the early 80s, and even then $200k income wasn’t a lot. HS was $10k back then, which wasn’t what did well was, but it was a decent chunk of change for my parents.

No, it was a lot. But glad to see the UMC delusion about if they're rich or not is not a new invention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other thing is that the benefit of universities is not just to an individual that attends--the number of scientific discoveries that are required to be made public, the scholarship on key issues, policy and economic analyses.
Sure some academic scholarship may be arcane and esoteric, but in sum, universities have contributed a lot of to our understanding and functioning of the world. They train the people who make the world run. This idea of education as merely a private good, a private luxury is so problematic.

Private companies take that knowledge, design something based on it, patent it, keep it secret and charge a fortune. Their R&D is highly protected while university researchers are required to share everything. The US is getting a lot for it's fairly minimal investment in higher ed.

True, but no reason that these need to be private. In most of the world the top universities are in the public sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is the fancy restaurant jacking up its prices to let some people eat for free, making it full price unattainable for this who otherwise might be able to afford it.

Another incredibly stupid and ignorant argument. Colleges lower prices for students with financial needs so they can get the students they WANT. It's not charitable.

The difference between the Ivys and the restaurant is that the Ivys are getting a huge tax break and are still increasing their tuition in amounts that way outpaces inflation.

"the Ivys are getting a huge tax break" Yeah so is every non-profit, including non-ivy colleges, the Red Cross, the corner church, and your local gun club. Ridiculous and misleading to imply "The Ivys" are getting some special consideration.

You're right, an Ivy education is not a necessity so maybe my tax dollars should not be supplementing tax breaks to provide select segments of society a free luxury. If as you say a state school is good enough for donut hole families, it's also good enough for poor families.

They are good enough for poor families. But why should poor kids go there when a better school wants them? (Oh, and PS, Einstein, state schools, especially directionals and such, are MOSTLY poor kids.)

There should be no tax exemption for Ivys, and the rich can fully fund the schools so their kids can go their.

There isn't a "tax exemption for Ivys". WTF are you thinking?

If my tax dollars aren't supplementing luxuries for others, then the fact that I can't afford the luxury doesn't offend me.

Yeah and I don't get free donuts, so no tax break for the Red Cross either! And I don't go to your church, so tax that MFer!

The difference is others think you CAN afford it. Who gets to decide if you do or not? Only you. No one is making you pay.

There is a huge difference between organizations that provide a luxury and those that provide for those in need like the Red Cross. Ivys fall into the former category. Again, no need for our tax dollars to support funding luxury items. And Ivys are tax exempt organizations, I didn't call the tax a specific "Ivy Tax Exemption," I merely stated there should be no tax exemptions for Ivys, meaning the should not be entitled to tax exempt status. And yes, I (as a taxpayer) am being made to indirectly pay for Ivys by the mere fact that our treasury is supplementing them by not charging taxes on their general income and their income and capital gains from their huge endowments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thing is that the benefit of universities is not just to an individual that attends--the number of scientific discoveries that are required to be made public, the scholarship on key issues, policy and economic analyses.
Sure some academic scholarship may be arcane and esoteric, but in sum, universities have contributed a lot of to our understanding and functioning of the world. They train the people who make the world run. This idea of education as merely a private good, a private luxury is so problematic.

Private companies take that knowledge, design something based on it, patent it, keep it secret and charge a fortune. Their R&D is highly protected while university researchers are required to share everything. The US is getting a lot for it's fairly minimal investment in higher ed.

True, but no reason that these need to be private. In most of the world the top universities are in the public sector.

I think that the combination of top private and public universities in the US is critical to its competitive success. That some schools aren't as subject to the whims of govt helps protect higher ed overall in the longterm. The US has a really successful higher ed environment that is serving the country well in terms of research productivity, community advantages, education of students. The issues I see are: the burden of the cost on the individual for both private and public and the resulting inequalities it creates, the tendency to view higher education as a private rather than a private and public good, and the de-investment in public education from state governments. I think we should focus on that--the higher ed system in the US is an amazing resource--the number of quality schools across a large territory that serves a wide range of individuals is unmatched in the world--it is one of our greatest competitive resources if we manage it well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is the fancy restaurant jacking up its prices to let some people eat for free, making it full price unattainable for this who otherwise might be able to afford it.

Another incredibly stupid and ignorant argument. Colleges lower prices for students with financial needs so they can get the students they WANT. It's not charitable.

The difference between the Ivys and the restaurant is that the Ivys are getting a huge tax break and are still increasing their tuition in amounts that way outpaces inflation.

"the Ivys are getting a huge tax break" Yeah so is every non-profit, including non-ivy colleges, the Red Cross, the corner church, and your local gun club. Ridiculous and misleading to imply "The Ivys" are getting some special consideration.

