Boise St. may be the first domino to fall...

[Peacefrog]

Only 1 institution has anything close to a $34 B endowment. Here are NCES numbers from 2016: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=73

Curious. Knowing costs of every enterprise, including education, will only continue to rise, and knowing that eating into endowment principal will only drive up future costs further, how much principal should a university be required to sacrifice to meet current emergency demands?

And why should universities have to use the financial gifts hard working individuals gave them to invest in perpetuity when the government is bailing out individuals, small, and large businesses?

What do you say to the donor whose gift meant to support the university for hundreds of years gets their gift snatched away so we could instead divert US taxpayer money to a cruise line that evades US taxes by incorporating in a foreign country?

I’m having trouble reconciling the position that employees of only certain types of employers (eg, small businesses) are deserving of emergency bailout money while others (eg, universities) are not.

Are you ok with individuals that made over $75k getting reduced or no help?

The “left” is generally on board with taxing corporations and wealthy individuals at higher rates. Couldn’t it be argued that not providing government funds to organizations and people with means the same as taxing them more?

I’m having trouble understanding how anyone can be in favor of not helping individuals because they may have made too much in 2018 but are ok with corporations with giant savings accounts receiving help.

 

[TCUdirtbag]

Are you ok with individuals that made over $75k getting reduced or no help?

Haven’t put much thought into it. I generally think there should probably be a phase out because it’s not really effective after a certain point. From a fundamental fairness standpoint maybe everyone who didn’t get stimulus funds should have a reduced tax liability in the same $1200/taxpayer about.

The stimulus payments didn’t discriminate based on a type (public, private, large, small) of employer someone has.

The “left” is generally on board with taxing corporations and wealthy individuals at higher rates. Couldn’t it be argued that not providing government funds to organizations and people with means the same as taxing them more?

Of course.

I’m having trouble understanding how anyone can be in favor of not helping individuals because they may have made too much in 2018 but are ok with corporations with giant savings accounts receiving help.

I agree.

I’m not sure if you were trying to pick apart my honest questions or just add more questions. I assume the latter since you didn’t offer any thoughts.

My post was getting at an unfairness of programs that discriminate against workers based on the kind of entity they work for. A small fraction of the total economic stimulus coming out of congress going to colleges and universities doesn’t even level the imbalances that favor employees of many private companies. I don’t get why we cant look at the entire economic stimulus holistically.

 

[Peacefrog]

Haven’t put much thought into it. I generally think there should probably be a phase out because it’s not really effective after a certain point. From a fundamental fairness standpoint maybe everyone who didn’t get stimulus funds should have a reduced tax liability in the same $1200/taxpayer about.

The stimulus payments didn’t discriminate based on a type (public, private, large, small) of employer someone has.



Of course.



I agree.

I’m not sure if you were trying to pick apart my honest questions or just add more questions. I assume the latter since you didn’t offer any thoughts.

My post was getting at an unfairness of programs that discriminate against workers based on the kind of entity they work for. A small fraction of the total economic stimulus coming out of congress going to colleges and universities doesn’t even level the imbalances that favor employees of many private companies. I don’t get why we cant look at the entire economic stimulus holistically.

My point was why phase out individuals if you aren’t willing to phase out companies? I can’t understand the logic.

Harvard with a $40b endowment getting funds is ok but a guy who made $80k in 2018 but was laid off in March shouldn’t get help? Just doesn’t compute with me. And the argument that Harvard shouldn’t have to use its endowment is no different than arguing that random dude shouldn’t have to use his savings. That’s the disconnect.

 

[Peacefrog]

My point was why phase out individuals if you aren’t willing to phase out companies? I can’t understand the logic.

Harvard with a $40b endowment getting funds is ok but a guy who made $80k in 2018 but was laid off in March shouldn’t get help? Just doesn’t compute with me. And the argument that Harvard shouldn’t have to use its endowment is no different than arguing that random dude shouldn’t have to use his savings. That’s the disconnect for me.

To add to this:

Does Harvard pay taxes? If not then this is even worse. If made too much in 2018, paid a bunch of taxes, then got laid off this year I can’t access the money I paid to the government. Make that make sense.

State schools receive taxes, don’t pay taxes, then receive more tax dollars while sitting on giant endowments? Nah. I’m out on this.

Maybe i shouldn’t pay taxes. If I can’t count on the government in a time of need while companies with means take handouts and other companies commit fraud to get more tax dollars (saw it happen in real time) then I see no need to contribute any longer.

It can’t be both ways. People need help. $1200 isn’t the answer. Giving Harvard money ain’t either. Especially considering they are keeping highly paid professors on the payroll while getting rid of their hospitality staffs. It’s dirty.

 

[Peacefrog]

Haven’t put much thought into it. I generally think there should probably be a phase out because it’s not really effective after a certain point. From a fundamental fairness standpoint maybe everyone who didn’t get stimulus funds should have a reduced tax liability in the same $1200/taxpayer about.

The stimulus payments didn’t discriminate based on a type (public, private, large, small) of employer someone has.



Of course.



I agree.

I’m not sure if you were trying to pick apart my honest questions or just add more questions. I assume the latter since you didn’t offer any thoughts.

My post was getting at an unfairness of programs that discriminate against workers based on the kind of entity they work for. A small fraction of the total economic stimulus coming out of congress going to colleges and universities doesn’t even level the imbalances that favor employees of many private companies. I don’t get why we cant look at the entire economic stimulus holistically.

Last point: I assume, based on the last paragraph that you are opposed to the rule that made it so a trump owned company couldn’t get stimulus funds? Or are those workers ok to discriminate against?

