All Yale grads should vote yes. ;)

Always has seemed a bit strange that these institutions would stockpile so much... Beyond $500 million and you have to ask, what exactly do you plan to spend this on?

2:21 - Note the "[i]n addition to Harvard" that starts that paragraph.

Also note the first sentence of the post.

2:21 EPIC FAIL. Read the first sentence over again (of both my post and Lat's).

Look at that list. I had no idea that small liberal arts colleges -- Amherst, BC, Smith, Tufts, Wellesley, Williams -- were so damn rich.

2.21: You sound like a fun guy IRL.

man, isn't it funny when limousine liberal institutions like BU and Harvard start whining about being overtaxed? What do they need the money for, funding more abortions for students and promoting protests in favor of Hugo Chavez?

guys at my high school used to tax wealthy colleges all the time, it was no big deal.

One reason for the accumulation in endowments is because many donations come with restrictions on how they can be spent, limiting the schools' ability to use portions of their money.

At the same time, places like Harvard have more resources than some countries, which seems absurd.

2:30 - BC has 9000 students and is in the ACC. Not exactly small liberal arts.

how is this economic suicide? are these schools going to pack up and go somewhere else-sud america, maybe? or will they just invest less in their surrounding communities?[sarcasm].

I am Roger Lou and I write to my friends, Asia Corporate Lawyers.

In English there is this idiom: dogged persistence. I ask for you what is the persistence for the dog? I am think of the dog which is chase the cat for the short space of time. First it is make the big racket. Next it is to dash like crazed beast through bush and street to try for catch the cat. Then it is to forget what it is to do and to lick itself in the place which I am not here for mention. This is the persistence for the dog: the big noise, followed by the big failure. When I decide to go for law school, I made the big noise. The noise that I am make is to be heard by all my friends and family. I say to them I am to go to Harvard Law School, for the great reason that Harvard Law School is best in Asia.

The first year I was to decide this I am apply to Harvard Law School with certainty I am to be accepted. It was with greatest shock I was to receive the letter for the rejection. The second year I was to make the bigger noise. I rewrote personal statement, found better recommender. I researched much of the informations on Harvard Law School. I went over application to Harvard Law School, as you are to say in the other idiom for English, with the fine-toothed comb. I say for you if you are to attempt to groom the dog with fine-toothed comb for certain you are to realize inherent lack of dignity in the mix of the metaphor. Also the mix of the metaphor was soon to turn to the mix of the drink, when with relief I am receive the important news: accept for 2006 Harvard Law School class. It was with greatest shock I was to discover lack of eligibility for educational visa for the next two year. This is the third year in which I am apply for Harvard Law School. Because of problem with the visa, I am at this time apply for Harvard class for 2008. Possible you are to think that apply the three times for Harvard Law School is to demonstrate the dogged persistence. For this reason I am ask that you are to accept me and also to allow for defer the additional year. Even dog need time off to lick the crotch before once again yelp, bark, and chase after the crimson cat.

With respect,
诶比西

This proposal is rife with broad generalizations and a "one size fits all" solution. Who set that figure of one billion? There is a world of difference between Harvard with its 35+ billion dollars and a place like BC with a little above one billion. Harvard could stop charging tuition today for its students and cover their costs from the interest off that endowment alone, without going near the principal. You can be sure that is not the case for places like BC, Tufts, and BU...all three have fairly large student populations, graduate schools, big expensive facilities to maintain and update, and their endowments are actually not large enough to sustain them. These places are still tuition dependent for a good chunk of their budgets.

The legislature could have at least examined the endowment per capita figures, which are a better measurement anyway of the fiscal reality of these places.

Wellesley and Williams each have closer to $2 billion than $1 billion. Hell, there are a couple private schools in the area that are working their way up to half a billion or more: Groton, St. Paul's, St. George's, Brooks, Governor's Academy (formerly Governor Dummer's Academy), Milton, etc. Andover has $750 mil and Exeter has broken the billion dollar barrier. If there is one thing Massachusetts-area schools do well, it's fundraising. And BC is NOT a small liberal arts college, 2:30.

HLS to 190B

The purpose of an endowment is sustainability. Harvard is an anomaly because their endowment dwarfs the field, but schools grow their endowments without spending so that they can eventually theoretically function off the income from that endowment. We are starting to see a trend amongst Ivy's and other upper echelon schools of eliminating or significantly reducing the cost of undergraduate education. That is the benefit of an excessive endowment

The purpose of an endowment is sustainability. Harvard is an anomaly because their endowment dwarfs the field, but schools grow their endowments without spending so that they can eventually theoretically function off the income from that endowment. We are starting to see a trend amongst Ivy's and other upper echelon schools of eliminating or significantly reducing the cost of undergraduate education. That is the benefit of an excessive endowment, and it greatly outweighs the tax revenue that threatens the stability of the endowment.

