News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
May 1
With college endowments a favorite target for politicians in Washington, and many states struggling to find enough tax revenue to make ends meet, it’s almost a surprise that it took state legislators this long to start casting their eyes on colleges’ funds. But it’s perhaps not a shock that if the issue were to emerge anywhere, it would be in Massachusetts, home to the university (Harvard) whose nearly $34.6 billion endowment has become the poster child for higher education wealth.
During debate over the state’s budget for the 2009 fiscal year Monday, members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives considered imposing a 2.5 percent tax on assets exceeding $1 billion in any college’s endowment (in other words, any amount up to $1 billion would not be taxed). The measure did not win approval, with the House opting instead to ask the State Department of Revenue to study the proposal. But in the meantime, lawmakers engaged in the sort of rhetoric that has been increasingly heard in the halls of Congress in recent months, where U.S. Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) this spring directed 136 colleges with endowments over $500 million to report on how they were spending those funds.
“Why do we want to tax the poor all the time, but we let off the hook the richest of the rich?” said State Rep. Angelo Scaccia, a Democrat, said during the course of Monday’s debate, according to the Metrowest Daily News. “We’re not going to break them,” he added of colleges’ endowment funds. “We just want a little.”
The sponsor of the proposal, Rep. Paul Kujawski, another Democrat, said in a telephone interview late Wednesday that “when you realize that you do have some institutions of higher learning where wealth has grown above and beyond where you really wouldn’t imagine, you say to yourself, When does a nonprofit stop being a nonprofit? How on Earth can they possibly utilize $35 or $36 billion?” Kujawski, who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for tax policy, said that “from the standpoint of a responsible legislator, when you are operating in a budget deficit, you have to look towards each and every way there’s a possibility of acquiring new revenues. Every type of revenue should be on the table.”
Private college leaders in Massachusetts reacted with dismay to the sudden appearance of the issue on the state agenda, even as they acknowledged the economic downturn of uncertain length and depth that Kujawski cites in raising it.
“I think that legislators, and I don’t think Massachusetts is unique in this, are simply frustrated by the pressures they’re under to solve lots of problems with decreasing revenues” from property taxes and other sources, said Richard Doherty, executive director of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Massachusetts, which represents the state’s private colleges. As they are “turning over rocks and stones looking for money,” as Robert Brown, the president of Boston University, put it, it’s perhaps not surprising that their attention was drawn to college endowments, since “the size of one of our colleges’ endowment seems to attract a fair amount of attention,” Doherty said, referring to Harvard.
Even if they understood what was driving the scrutiny, Doherty and Brown said they were troubled by the lack of understanding it reveals about the reality of the situation. While Massachusetts may have a disproportionate number of well-endowed colleges — Kujawski’s proposal would have applied to 9 institutions that appear on the National Association of College and University Business Officers’ list of 76 colleges with endowments over $1 billion (Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Williams, Boston, Amherst and Wellesley Colleges, Tufts University, Smith College and Boston University) — the median endowment for the state’s more than 70 independent colleges is $32 million, one-one-hundredth the size of Harvard’s, said Doherty.
Underlying Kujawski’s proposal is the idea that private colleges with big endowments are contributing too little to the state’s economy because of their tax-exempt status, which shields them from having to pay property and many other taxes that other employers cough up. Such an argument has been made in Massachusetts and elsewhere in the past, and leads some institutions (like Boston University, Brown notes) to make “payments in lieu of taxes” to their cities or towns each year.
But institutions contribute to the state’s economy in other important, if less direct, ways, too, Doherty said. While Massachusetts’ state budget is roughly equivalent in size to North Carolina’s, he said, the state spends just 4 percent of its budget on higher education each year, while North Carolina — much more dependent on publicly supported institutions — spends more than 11 percent. That differential amounts to “more than $2 billion annually that Massachusetts taxpayers and the Massachusetts legislature do not have to come up with for higher education services.”
On top of those philosophical concerns, Doherty and Brown cited several practical problems with Kujawski’s proposal, most pointedly that it would most likely be unconstitutional to tax tax-exempt institutions differently based on their wealth.
And Brown said it was distressing that some lawmakers seemed not to appreciate how much of their endowment funds institutions were spending on the public good, like scholarships for low-income students, and that taxing those funds would almost certainly make less money available for those purposes. “We spend almost $180 million a year on undergraduate financial aid,” Brown said. If the endowment tax were to take effect, he said, “it would hit the bottom line and affect that, and come out of all kinds of contributions we make.”