 

[Peacefrog]

Honestly, after all that I just don’t care. Nothing is going to change.

Vote Seth.

 

[TCUdirtbag]

My point was why phase out individuals if you aren’t willing to phase out companies? I can’t understand the logic.

Pulling this out because it’s my point and I think where we probably just have a fundamental disagreement:

Individuals need food and shelter.
Companies don’t.

 

[Pharm Frog]

Pulling this out because it’s my point and I think where we probably just have a fundamental disagreement:

Individuals need food and shelter.
Companies don’t.

And all this time I thought companies were groups of individuals who have agreed to operate in a business endeavor.

 

[TCUdirtbag]

Harvard with a $40b endowment getting funds is ok but a guy who made $80k in 2018 but was laid off in March shouldn’t get help? Just doesn’t compute with me.

I don’t disagree.

And the argument that Harvard shouldn’t have to use its endowment is no different than arguing that random dude shouldn’t have to use his savings. That’s the disconnect.

I disagree with the notion that an endowment is akin to a personal savings account. It’s other people’s money meant to spin off earnings to allow an institution that serves the public good through education, research, job creation, etc., to live in perpetuity.

I think we can also make better arguments than “BUT HARVARD”. Basing opposition to the entire, small higher ed funding piece of CARES for universities on the size of Harvard’s endowment is just silly. In terms of the more general endowment argument, I think we can all acknowledge that there’s Harvard, a class of a dozen other institutions, and then the other 98%.

If hypothetical random guy who doesn’t qualify for stimulus monies was laid off, he does still qualify for expanded unemployment benefits. I agree he got lost in the shuffle of bad legislation, but he’s not without any assistance.

Again, I come back to opposition that we should pick individual winners and losers based on who the employer is.

To add to this:

Does Harvard pay taxes?

Yes. Again, the sole focus on Harvard as if it’s representative of the higher education industry hurts your argument.

If not then this is even worse. If made too much in 2018, paid a bunch of taxes, then got laid off this year I can’t access the money I paid to the government. Make that make sense.

I’ve lost the thread here but think I’ve answered above that I think your hypothetical guy got wrongly left out.

State schools receive taxes, don’t pay taxes, then receive more tax dollars while sitting on giant endowments? Nah. I’m out on this.

State schools serve a public need. Public funding is only a small chunk of operating budgets - especially for the very few with large endowments.

This argument fails to consider at all the role of universities as a crucial part of state and national infrastructure, the value of individual employees, and the realities of how universities are funded.

Maybe i shouldn’t pay taxes. If I can’t count on the government in a time of need while companies with means take handouts and other companies commit fraud to get more tax dollars (saw it happen in real time) then I see no need to contribute any longer.

It can’t be both ways. People need help. $1200 isn’t the answer. Giving Harvard money ain’t either. Especially considering they are keeping highly paid professors on the payroll while getting rid of their hospitality staffs. It’s dirty.

All I get from this is a general disdain for Harvard (shared) and the proposition that stimulus funding shouldn’t flow either to employers or employees but people need help? Not sure how you get to the goal then.

Last point: I assume, based on the last paragraph that you are opposed to the rule that made it so a trump owned company couldn’t get stimulus funds?

Correct. Though I do think special oversight to make sure the funding given to the president’s companies does go directly to employees or to otherwise sustain as many jobs as possible is warranted.

 

[TCUdirtbag]

And all this time I thought companies were groups of individuals who have agreed to operate in a business endeavor.

Always ready with an anti-government/anti-higher ed response - even if it doesn’t make any sense!

 

[Pharm Frog]

Always ready with an anti-government/anti-higher ed response - even if it doesn’t make any sense!

My response was neither anti-government nor anti-higher ed. Just making a point that “companies” are individuals. They aren’t just ink stains on business cards or three letters on a stock exchange.

 

[Peacefrog]

I don’t disagree.



I disagree with the notion that an endowment is akin to a personal savings account. It’s other people’s money meant to spin off earnings to allow an institution that serves the public good through education, research, job creation, etc., to live in perpetuity.

I think we can also make better arguments than “BUT HARVARD”. Basing opposition to the entire, small higher ed funding piece of CARES for universities on the size of Harvard’s endowment is just silly. In terms of the more general endowment argument, I think we can all acknowledge that there’s Harvard, a class of a dozen other institutions, and then the other 98%.

If hypothetical random guy who doesn’t qualify for stimulus monies was laid off, he does still qualify for expanded unemployment benefits. I agree he got lost in the shuffle of bad legislation, but he’s not without any assistance.

Again, I come back to opposition that we should pick individual winners and losers based on who the employer is.



Yes. Again, the sole focus on Harvard as if it’s representative of the higher education industry hurts your argument.



I’ve lost the thread here but think I’ve answered above that I think your hypothetical guy got wrongly left out.



State schools serve a public need. Public funding is only a small chunk of operating budgets - especially for the very few with large endowments.

This argument fails to consider at all the role of universities as a crucial part of state and national infrastructure, the value of individual employees, and the realities of how universities are funded.



All I get from this is a general disdain for Harvard (shared) and the proposition that stimulus funding shouldn’t flow either to employers or employees but people need help? Not sure how you get to the goal then.



Correct. Though I do think special oversight to make sure the funding given to the president’s companies does go directly to employees or to otherwise sustain as many jobs as possible is warranted.

Harvard is just an example. Like the guy making $80k is an example. I’d argue TCU could weather this storm as well. Or any university really. No one university is vital.

 

[asleep003]

Okie State likely next......

Nope .... Oil ! There's no money in Idaho... only potatoes and Walmart.