I thought Roger Lou was already enroll in best school in U.S.of A., American School of Law?

Does he mean that he is trying to transfer to best school in Asia, HLS?

What should we do about a non-profit educational institution that does such a good job that alumni donate millions, and the school is so financially responsible that it turns it into billions to use on education? Tell them good job and leave them alone.

No matter how much money a non-profit institution has, it is non-profit because it does something beneficial to society and it does not operate to return a profit to its owners. The fact that it may have a lot of cash on the books does not change that.

If this passes, then we should also have a tax on the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Right? They have even more billions! Who's with me???

Stupid undisciplined pandering politicians.

When I was at Northwestern in the 90's the city (Evanston) made noises about imposing a tuition tax (basically a city sales tax on tuition). I think Northwestern's lobbyists took care of that by getting a state law passed that prohibited municipalities from taxing tuition.

I want the state to be bigger, the private sector to be smaller, and the general spirit in the United States towards work to mirror that in Europe: maximize vacations, minimize work, soak the rich, help the poor, love the workers.

The only problem with the Europe attitude is that it resents wealth. There is nothing to resent. They want to spend day and night making money, thats fine for them. The rest of us want friends, family, leisure and, oh ya, your money.

3:05 here,

I forgot to add my point. Maybe the Mass. Schools should go to the feds for protection.

Taxachusetts sux.

I'm all in favor of making private colleges dip (or rather, dive) into their endowments in order to fund financial aid. However, this plan seems like a blatant money grab - nothing in the Globe article indicates how the tax revenue will be used. I could be convinced if the taxes will go directly to fund public education, but that is not the case here.

I honestly can't beleive how anyone could vote yes for tax the endowments. First, this is like the state is then going to use the money to pay for students to go to those schools but to pay for their own wanton excess and entitlements that have caught them with their pants down during a slow down.

Second, this isn't a tax on the income derived from the endowment but a tax ON the endowment. It would similar if the state of Massachuesetts decide to place an annual tax on anyone with more than 10K in their bank account. thus, every year the state would crawl into your account and take $250 of every $10,000 you own.

Dear Mr. 2:59 PM (and if you are a Ms., then I am sorry),

Me am Roger Lou and me no know why people care about the postings I do with my friends on www.abovethelaw.com. But because Mr. 2:59 PM (or Ms., if you have female private parts) asked for explanation of the motives of law school for Roger, I will elaborate.

Roger got admission letters from best school in America (America's University, Washington College of Law) and from best school in Asia (Harvard Law School, Boston Campus). Because Roger in Asia, he want Harvard. But because Roger now in America, he wants America's University. Problem with America's University is friends tell Roger it is "TTT" (meaning a toilet bowl school), and that it is badder school than UDC and GULC and because its graduates are "melting pot" of students, and Roger no wants to be melted with other Asians. He is from China.

So I help my offer of explaination is good to help you in your curiosity. God bless the U.S. of A.

With respect,
诶比西

3:08, you, sir, are a poopyhead.

How about a 25% "A-hole" Tax on all congressmen and senators. That's a way to raise a lot of money.

This proposal is bad news. I do think we should consider removing the tax deduction for donations to institutions that, like harvard, already have enorous endowments. People don't seem to need any enouragement to donate to these institutions. Spread the wealth around.

With respect -- 诶比西 -- with respect.

Can we have a poll to settle the question of whether a 34" waist is considered "fat?"

who is this roger lou character. i have never seen him on this site before, but he makes funny points in really stupid english. bad writer / funny posts though.

Hey, 3:00 - we do have a tax on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and other private foundations, if they don't use 5% of their endowment every year for charitable purposes. The Gates Foundation doesn't pay the tax because it actually uses its money for charity. Big university endowments that grow because the university simply accumulates wealth and never spends it should be treated like private foundations. It should be a change in the Internal Revenue Code, not a state money grab, and shouldn't be motivated by a desire to increase tax revenue, but rather a desire to force entities that are given enormous tax breaks to carry out the claimed charitable purposes that earn the tax breaks in the first place.

I think all governments should arbitrarily determine when a company/person/university/other has too much money and confiscate some or all of the money above that arbitrary amount. If punishing success doesn't work, I don't know what will.