You're right, an Ivy education is not a necessity so maybe my tax dollars should not be supplementing tax breaks to provide select segments of society a free luxury. If as you say a state school is good enough for donut hole families, it's also good enough for poor families.

They are good enough for poor families. But why should poor kids go there when a better school wants them? (Oh, and PS, Einstein, state schools, especially directionals and such, are MOSTLY poor kids.)

There should be no tax exemption for Ivys, and the rich can fully fund the schools so their kids can go their.

There isn't a "tax exemption for Ivys". WTF are you thinking?

If my tax dollars aren't supplementing luxuries for others, then the fact that I can't afford the luxury doesn't offend me.

Yeah and I don't get free donuts, so no tax break for the Red Cross either! And I don't go to your church, so tax that MFer!

The difference is others think you CAN afford it. Who gets to decide if you do or not? Only you. No one is making you pay.

There is a huge difference between organizations that provide a luxury and those that provide for those in need like the Red Cross. Ivys fall into the former category. Again, no need for our tax dollars to support funding luxury items. And Ivys are tax exempt organizations, I didn't call the tax a specific "Ivy Tax Exemption," I merely stated there should be no tax exemptions for Ivys, meaning the should not be entitled to tax exempt status. And yes, I (as a taxpayer) am being made to indirectly pay for Ivys by the mere fact that our treasury is supplementing them by not charging taxes on their general income and their income and capital gains from their huge endowments.

Education is a luxury item?

Only the Ivy colleges should be taxed?

You ignore the points about gun and country clubs? How do those provide for people in need?

This is where I get off the bus. You are a guy with some kind of anti-ivy agenda and I don't want to understand why. Good luck to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other thing is that the benefit of universities is not just to an individual that attends--the number of scientific discoveries that are required to be made public, the scholarship on key issues, policy and economic analyses.
Sure some academic scholarship may be arcane and esoteric, but in sum, universities have contributed a lot of to our understanding and functioning of the world. They train the people who make the world run. This idea of education as merely a private good, a private luxury is so problematic.

Private companies take that knowledge, design something based on it, patent it, keep it secret and charge a fortune. Their R&D is highly protected while university researchers are required to share everything. The US is getting a lot for it's fairly minimal investment in higher ed.

An education at $80,000 a year is a private luxury. Many public universities that charge way less have incredible research components. Education is not a private good, but education at $80,000 is a private good. These universities have increased their tuition well beyond inflation, despite the benefits they receive from their tax exempt status. I think it's time to reassess whether they are providing benefits to society as a whole that make them worthy of their tax exempt status. On this thread it was pointed out that the COA at one university was about $8,000min 1979, adjustment for inflation that would be around $29,000 in today's dollars, but the COA now is actually $80,000. During that time they have stockpiled endowments in the billions, in no significant part due to being able to grow the endowments tax free. Why do we continue to provide tax exempt status so they can price gouge and amass huge endowments. Those are reasonable questions to ask, despite the visceral reaction to dismiss those questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An education at $80,000 a year is a private luxury. Many public universities that charge way less have incredible research components. Education is not a private good, but education at $80,000 is a private good.

And how did you decide that was the number?

These universities have increased their tuition well beyond inflation, despite the benefits they receive from their tax exempt status. I think it's time to reassess whether they are providing benefits to society as a whole that make them worthy of their tax exempt status. On this thread it was pointed out that the COA at one university was about $8,000min 1979, adjustment for inflation that would be around $29,000 in today's dollars, but the COA now is actually $80,000. During that time they have stockpiled endowments in the billions, in no significant part due to being able to grow the endowments tax free. Why do we continue to provide tax exempt status so they can price gouge and amass huge endowments. Those are reasonable questions to ask, despite the visceral reaction to dismiss those questions.

Ahh, you're that guy. That's how.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Income isn't the only variable. Assets matter too, as well as a host of other factors (special situations such as substantial medical expenses, special needs child, etc.). Those who were both in a position to start saving early, and in fact did save early, may still find it possible.

If a college isn't affordable, then find another college. Elite privates are not the only way to skin the cat. No one is entitled to an elite private, nor is that necessary for success. There is always another way.

Now apply that logic to poor people and minorities. Let ‘em all go to community college, right?

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

you clearly don't know what poor means. Even CC is out of reach for the truly poor.

Ivies are out of reach for me at full price and I make $240k. So in the context of this discussion, I am poor.

Then don't go to an ivy. There are plenty of other more affordable schools for you. I would like to go to a fancy restaurant, but I can't afford or am unwilling to pay, then I go to a less fancy one. I still have a nice meal and I am happy. So what's the problem?

