Surely the universities would want to live up to their "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" philosophy!
Apparently not. 1.4% of THEIR money must not go to the government!!
Winning
US Universities, aka: Institutions of Marxist Indoctrination.
Oh boo hoo.
Good. Liberals love taxes. This should have them in ecstasy.
Writer seems to be applying for job as Drama Queen...
The next step is for the Fed to get out of the student loan business. Let the universities provide the loans and actually stand behind their worthless degrees. Colleges will think twice about extending $150k loans of their own money to philosophy majors who will spend their careers as coffee baristas.
But but but but its ONLY 1.4% don’t you want to pay your fair share? It will NEVER go up right? Ha ha ha ha. I’m a recovering college professor who was shown the door for being a conservative in a “conservative” school. I LOVE THIS!!
So it is not even on all endowments, it is only on the wealthiest 1%. What's not to like about that?
They can even reduce their tax burden by (a)enrolling more full-time students and/or (b)making more endowment money available for scholarships.
Who thought up this genius plan?
OutSTANDING, Mr. President.
Hell. These institutes of Communist Indoctrination don’t need any help in hurting themselves.
So, let’s do what we can to help them along toward shuttering their doors.
Harvard’s endowment is over 40 billion and growing.
1.4% is way too low. Make them live up to their words. Fair share and all.
It is also time to start taxing private foundations. The Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, George Soros’s foundation and many others spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year on social justice work targeted at destroying the republic and western civilization. The work of these “nonprofits” should not be supported by the taxpayer through the tax code.
Reform of foundations would encourage foundations to distribute the assets of the foundation within 10 years of its establishment as follows:
1) Limit the tax exemption on income from foundation assets to 10 years from the date the foundation is established.
2) Limit the tax deductibility of donations to a foundation and activities or programs of the foundation to 10 years.
3) Ten years from the date the foundation is established, the foundation’s assets will be subject to an asset tax of 5%.
4) All assets and retained income from the investments of the foundation must be distributed according to the charter of the foundation within 25 years of the foundation being established. Any assets remaining on the 25th anniversary of the foundation will be donated to the US Treasury general fund.
5) From inception real and personal property of foundations, as well as financial assets, will be subject to state and local property taxes and intangible taxes.
From Boston talker/columnist Howie Carr a few weeks ago: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2017/11/carr_whiny_ivies_apoplectic_over_tax
.
This is absolutely a good thing!
The endowing fool should have to pay the tax.
.
They must have endowments exceeding 250 thousand per student. That’s very few schools. Besides, it means they are hoarding scholarship money and research money and relying on government money for gramts & research. Keep theirs and spend ours.
anti-American, depraved, left-wing indoctrination institutions in the world.
This tax is a great idea!
If universities were actually teaching the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understand, then they'd be able to argue the following to keep the corrupt feds out of their bank accounts.
Regardless that there are all kinds of federal banking laws, patriots are reminded that Thomas Jefferson had noted that, although the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had considered giving the feds the specific power to regulate banks, they had decided not to.
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
Also, when Jefferson was later POTUS, he had officially indicated that neither had the Founding States expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate schooling purposes, something that the states have still never done.
"On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphases added]"—Thomas Jefferson : Sixth Annual Message to Congress
In fact, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices had clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, the powers to regulate banking and schooling not among those powers as previously shown.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So since the "blind leading the blind" universities aren't teaching the fed's constitutionally limited powers, it's no surprise that universities are unable to protect themselves from unconstitutional federal overreach where taxes are concerned.
In fact, note that vote-winning federal funding, which so many universities are evidently addicted to, are arguably state revenues which the corrupt feds steal from the states by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.
In other words, if the states would wise up and eliminate the unconstitutional federal middleman from their revenue management, the states would be able to better support their schools.
Also, consider that it was the twisted interpretation of the Commerce Clause (1.8.3) in Wickard v. Filburn by FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices that gave the feds the politically correct excuse to stick their big noses into state affairs.
The remedy …
Patriots need to finish the job that they started in the 2016 elections by electing Trump president.
More specifically, patriots now need to be making sure that there are plenty of state sovereignty-respecting, Trump-supporting patriot candidates on the 2018 primary ballots and pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to D.C. on election day.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Has he been reading my Christmas wish list?????
Outstanding!!!
Universities charge outrageous tuition, get taxpayer monies, and take in grants.
Tax them! They are no longer non-profits.