I also think confiscating universities' money will certainly lower tuition and result in increased investment by the university for future growth. This same logic applies to raising taxes on oil companies to drive gas prices down. It's quite brilliant.

I think all governments should arbitrarily determine when a company/person/university/other has too much money and confiscate some or all of the money above that arbitrary amount. If punishing success doesn't work, I don't know what will.

I also think confiscating universities' money will certainly lower tuition and result in increased investment by the university for future growth. This same logic applies to raising taxes on oil companies to drive gas prices down. It's quite brilliant.

2:59 here.

Thank you Roger Lou for clearing that up. You are clearly a very honorable man who is making your country and family proud.

3:23-- We don't need a poll. No reasonable person could ever conclude that someone with a 34" waist is anything but a fat ass.

Roger Lou, did you come from xoxo?

3:24,

You think Roger's english is "really stupid" only because you are looking at it through your racist, western-centric eyes. To thos of us who are more enlightened, it reads perfectly.

3:20 and 3:29 --

People who strive for wealth were doing it when the tax rate was 70% (which was, I admit, too high). But they are really after wealth for reasons that cannot be dampened by taking some of it away: prove something to mom and dad, distract from broken home life, uncontrollable testosterone. All I'm saying is that taxing that kind of pathology, and lowering the amount that the rest of us have to work, can help us relax and be healthy -- work is tiring.

There's a graph I learned about in Econ -- a Laffer curve or something like that. It shows the trade off between taxes and "dampening" spirit we should maximize revenues on that graph. Currently, we're too low. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Cry me a river. Schools stockpile cash and jack up tuition year after year -- and take advantage of government-subsidized loans, public sector job loan-repayment programs, etc. which...come directly out of the 35% car-jacking I see every other week.

"I think all governments should arbitrarily determine when a company/person/university/other has too much money and confiscate some or all of the money above that arbitrary amount."

That's a good basic description of an income tax.

This size says the results were provided by Men's Health and if so, t hen 34 is average for an American Man. http://www.pipeline.com/~dada3zen/average.htm

Now the average American man could well be a fat ass, but....that's another conversation...

Harvard does not contribute to its community, city or state. And how does having $35,000,000,000 in the bank make it a non-profit? Sounds like a big 'ol profit to me.

A conservative commenting on tax policy is like Paris Hilton commenting on quantum physics. I have to give the Republican political machine credit though-- they have thoroughly convinced tons of middle-class morons to vote for people that don't care at all about the middle-class. These politicians protect only their wealthy friends in big oil, big pharma and the military industrial complex. Wake up! Or, at least shut up if you are a Republican because of taxes and you make less than six figures. No one who makes more gives a hoot that you don't like paying $20k a year in taxes.

Harvard is smart. They have smart advisors. It would take them about five seconds to relocate their endowment to Portsmouth.

On a more law-related note, the legislator pushing this hates lawyers!

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/10/041008kujawskicomment.pdf

I think he is just tired of prohibitively high taxes on alcohol

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-04/08-21-04/a03lo896.htm

3:40 - you're mixing an income tax with a tax on accumulated wealth. There's a difference. The Laffer Curve -- to the extent it has any real-world validity at all -- only involves income taxes.

-- 3:29(1)

4:04 - accumulated wealth continues to accumulate, therefore has income that could be taxed each year.

3:47:

No it's not. An income tax confiscates income received in a given time period, usually a year. Hence the name "income tax." It does not confiscate money based on how much money you may actually have. I can have a lot of money in the bank, but I will only be taxed on the income that money generates. But that was a pretty good try. You'll do better after the BARBRI review session on tax law. Good luck on the bar!

4:10 just dominated 4:04

Limousine liberal institutions at my high school used to fund abortions for students and promote protests in favor of Hugo Chavez all the time. It was no big deal.

FRAT STUD

This would only be sensible if you could opt-out of the new tax by paying some set amount -- say, 10% -- of your total endowment per year on student financial aid. So, Harvard can pay its money back to itself AND help keep a few deserving kids out of crushing debt, or it can throw a smaller amount back at the state, which will invariably waste it on some combination of subsidies for people who do nothing, completely unnecessary road work, and flushing down the toilet.

I have no problem with telling Harvard to stop hoarding all the cookies. But it makes no sense to take some of its cookies and then crush them into crumbly bits and sprinkle it all over the garden as fertilizer. It'd make more sense to give them the option of giving the cookies to kids who will appreciate them, so that's how the state should approach it.