Officials at the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities said they were unaware of the endowment issue having been raised in other states before now.
But the idea could spread to other states, if Kujawski’s peers elsewhere are keeping an eye on the goings-on in Washington, as he suggests he has been.
“We read quite a bit about the Congressional hearings about student loans and financial aid, and we’ve seen that the reactions from some of the colleges have been beneficial for students,” he said, referring to decisions in recent months by Harvard, Yale and other institutions to increase their spending on student financial aid, in part, in response to pressure from Congress about whether well-endowed colleges are doing enough to help needy students.
So is the idea, he was asked, that maybe there’s more money to be gotten?
“Absolutely,” Kujawski said. “We were saying the first billion isn’t going to be touched. So maybe more of these schools might provide more funds for their students, to stay under the billion. A billion dollars is a lot of money.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
How about instead of taxing the institutions with huge endowments, the states AND the federal government implement a sliding scale that starts at a billion dollar endowments and completely eliminates all tax support for institutions with endowments over 5 billion. I realize that privates like Harvard probable get little from the state, but they do get significant amounts in terms of Pell Grants and research dollars (to name a few) from the federal government tax coffers. Let’s stop giving them more ‘tax’ money and require them to fund research and financial aid from their own pockets. If this were propsed, I am willing to bet these wealthy institutions would rather have their endowments taxed.
Wasted tax dollars, at 10:05 am EDT on May 1, 2008
This statement is one of the most frightening ones uttered by a politician in a constitutional democracy:
“Why do we want to tax the poor all the time, but we let off the hook the richest of the rich?” said State Rep. Angelo Scaccia, a Democrat, said during the course of Monday’s debate, according to the Metrowest Daily News. “We’re not going to break them,” he added of colleges’ endowment funds. “We just want a little.”
“We just want a little.” It is amazing how politicians have developed another euphemism for “robbery.”
Johannes Climacus, at 11:15 am EDT on May 1, 2008
Of course there are many people, overwhelmingly poor, who feel they have already been robbed by the rich, which is after all how many of them got that way in the first place.
The most frightening words for the poor:
Government bailout!
It means we poor sucker, taxpayers just got a tax increase to pay for the greed and mismanagement of the rich corporate executive. Betcha they wont have to sell their private jet when it is all said and done.
But why am I carping, I am gonna get a $600 economic stimulus check. What should I buy? Perhaps there is still a young congressman out their on fire sale.
No, I think I will save it for next years bailout tax increase.
Just Saying, at 1:20 pm EDT on May 1, 2008
Wasted tax dollars:
If the government does not want MIT or Harvard to do research for them they can certainly not give them grants. But if they want the research they need to fund it — otherwise MIT and Harvard faculty have no incentive to actually do the research the government wants.
Reducing federal aid for students is a different matter. The government could do that (no Pell grants for students attending institutions with huge endowments) but it might be more trouble than it’s worth.
Faculty Person, at 2:20 pm EDT on May 1, 2008
The relative merits of progressive income versus wealth taxes have been debated before, and almost never have people opted for a wealth tax. It has the potential to work too well and make everyone and everything mediocre.
Bob, at 2:20 pm EDT on May 1, 2008
This is a terrible idea on many many fronts: 1- It’s completely unconstitutional 2- It’s unprecendented (assets are never taxed until sold in this country, if I am not mistaken. Taking 2.5% a year is just plain robbery) 3- It’s based on silly assumptions (just because Harvard has 30+B doesn’t mean its not using that money for good. Federally funded research has basically dried up, and these schools are operating on an island- running undergraduate education, graduate education, research, and medical facilities all on their own watch!)4- The fundamental premise is flawed: These institutions pay out something from 4.5% to 6% (I know because I work at one). These payout rates are carefully chosen because the endowments have an infinite time horizon and must prepare the school for future economic downturns. If taxes of 2.5% are levied on a school which pays out 5%, they are basically cutting in half the payments the endowment can make to fund school operations. That means kids won’t get scholarships and hospitals won’t get power. Is that really what people want?!
eh, Banker at top-ten university, at 1:25 pm EDT on May 9, 2008
Any idea that sends the education establishment into apoplexy is worth further discussion, and the proposal made by members of the Massachusetts legislature that the Uber-Wealthy college endowments should be taxed is worth a further look. The proposal is being floated that endowments in excess of $1 billion would be taxed at the rate of 2.5%. Considering the fact that there are 7 college endowments larger than $1 billion in the Bay State, that would bring in a boat load of money.
