Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Seems like a win for everyone!
Seems like it makes the endowment tax arbitrary stupid nonsense. Don't tax Princeton but tax MIT. Don't text Amherst or NYU but tax Notre Dame. This whole thing just seems pointless.
It is a Pigovian tax. It wasn’t intended to raise revenue. This is an optimal outcome, perhaps even an intended one.
It’s kind of crappy to be a family who makes just a tad over the line (or who have more than typical assets) who will pay full price while others just a tiny bit under the line pay none. I get the rationale but it’s not optimal from that perspective.
Totally agree - this system is very binary - all or nothing. There will be a lot of gamesmanship among families to get below the line - ironically people will have an incentive to take a pay cut for a few years. It makes very little sense yet given the constraints Princeton is dealing with, I don't blame them. But as one who is not far over the line and also had the audacity to live somewhat conservatively and save money for college, it is frustrating. But life isn't fair - I'm fortunate to have more than most other Americans and college is not a God-given right.
This is wrong. It is not binary but a sliding scale but Princeton is in a position to be generous.
But are you seriously saying " life is not fair" because you are unhappy with your financial aid award at Princeton? Are you the same poster that was so "squeezed" a college even though they had a car on campus and could only "occasionally" go out to a show? Some of you all are seriously in a bubble.
I knew a recruited athlete at Princeton. His mom said she could "get their income" under the level. There is definitely "gamesmanship".
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Seems like a win for everyone!
Seems like it makes the endowment tax arbitrary stupid nonsense. Don't tax Princeton but tax MIT. Don't text Amherst or NYU but tax Notre Dame. This whole thing just seems pointless.
It is a Pigovian tax. It wasn’t intended to raise revenue. This is an optimal outcome, perhaps even an intended one.
It’s kind of crappy to be a family who makes just a tad over the line (or who have more than typical assets) who will pay full price while others just a tiny bit under the line pay none. I get the rationale but it’s not optimal from that perspective.
Totally agree - this system is very binary - all or nothing. There will be a lot of gamesmanship among families to get below the line - ironically people will have an incentive to take a pay cut for a few years. It makes very little sense yet given the constraints Princeton is dealing with, I don't blame them. But as one who is not far over the line and also had the audacity to live somewhat conservatively and save money for college, it is frustrating. But life isn't fair - I'm fortunate to have more than most other Americans and college is not a God-given right.
This is wrong. It is not binary but a sliding scale but Princeton is in a position to be generous.
But are you seriously saying " life is not fair" because you are unhappy with your financial aid award at Princeton? Are you the same poster that was so "squeezed" a college even though they had a car on campus and could only "occasionally" go out to a show? Some of you all are seriously in a bubble.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Seems like a win for everyone!
Seems like it makes the endowment tax arbitrary stupid nonsense. Don't tax Princeton but tax MIT. Don't text Amherst or NYU but tax Notre Dame. This whole thing just seems pointless.
It is a Pigovian tax. It wasn’t intended to raise revenue. This is an optimal outcome, perhaps even an intended one.
It’s kind of crappy to be a family who makes just a tad over the line (or who have more than typical assets) who will pay full price while others just a tiny bit under the line pay none. I get the rationale but it’s not optimal from that perspective.
Totally agree - this system is very binary - all or nothing. There will be a lot of gamesmanship among families to get below the line - ironically people will have an incentive to take a pay cut for a few years. It makes very little sense yet given the constraints Princeton is dealing with, I don't blame them. But as one who is not far over the line and also had the audacity to live somewhat conservatively and save money for college, it is frustrating. But life isn't fair - I'm fortunate to have more than most other Americans and college is not a God-given right.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Seems like a win for everyone!
Seems like it makes the endowment tax arbitrary stupid nonsense. Don't tax Princeton but tax MIT. Don't text Amherst or NYU but tax Notre Dame. This whole thing just seems pointless.
It is a Pigovian tax. It wasn’t intended to raise revenue. This is an optimal outcome, perhaps even an intended one.
It’s kind of crappy to be a family who makes just a tad over the line (or who have more than typical assets) who will pay full price while others just a tiny bit under the line pay none. I get the rationale but it’s not optimal from that perspective.
Totally agree - this system is very binary - all or nothing. There will be a lot of gamesmanship among families to get below the line - ironically people will have an incentive to take a pay cut for a few years. It makes very little sense yet given the constraints Princeton is dealing with, I don't blame them. But as one who is not far over the line and also had the audacity to live somewhat conservatively and save money for college, it is frustrating. But life isn't fair - I'm fortunate to have more than most other Americans and college is not a God-given right.
Anonymous wrote:I've never attended one of these private schools with the massive need-based aid programs. Is it a weird dichotomy with basically only poor kids and rich kids and no real middle class?
I attended a state school so there were basically all types of kids, but lots of middle class.
Anonymous wrote:I've never attended one of these private schools with the massive need-based aid programs. Is it a weird dichotomy with basically only poor kids and rich kids and no real middle class?
I attended a state school so there were basically all types of kids, but lots of middle class.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Seems like a win for everyone!
Seems like it makes the endowment tax arbitrary stupid nonsense. Don't tax Princeton but tax MIT. Don't text Amherst or NYU but tax Notre Dame. This whole thing just seems pointless.
It is a Pigovian tax. It wasn’t intended to raise revenue. This is an optimal outcome, perhaps even an intended one.
It’s kind of crappy to be a family who makes just a tad over the line (or who have more than typical assets) who will pay full price while others just a tiny bit under the line pay none. I get the rationale but it’s not optimal from that perspective.
Anonymous wrote:I think TCU is doing this too.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article311582144.html
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I've never attended one of these private schools with the massive need-based aid programs. Is it a weird dichotomy with basically only poor kids and rich kids and no real middle class?
I attended a state school so there were basically all types of kids, but lots of middle class.
There is a lot of aid that goes to middle class families at a place like Princeton. At Princeton middle class is poor.
Not true. Our income is middle class but our assets are not. We had the audacity to save and live a lifestyle well within our limits. We ran Princeton’s NPC (as well as for other private schools) and it resulted in zero aid.
I’m pp..,And let me add, my kid was very high stats including 1550 (no prep); NMF; valedictorian; 4.0/4.8 (5.2 upon graduating); high rigor); solid long term EC including niche sport and instrument both at state level.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Seems like a win for everyone!
Seems like it makes the endowment tax arbitrary stupid nonsense. Don't tax Princeton but tax MIT. Don't text Amherst or NYU but tax Notre Dame. This whole thing just seems pointless.
It is a Pigovian tax. It wasn’t intended to raise revenue. This is an optimal outcome, perhaps even an intended one.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I've never attended one of these private schools with the massive need-based aid programs. Is it a weird dichotomy with basically only poor kids and rich kids and no real middle class?
I attended a state school so there were basically all types of kids, but lots of middle class.
There is a lot of aid that goes to middle class families at a place like Princeton. At Princeton middle class is poor.
Not true. Our income is middle class but our assets are not. We had the audacity to save and live a lifestyle well within our limits. We ran Princeton’s NPC (as well as for other private schools) and it resulted in zero aid.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I've never attended one of these private schools with the massive need-based aid programs. Is it a weird dichotomy with basically only poor kids and rich kids and no real middle class?
I attended a state school so there were basically all types of kids, but lots of middle class.
There is a lot of aid that goes to middle class families at a place like Princeton. At Princeton middle class is poor.
Anonymous wrote:I've never attended one of these private schools with the massive need-based aid programs. Is it a weird dichotomy with basically only poor kids and rich kids and no real middle class?
I attended a state school so there were basically all types of kids, but lots of middle class.