3:29 makes more sense than 3:40

4:11- barbri doesn't cover tax law, dumb ass.

4:33 makes a greaTTT analogy.

In response to 3:56 in re Republicans discussing tax policy -

Republicans pay a much larger portion of taxes than Democrats do.

3:29, 4:34,

No. The tax extracts from continuing acculuation (but it only applies to funds of a certain size). The concept in the Laffer Curve therefore applies.

Any attempt to just take money from the already-acculuated pile would be exactly that: a taking. Govt can't do that.

But the more important point is that we are all working too hard. Chill out and visit Europe, they are living longer, healthier, and happier.

3:40

Uh, 4:57, why don't you just move to Europe and stop trying to turn the US into a bunch of lazy Europeans? If we wanted to be Europeans, we would have never left there in the first place.

what say you tax the rich liberals now? huh????

4:55- really? Most lawyers I know are liberal. Most investment bankers I know are liberal. The wealthiest states in the country- California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey- are liberal. The most wealthy big city in the country, NYC, is overwhelmingly liberal. Most Republicans are mid-level business types who bitch and complain b/c they don't have a six figure job, and now they complain about having to pay $20k in taxes. Boo hoo. The few jackass lawyers who are conservatives are usually ones who went to some non top 10 school, like GULC or a TTT, or Chicago. And no one cares about what they have to say anyway.

455- prove it.

3:40, what makes you say we're too low? From one of the illustrations on the wikipedia page it appears we're too HIGH.

5:25, I know counting is hard, but Chicago's in the top ten. Has been for decades.

5:29- you should learn about conjunctions and their many uses in modern english.

5:14-

First of all, my name is 3:40. Second, can't someone make an argument to learn from foreigners without being told to leave the country? jeez. maybe I'm too fat to get on a plane. Maybe I only speak english. what a stupid point.

3:40, trying to use logic on xenophobes is pointless. Just let them sit back and bash the French while they drink their Natty Lite and watch NASCAR.

3:29(1) is obviously the only one here who knows anything about the taxation of not-for-profit organizations.

Whether you agree or not, the SCOTUS (and their state court bretheren/sisteren) long ago determined that tax exemptions are a matter of legislative grace. All additions to wealth, however received, are taxable unless Congress (or whatever legislature) says its not. If Congress (or in this case, the Mass. legislature) decides that the tax break is no longer justified by the relative public benefit derived therefrom, they most certainly can take back the break.

U.S. Senators Grassley and Baucus have been looking into massive university endowments on the federal level for awhile now. MA is simply the first to act on the state level. More will follow. Endowments up to a certain "reasonable" size will likely be allowed to continue to grow, but once they reach a certain level, they will have to start using that income to actually, you know, foster education.

To cite McColluch v. Maryland : "The power to tax is the power to kill."

That's "destroy," idiot, not "kill."

Personally, I think an endowment tax is a fantastic idea. The idea that most universities act in a markedly different way from for-profit companies is becoming increasingly laughable. Universities have become major investors in IP, and virtually always require researches working under them to assign all patents and related IP to the university if the invention is made using ANY university resources. To make it better, most schools have awful financial aid systems that provide as much aid to students from upper middle-class families as to students from working class families.

If you can't tell, I'm not a big fan of big universities. Studying higher education finance will do that to you.

If they act like for-profit institutions, they should be treated like them. Good for the gander and all that.

My offer:

For a one-time flat fee of $10mil I will split Harvard's endowment into 50 entities and write up the proper agreements so that it's transparent to the money manager and to donors. It'd take less than a year and they'd never pay the 2.5% tax, saving them >$60mil/yr.

For real. Just call me, Harvard, or any other rich school.

Sincerely,

Structured Finance guy in a slow spot

ROGER LOU TO 190,000,000,000,000 YEN !!!

That's 1.84794 trillion U.S. dollars as of 12:52 EDT

Please, Universities NEVER use their endowments to reduce the overall monies payed by students. Why would they? If they can both sit on their endowments
without any law forcing them to spend them AND charge students an arm and a leg, why wouldn't they? It maximizes the institutions gain. And lets not get started on the free land they get via eminent domain.

Harvard made a big deal recently of granting all undergards whose parents made less than $50,000 a free ride. Big whoop. Considering that in 20 years the price of undergrad has skyrocket well past inflation, this $50,000 is a P.r. stunt for kids whose parents (and them) probably aren't credit worthy enough to get a decent student loan rate (at least recently); in effect, Harvard is merely keeping good students it otherwise would lose on the free market.

