A university president makes a case against cowardice

Then they would need to tax nonprofit religious organizations too.

Why don't they just make the special interests pay their own multi-trillion dollar war bills instead of sabotaging US universities with surprise taxes?

If you increase expenses and cut revenue, what should you expect for your companies?

Why not just make a flat tax for everyone and end all the special interest pandering and exceptions for the rich. It is a poisonous misapplication of the time of our government to constantly be fiddling with tax code to favor one group or another.

I suspect it's about putting infrastructure in place to ensure loyalty in times of turbulence.

Those giant university endowments are partially used to allow those who couldn't afford it but otherwise have shown they have what the university is looking for in students to attend for significantly/entirely reduced costs. Meanwhile, the most visible billionaires are using their money to try to buy elections so they can dismantle the government for personal gain while oftentimes employing people with such low wages that they depend on the government to be able to afford such luxuries as eating three meals a day. It's pretty easy to see why the large parts of the public find one acceptable and the other less acceptable.

Because a lot of people, including many economists, believe capital accumulating endlessly to the same class of thousand-ish people is bad. A flat income tax exacerbates wealth inequality considerably.

Our tax now is worse than flat. Warren buffet brags about paying less % than his secretary.

I don't want to work for a business created by, uh, upper class folks that wouldn't have done it if not for temporary tax breaks by a pandering grifter executive.

I believe in a strong middle class and upward mobility for all.

I don't think we want businesses that are dependent on war, hate, fear, and division for continued profitability.

I don't know whether a flat or a regressive or a progressive tax system is more fair or more total society optimal.

I suspect it is true that, Higher income individuals receive more total subsidies than lower-income individuals.

You don't want a job at a firm that an already-wealthy founder could only pull off due to short-term tax breaks and wouldn't have founded if taxes go any higher.

You want a job at a firm run by people who are going to keep solving for their mission regardless of high taxes due to immediately necessary war expenses, for example.

In the interests of long-term economic health and national security of the United States, I don't think they should be cutting science and medical research funding.

Science funding has positive returns. Science funding has greater returns than illegal wars (that still aren't paid for).

Find 1980 on these charts of tax receipts, GDP, and income inequality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140500 :

> "Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

> "Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43220833 re: income inequality:

> GINI Index for the United States: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA

Find 1980 on a GINI index chart.

Either compare ideal tax structures with “no loopholes” (none of these exist in the real world) or compare actually-existing tax structures.

Comparing your ideal flat income tax with the current system is apples to oranges.

Yeah, I mean, I think we agree on most points.

I think there’s too many confounding economic factors to look at GINI alone and conclude the 1980 turning point was caused by nerfing the top income tax bracket. But a compelling argument could probably be made with more supporting data, which of course this margin is too narrow to contain and etc.

>>Why don't they just make the special interests pay their own multi-trillion dollar war bills instead of sabotaging US universities with surprise taxes?

>Either compare ideal tax structures with “no loopholes” (none of these exist in the real world) or compare actually-existing tax structures.

Hence I cannot compare your suggestion with the current system as it is apple to oranges because loopholes would exist.

My thesis is a flat tax would help to minimize the very loopholes you damn. The larger the tax code and the more it panders to particular interest, generally the more opportunity for 'loopholes.'

Endowments are typically restricted funds (imposed by the fund provider) and can't be used (unless the restrictions are removed) to be used for general operating budget.

Harvard generally uses the interest on the fund principal to pay for things and it was a massive internal controversy when folks proposed drawing down the (absolutely enormous) principal as payment for capital expenditures (among other controversies).

IDK if it's bragging or voiced concern.

Everyone can afford it if given a loan. If the job you get after can't afford to pay back the loan, it's time to look for another career, and for the schools to be on the hook for the miss, not the taxpayer.

And yes you are right acceptability, because polls show that the government bailing out students making poor career choices and schools paying for bloated staff is definitely not acceptable to the majority of Americans.

Better would be to remove inheritance after death, instead distributing that wealth among the citizenship equally.

List of countries by inheritance tax rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inheritan...