Is the fancy restaurant jacking up its prices to let some people eat for free, making it full price unattainable for this who otherwise might be able to afford it. The difference between the Ivys and the restaurant is that the Ivys are getting a huge tax break and are still increasing their tuition in amounts that way outpaces inflation. You're right, an Ivy education is not a necessity so maybe my tax dollars should not be supplementing tax breaks to provide select segments of society a free luxury. If as you say a state school is good enough for donut hole families, it's also good enough for poor families. There should be no tax exemption for Ivys, and the rich can fully fund the schools so their kids can go their. If my tax dollars aren't supplementing luxuries for others, then the fact that I can't afford the luxury doesn't offend me.

In other words, if I can't eat there, burn the place down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is the fancy restaurant jacking up its prices to let some people eat for free, making it full price unattainable for this who otherwise might be able to afford it.

Another incredibly stupid and ignorant argument. Colleges lower prices for students with financial needs so they can get the students they WANT. It's not charitable.

The difference between the Ivys and the restaurant is that the Ivys are getting a huge tax break and are still increasing their tuition in amounts that way outpaces inflation.

"the Ivys are getting a huge tax break" Yeah so is every non-profit, including non-ivy colleges, the Red Cross, the corner church, and your local gun club. Ridiculous and misleading to imply "The Ivys" are getting some special consideration.

You're right, an Ivy education is not a necessity so maybe my tax dollars should not be supplementing tax breaks to provide select segments of society a free luxury. If as you say a state school is good enough for donut hole families, it's also good enough for poor families.

They are good enough for poor families. But why should poor kids go there when a better school wants them? (Oh, and PS, Einstein, state schools, especially directionals and such, are MOSTLY poor kids.)

There should be no tax exemption for Ivys, and the rich can fully fund the schools so their kids can go their.

There isn't a "tax exemption for Ivys". WTF are you thinking?

If my tax dollars aren't supplementing luxuries for others, then the fact that I can't afford the luxury doesn't offend me.

Yeah and I don't get free donuts, so no tax break for the Red Cross either! And I don't go to your church, so tax that MFer!

The difference is others think you CAN afford it. Who gets to decide if you do or not? Only you. No one is making you pay.

There is a huge difference between organizations that provide a luxury and those that provide for those in need like the Red Cross. Ivys fall into the former category. Again, no need for our tax dollars to support funding luxury items. And Ivys are tax exempt organizations, I didn't call the tax a specific "Ivy Tax Exemption," I merely stated there should be no tax exemptions for Ivys, meaning the should not be entitled to tax exempt status. And yes, I (as a taxpayer) am being made to indirectly pay for Ivys by the mere fact that our treasury is supplementing them by not charging taxes on their general income and their income and capital gains from their huge endowments.

Education is a luxury [b]item?
[/b]
Only the Ivy colleges should be taxed?

You ignore the points about gun and country clubs? How do those provide for people in need?

This is where I get off the bus. You are a guy with some kind of anti-ivy agenda and I don't want to understand why. Good luck to you.

Yes an Ivy education is a luxury that no one is entitled to at $80,000 per year and increasing--as is so often pointed out to anyone on this board who says they can't afford it. You can't have it both ways. I'm not anti-Ivy, I'm anti the exponentially increasing cost of tuition at these institutions. Why isn't some portion of their partially taxpayer funded (through tax free growth) endowments being used to hold costs down. I'm anti greed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Income isn't the only variable. Assets matter too, as well as a host of other factors (special situations such as substantial medical expenses, special needs child, etc.). Those who were both in a position to start saving early, and in fact did save early, may still find it possible.

If a college isn't affordable, then find another college. Elite privates are not the only way to skin the cat. No one is entitled to an elite private, nor is that necessary for success. There is always another way.

Now apply that logic to poor people and minorities. Let ‘em all go to community college, right?

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

you clearly don't know what poor means. Even CC is out of reach for the truly poor.

Ivies are out of reach for me at full price and I make $240k. So in the context of this discussion, I am poor.

Then don't go to an ivy. There are plenty of other more affordable schools for you. I would like to go to a fancy restaurant, but I can't afford or am unwilling to pay, then I go to a less fancy one. I still have a nice meal and I am happy. So what's the problem?

Is the fancy restaurant jacking up its prices to let some people eat for free, making it full price unattainable for this who otherwise might be able to afford it. The difference between the Ivys and the restaurant is that the Ivys are getting a huge tax break and are still increasing their tuition in amounts that way outpaces inflation. You're right, an Ivy education is not a necessity so maybe my tax dollars should not be supplementing tax breaks to provide select segments of society a free luxury. If as you say a state school is good enough for donut hole families, it's also good enough for poor families. There should be no tax exemption for Ivys, and the rich can fully fund the schools so their kids can go their. If my tax dollars aren't supplementing luxuries for others, then the fact that I can't afford the luxury doesn't offend me.

In other words, if I can't eat there, burn the place down.

No. I'm saying let them charge luxury prices and build their endowments without taxpayer handouts.