And considering how worthless a liberal arts degree is on the market today--including one from an Ivy league powerhouse like Harvard----Harvard, et al. Are basically exchanging a worthless piece of paper for an average of $160,000 per student. Not a bad deal, when you consider they charge rent for using their own tax free land and charge the students higher-than-market prices for food and books.

Look, universities are cash-cows, no two ways about it.

Look, anyone going by anecdotal evidence on Republican v. Democrat wealth is a moron. Go on hard numbers--I don't think either side has much ammo.

And someone arguing that California is totally liberal is to ignore Orange County and the voters who put Ronald Reagan in office. Simply because LA has nutty left wing actors and San Fran has aging hippies does not mean California is a left wing bastion. It's had a lot of left-leaning pols recently, but its too short a track record to declare victory for one side or another.

The tax will put pressure on the schools, but I don't know if they'll run quite yet. Its surprising it even got to the floor---Harvard, et al. usually keep those politicians tightly reigned, buying them off and having the press ignore any and all transgressions at every school, unless it blows up big time (like the Harvard Stalker, por ejemplo).

anyone who declares the richest are Democrats has obviously forgotten about Texas and Florida. Two mega-wealthy, mega-powerful states that are pretty red.

South Florida= quite blue

"South Florida = quite blue?"

HA. Coming from Miami I KNOW this is wrong. (1) Cubans and the rest of the Hispanics in Miami are overwhelmingly Republican, (2) Palm Beach is as well. The only big Democratic blocs are Miami Beach / Boca Raton Jews, but perhaps this follows your point: they are the wealthiest parts of South Florida. This fall, however, if the choice is Obama / McCain, the pro-Israel bloc is not voting Democratic, let me tell you--- the number of Miami Beach Democrats that were campaigning for Hillary and Giuliani was startling.

How can a lawyer or investment banker be liberal? Do they not care about their money? Voting for a democrat is like asking for a paycut. Why would anyone in the upper income brackets ask for a paycut? Is it guilt? Do they seriously not think that their lifestyle is threatened by a liberal government that has an insatiable appetite for money? Do they really think that the government will only take a little bit of their money and it will not have a significant affect on them? I'd like to point out that there was a point in the 60s I think when the highest marginal tax rate was 91%. Do you really think that an unchecked liberal government would not take it back there in a second? These are not rhetorical questions...I really want an honest answer.

1:57, speaking for myself, when the choice comes down to the government invading my bank account or my bedroom, i'd rather they meddled with the former and left my personal liberties alone. so i'll keep voting democrat until there's a better viable alternative.

no one likes taxes, but some people realize that there are costs that need to be borne by society in one way or another. that's the price of a society with a relatively high standard of living. i'd prefer to see tax revenue spent more efficiently; it seems that the government is mainly focused on treating symptoms at the expense of a cure. for example, we have a welfare system b/c some people can't support themselves and their families. so we support them instead of addressing the underlying reason for their inability to do so. however, measures addressing the underlying problem (e.g., health care, child care, education opportunity) aren't taken b/c those things are somehow deemed to be a waste of money.

basically, i don't want to be a rich guy in a country full of poor people.

2:28.."costs that need to be borne by society"?? You mean like no-show jobs, retirement at 55, cushy union jobs where people "work" (I use that term loosely) 9-3 and retire at 55 with full pension and benefits, welfare for everyone, free health care...wait, isn't this the basis of communism?

1:57, 3:02. I hope to fuck you are the same person. Would hate for there to be 2 of you,

1) Government spending and Gov interference in our lives has increased under the conservative republicans. Last balance budget under the "liberals". Last 8 years has added debt, death and misery. I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal and I assure you, the Dems have no monopoly on pork, stupid plans and ways to feck up the economy.

2) I guess people vote liberal because a) there is really no difference between either side of the aisles, and a change is as good as a rest b) they realize that a strong economy requires all levels to be educated and working, thus appreciate funding social programs and schools etc, c)some people, i dunno, appreciate what they have and are willing to sacrifice to have a better economy, d) they don't want a goverment that puts multinational desires ahead of citizen needs.

I am no bleeding heart liberal, but I can see why people vote dem and don't mind a small increase in tax to cover things. I frankly think it is disgusting that we don't have universal health care, and free education. The UK is not communist, yet it can cover its people. The Irish have the lowest corporate tax rate in the western world, yet they have free health care AND free 3rd level college (with plans to have free 4th level). The Germans are not communist yet their social and environmental programs take care of citizens and earth.

