Posted on 04/25/2008 1:47:32 PM PDT by decimon
BOSTON (Reuters) - Philanthropist David Rockefeller donated a record $100 million to Harvard University's undergraduate program, the largest gift by a Harvard alumnus in the history of the oldest and richest U.S. college.
About $70 million will be used to expand Harvard's student travel and study abroad programs and $30 million will go to arts education, the Cambridge, Massachusetts, school said in a statement on Friday.
Rockefeller, 92, the last surviving grandchild of billionaire oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, is listed by Forbes magazine as one of the 150 wealthiest Americans, with an estimated fortune of $2.7 billion.
He graduated in 1936 from Harvard College, the school's undergraduate arm.
"Harvard opened my eyes and my mind to the world," Rockefeller said in a statement. "It was because of Harvard's language requirement that I spent the summer of 1933 in Germany and saw firsthand the ominous rise of fascism. And it was at Harvard that I first studied art history," the noted art collector said.
The gift will provide annual stipends for students going aboard and the Office of International Programs, among other programs at Harvard. Harvard is the wealthiest U.S. university; its endowment is the largest in the world, with assets of $35 billion.
Rockefeller had previously given $40 million in gifts to Harvard, including $25 million to create the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard said.
"This is a magnificent act of generosity from an extraordinary friend of Harvard," said Harvard University president Drew Faust.
(Reporting by Jason Szep, editing by Patricia Zengerle)
Interesting that Reuters named both the reporter and the editor.
Endowments like this are a dirty little secret for big institutions in the Ivy League. Very little of the money goes to benefit the students in any way.
Thats like donating money to the federal reserve.
Idiot couldn’t find a better cause?
My bad, I didn’t read all of the article. Harvard has assets of $35 billion!! What does it need with another $100 million?
must have a grandkid he wants to go to Harvard....
Elitists taking care of elitists. This is fairly sickening.
The richest gifting to the richest.
What a bore. The nation’s richest university gets a hundred million dollars more. Why didn’t Rockefeller do something really constructive with the money?
I don't think there is any tax advantage to that. :-)
The old coot's getting up in years though. Who's gonna secretly run it after he kicks the bucket?
I’m thinking that he’s got some sort of Latin agenda at work here - like indoctrinating the little mush minds on the wonders of Chavez and Ortega, methinks.
Senile old coot says he had his eyes opened by being in Germany in the 30’s but he probably thinks all of today’s little Hitlers are great for “standing up to America”.
Certainly that’s what cousin Jay would say.
You both seriously sound like DU people. It is his money and should be allowed to do with it as he choses. Would I do this? No, but he decided that. I say good for Harvard. Sometimes I wonder what is wrong with people who don’t understand freedoms here from you two.
That is a dumb conspiracy theory.
I’m changing my legal name to Mr. Harvard College.
Disgusts you? Don’t you think that rich people have a right to use the money the way they want? Would it disgust you if he decided to pass it on to his kids?
WTF? You actually believe that? You realize this is a conservative forum?
There is also the nightmare of the coming mass retirement of the baby boomers. Unfunded liabilities associated therewith are in the tens of trillions. Estates will have to be confiscated in order to pay for this.
WTF? You actually believe that? You realize this is a conservative forum? ..... Arguendo
Tax money has to come from somewhere and, right now, the vast majority of that tax money comes from income taxes squeezed out of people who are getting their money the old fashioned way, by earning it, and not inheriting it from Daddy.
What, exactly, is more "conservative" about taxing the hell out of the income of a live conservative that is trying to accumulate his first few million than taxing the estate of a dead liberal worth $2.7 billion?
When I die, I want to go out with a smile on my face like David’s brother Nelson...not screaming and crying like Megan Marshack.
(Not strictly relevant to the thread. I just like making that joke about Nelson.)
Nellie never met a New Yorker he couldn't screw. ;-)
Your initial reply to trane250, however, blasted him for merely proposing keeping the inheritance tax for the very wealthy. In this particular case, the total wealth was $1.5 Billion.
Right now, I have the dubious honor of "making six-figures" ..... in income tax payments each year.
To get to that point in my life, it took a hell of a lot of work and continuing sacrifice that, at my age, I will not be able to maintain for the next 20 years.
My top earning years, and yours as a future lawyer, will be limited by Father Time.
Whatever I can leave for my children is drastically reduced with an over $100,000 tax payment last year and this year and next year and the year after that. But, hey, I am "rich" and I deserve to be taxed out the wazoo while people like John Kerry sit on $500 million of his wife's inherited money and yet paid less Federal income taxes than I did on the year that he ran for President.
There is nothing "conservative" about leaving massive amounts of inherited wealth untaxed while those of us who are actually earning our wealth have to subsidize not only the bottom 50% of Americans that pay only 4% of the total taxes but also will be subsidizing those who wish to inherit hundreds of millions of dollars tax free.
I see nothing wrong with having tax laws that state that you can pass along money to your heirs and charities tax-free but, once that amounts to, say, over $50 million, you need to be sharing the tax burden with the over-taxed top 50% of the EARNERS that pay 96% of America's income taxes.
I completely agree that high marginal income tax rates are terrible, since they don't really accomplish even their stated goal of taxing the wealthy, but prevent high-achievers from accumulating wealth. My tax bill probably won't hit the six figures you mention for at least seven or eight years, but taxes will significantly limit my ability to save money. It's likely true that the money I save through lower income taxes would more than make up for what it would cost me in higher estate taxes (if we were to cut income taxes instead of eliminating the estate tax). So I agree with your sentiments.
But I still have a problem with the attitude clearly evident in some of the remarks on this thread that we should tax the very rich because of a dislike for the way they use their money.
You're talking about his tax policies, right?
Your goal of accumulating wealth is commendable. Let’s assume that you are successful and amass a great fortune in the litigation arena like Dickie Scruggs who made a killing on the tobacco settlement. Unfortunately, his next stop is the federal prison farm, but I digress. Would you want your grandchildren and great grandchildren and generations after that to live off the the wealth that you created? What incentive would they have to do anything useful? See the point?
If they need money, they need money, and this may be one way to get it (though I think double taxation is both unfair and inefficient). But it's completely inappropriate for the government to tax estates because it has a problem with rich people passing on the money they've earned to their children.
His administration, yes.
Buffet wouldn't pay any inheritance taxes anyway. He is giving most of his money to the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation.
What we need is protection from the political class who keep spending money without any constraint. This money must come either from current taxation or from borrowing against future tax revenues. Printing more money is always an available option.
I believe that very old and rich foundations that were set up to circumvent the inheritance tax should also be taxed on their assets. Call this the “good old Republican cloth coat” principle.
Your thoughts are important.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.