Very good decision. Let’s see if them Ivy Leagues with enormous endowments would follow…likely not because that’ll cause a big drop in gifts and donations.
> likely not because that’ll cause a big drop in gifts and donations.
This is a topic that I haven't had much interest in so sorry if I'm being dumb here, but I struggle to see how this could be a good thing?
I guess the way I'm seeing this is that if you're too not smart enough to get into these universities but are lucky enough to have parents with lots of money, you can basically bribe your way in.
While this seems unfair on the surface, and I suppose it is from certain lenses, it is surely also in effect acting as a "stupid rich person" tax for higher education?
I mean to your point here, if Ivy League universities receive a big drop in donations wouldn't that practically guarantee they'll either need to charge higher tuition fees to those less fortunate who get in on merit, or they'll need to lower the quality of their education?
Could someone help me out here? I'm aware I'm saying something stupid. I don't see how this could possibly be a good thing for those less well off who get in on merit? Are they not in favour of their education costs being partly offset by large donation from wealthy people?
Pragmatically speaking "tax the rich" isn't going to happen and these kind of de facto "wealth taxes" are far easier to implement.
Here in the UK we have a problem with public health care funding and I have no idea why we don't simply offer priority service for rich people who are willing to pay stupid amounts of money for priority service. In doing we could redirect that extra funding to those who need it most but can't afford private health care.
I guess exploiting the stupidity and vanity of rich people seems like a much more pragmatic (and arguably fairer) solution than trying to implement wealth taxes or 70% income taxes.