Socialism is not same as communism, you fucking mupet.

5:13,

The problem with your argument is that there is nothing to stop a small tax increase from becoming an enormous tax increase, all the way back to 91%. Considering state and local taxes, many people in this country already pay close to 50% in taxes...and that's simply too much, for anyone.
You are right about out of control spending being a bipartisan problem, but the dems alliance with unions and welfare programs makes them far more dangerous to the economy.

I'd let Harvard choose:

(1) Get taxed; or
(2) Give up all government funding (including research grants).

Given Harvard's wealth, it certainly doesn't need the later. But if it gets the later, why shouldn't it pay the former?

I posted this a while ago and no one responded. I think super rich universities (I don't know what the threshold will be) are in serious danger of losing tax exemption at least w/r/t donors. I don't know exactly how to say this, but I think we'll see legislation taking away tax deductibility of donations (by the donor) to super rich universities. I'm not sure that would be so bad. Does Harvard really need any more money? If so, they don't need it as badly as a lot of other less well endowed schools. What do you think about this?
That said, I think taxing earnings on endowments already in place (even Harvard's) is a super bad idea. I'm not sure how I fell about a law that would force harvard to spend all or a significant portion of the earnings on its endowment or face tax consequences. That would be better than an all out tax on endowment earnings.

People have commented that the universities don't help their towns enough. I heard this argument back in the 90s while an undergrad at Northwestern. The city of Evanston was facing budget problems and wanted to levy a tuition tax on Northwestern students. (I'm not making this up.) They complained that 1) the university didn't do enough to help them 2) the university removed a bunch of land from their tax base, 3) the university used city services.
This is qwas all pretty much bs. 1) the university did what it could to help the town. It had hiring preferences for all of its contractors and employees being residents of evanston. Sure it could have done more, but the town got all sorts of benefits from the university--sales tax receipts, help with its schools, and more. 2) The university was founded before the town and chartered as a municipality under Illinois law. Saying that it had the right to tax university land would be like evanston saying it had a right to tax Winetka (the town due north of Evanston, or is it Willmette?) land because if Winetka weren't there, Evanston could annex that land and tax it. Winetka is there! So is the university! Too bad. Besides that, the university did what it could to help and sold back a bunch of its land to add it to the city's tax base. Also, Evanston had a real problem with alcohol. They wouldn't allow liquor stores or bars. That's fine, but they chose to give up that revenue stream. The university shouldn't be forced to pay for that decision. 3) The university did pay for the services it used. It's fire protection fees were something like 50% of the evanston fd's budget. The university had its own police force and actual provided police protection for some parts of evanston surrounding the university, thus sparing the city that burden.
This was a long rant. Sorry. But the whole thing was such bs (A sales tax on tuition, WTF?) . This has broought back some bad memories. Finally, evanston was having money problems because it was spending a sh!t load (and giving up more in incereased taxes due to proerty value increases) fighting gentrification. Gentrification was not caused by the university. Higher rents weould have actually hurt NU students too. It's a system wide problem cities all over face (even those without universities) if anyone should pay to fight it (and maybe no one should) it's the state and federal governments. OK. The end. That whole episode really, really pissed me off. I'm still scarred by it. F$ck townies!!!!

2:28 PM ("when the choice comes down to the government invading my bank account or my bedroom, i'd rather they meddled with the former and left my personal liberties alone.")

Are you a homosexual?

Obama=Tuvok/Spock

Here's a blindingly novel idea: they don't belong in either your bank account or your bedroom. There's some pretty hefty constitutional protection provided (no thanks to the Right, I admit) for your bedroom, however. I have yet to see anyone win a case for lower income tax rates based on their constitutional right to reasonable privacy with their money.

The real story here is "Why the hell do Ivies not give more money to their students"?

Can't believe anyone hasn't posted this already:

Guys in my high school had huge endowments, and nobody every tried to tax them - it was no big deal.

Frat Stud

8:58- nope.

3:02- no, costs like health care, food, and shelter. people who don't have health insurance go to the ER for anything. people without food or shelter either live on the street, or end up in prison when they steal to survive. people without childcare or healthcare who can't miss a day or work for fear of being fired are often unable to improve their own situations, and often unable to provide sufficient supervision and guidance for their kids. those are the costs that are borne by the rest of us in one way or another. i think the preventative approach (i.e., providing the tools that people need to improve their own situations, not free-loading gov't employment at which you hinted) is more efficient than treating symptoms.