The Harvard endowment is worth about $34 Billion. Now, that’s a pile of money. If Harvard were a person it would be the 7th richest person in the world, right behind Anil Ambani who owns the better part of India and ahead of Ingvar Kamprad who owns Ikea (the furniture company).
The educrats are squealing like stuck pigs and claiming that they do a tremendous amount of good with their loot. Of course they are also claiming tax-exempt status which keeps them from paying things like property taxes that private sector institutions pay, depriving the cities in which they reside of needed tax revenue.
But let’s get real; you don’t collect an endowment in excess of $34 billion by spending money freely. You do this by a process known as hoarding. You do this by charging your customers through the nose. You do this by being miserly. You also do this by making smart investments but not having to pay taxes on the income and the gains …because you claim tax exemption!
By all means, it’s time to tax the bloated malefactors of great wealth at Big Education!
(It’s interesting how you can be so easily vilified by simply putting “Big” in front of your industry name, isn’t it?)
Moneyrunner, at 7:50 pm EDT on May 10, 2008
Some comments directed at the previous comments:
Wossamotta U: taxing an institution’s endowment is not really the same as taxing the institution. It is not morally different than many of the proposals being made by the Left to impose a “windfall profits” tax on the oil companies or the drug companies or any other industry they choose to demonize. In this case, Harvard and the others just made themselves big sitting ducks by growing their endowments to obscene levels while charging exorbitant rates for their services (to use a favorite Liberal rhetorical device).
Johannes Climacus: why suddenly “robbery” when it’s directed at wealthy college endowments but justice when it’s directed at “the rich” who are not paying “their fair share?”
Faculty Person: But, but, but I thought that the good people in the academy were selfless researchers seeking knowledge for its own sake. Why would they not be altruistic enough to do the research the people of the United States need if they were asked by the government? Think of the children!
Bob: there are states that have a wealth tax. North Carolina, for example, had one called the intangibles tax. And there are many assets that are taxed without regard to income. In my state of Virginia we are taxed on the value of our homes and cars. These are items of wealth. There is no coherent reason why an asset like an endowment should not be taxed above a certain level.
Finally to eh: my comments to Bob also apply to you. Lots of items are taxed in this country without being sold; houses and cars are just two examples. You also assume that the tax on endowments must be subtracted from the distribution of funds thus depriving the supposed beneficiaries of their financial needs. Poppycock. Harvard made 23% last year on its invested funds! Get that gargantuan endowment down to a reasonable size; say $1 billion and presto: no tax. By the way, I admire your Washington Monument defense.
Moneyrunner, at 8:25 am EDT on May 11, 2008
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
The Department of Accounting, Finance, Information Systems and Economics invites applications for a tenure track position in ... see job
The Senior Vice President of Finance and Operations is the chief finance operations officer of the college, reporting ... see job
Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job
Explore the Path to Possibilities at Community College of Philadelphia, the largest public institution of higher education in ... see job
Faculty and staff make an educated choice to work at Southern Oregon University. They contribute to the education of students ... see job
Position Summary: The Office of Audit and Compliance (OAC) at Princeton University is seeking a ... see job
Salary: Commensurate with qualifications and experience Date of appointment: July 1, 2009 Responsibilities: Coordinate ... see job
University of Maryland University College (UMUC) seeks a professional with significant experience and a drive for success to ... see job
Troy University-Troy Campus is currently accepting applications for the full-time position of International Business ... see job
Follow the $
Two issues, the first of which is much easier resolved:
1. If legislators want to start at this nice, round $1B mark (which seems arbitrary—perhaps crafted for easy marketing to voters), then the number needs to adjust with inflation. $1B today is not $1B tomorrow. Further, $1B to an institution of 2,000 students is not the same as $1B to an institution of 20,000.
2. This looks like a brilliant back door deal for states to get federal money. A few of the schools on this Massachusetts list (as well as the national one) have done away with, or have decreased their use of federal student aid money. For those that still accept it, state taxation of federally funded institutions presents a debacle. If the states want federal money, there is a method for asking—there should not be a method for taking.
I’m not a fan of elitism, and I’m not for institutions of higher education that act as they are funded—like small countries. Still, the way this tax idea has been discussed is reckless and unempirical. I’ll be interested to see what this “further study” turns up.
Wossamotta U., at 10:05 am EDT on May 1, 2008