Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 164 posts

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#141

Post by Retric »

evanelias wrote: post #102
Retric wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's Bloomberg's money A large chunk of that money is subsidized by tax payers, as he would not keep the 1.8 Billion if he had bought a sports team or other vanity project that was not tax deductible. I am not saying spending taxpayer money to promote giving is a bad idea, but it is an expensive one that’s generally forgotten about.

I don't follow this line of reasoning. It's his money, not taxpayer money. If he simply held on to the money, he would not owe additional tax on it either. Perhaps it will eliminate his personal tax bill for 2018, but his yearly income is far less than $1.8B, and his tax bill is only a portion of his yearly income... the tax implications of this gift are only a small portion of the amount.

Unless he is an idiot, he donated aprecated assets like stock. If he sells the stock he needs to pay taxes on that stock. That’s true even if he buys something by directly handing someone stock.

Even if he had 1.8 Billion in cash and ‘only’ got to deduct from his current tax bill that still means the US population is giving up money to support his cause.

Taxes are not about the government. They are a shared burden by tax payers and anyone paying less is increasing that burden for everyone else. The only way to reduce it is for the government to sped less money.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#142

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Retric wrote: post #141
evanelias wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow this line of reasoning. It's his money, not taxpayer money. If he simply held on to the money, he would not owe additional tax on it either. Perhaps it will eliminate his personal tax bill for 2018, but his yearly income is far less than $1.8B, and his tax bill is only a portion of his yearly income... the tax implications of this gift are only a small portion of the amount.

Unless he is an idiot, he donated aprecated assets like stock. If he sells the stock he needs to pay taxes on that stock. That’s true even if he buys something by directly handing someone stock. Even if he had 1.8 Billion in cash and ‘only’ got to deduct from his current tax bill that still means the US population is giving up money to support his cause. Taxes are not about the government. They are a shared burden by…

Taxes are the art of plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least squawking. I am not on the side of rationalizing why somebody 'owes' taxes on money already taxed.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#143

Post by Retric »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #142
Retric wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless he is an idiot, he donated aprecated assets like stock. If he sells the stock he needs to pay taxes on that stock. That’s true even if he buys something by directly handing someone stock. Even if he had 1.8 Billion in cash and ‘only’ got to deduct from his current tax bill that still means the US population is giving up money to support his cause. Taxes are not about the government. They are a shared burden by…

Taxes are the art of plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least squawking. I am not on the side of rationalizing why somebody 'owes' taxes on money already taxed.

I am not saying he needs to pay more. I am saying the charitable deduction like all deductions are effectively just another form of spending.

We hand out money to people buying a Tesla Model S’s, or paying a mortgage payment. Agree or disagree with the idea, just understand it’s not free.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#144

Post by michaelt »

Retric wrote: post #140
joemi wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I’m understanding you correctly, it should be noted that paying for something (or donating to something) that does not require you to pay taxes is not the same thing at all as using taxpayer money. It’s not subsidized, is it? It’s just not taxed. (Do correct me if I’m wrong though.)

If you donate 100 $ and then get X dollars rebated from your taxes you donated 100 - X dollars.

What do you think should be the difference in tax between a rich business owner donating money directly from their company, and a regular joe donating money from their paycheck?

And what do you think the current difference in tax is?

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#145

Post by bzbarsky »

Zungaron wrote: post #91
manigandham wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering academia is vastly one-sided politically, influences the minds of entire graduating generations, and there has been fallout in major companies and even laws passed, the issues around "social justice" are in fact real and much bigger than you may think.

Maybe academia would be less politically one-sided if the other side hadn't built their brand on ignoring science in all its forms.

How do you square that opinion with the fact that the parts of academia that are least one-sided politically are the parts which actually do the best job of using the scientific method in practice?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/11/leftist-academia-demo... is a decent recent-ish article on the topic. Note the offhand comments about blatant discrimination in hiring, which might just be a relevant thing here. And from what I've seen, non-liberals in humanities departments commonly have to deal with what is pretty much the textbook definition of a hostile work environment. It just happens that political affiliation and opinion is not a protected class, so it's not possibly to do anything about it other than leaving. Which is what people do in practice.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#146

Post by michaelt »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #136
lotsofpulp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not entitled, they’re just not being compensated enough to do labor which has quite a bit of negative effects on your health and quality of life compared to office jobs. Once you see people opting for the trades, then you will know they are getting proper compensation.

The trades aren't __that__ dangerous. Certainly not any more dangerous than sitting at a desk all day, stressed out, and putting on 30 - 50+ lbs. That sedentary lifestyle will kill you.

If you think being an office worker is more dangerous than being a roofer or a logger or a farmer, I can tell you I've just checked the statistics and actually such jobs are comparatively more dangerous.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#147

Post by bzbarsky »

thosakwe wrote: post #110
akulbe wrote: post #63

I realize I'm likely going to be a dissenting opinion here… but I'm not sure this is a good investment. Unless you're going to enter a field that requires the pedigree that starts with college (i.e. medicine, law, engineering), it's arguable that college isn't even worth the tuition you pay for it. Like another commenter says, they have no incentive to do anything that will reduce costs. The quality of the education…

> It feels like colleges are turning into breeding grounds for social justice warriors more than they're turning out folks who are prepared to enter the workforce. They’re not mutually exclusive. You can be a skilled worker, who also advocates for social justice... I don’t even see how one would obstruct the other. I’m also wondering how this means that “the quality of education seems to be on the decline.”

There's a difference between advocating for social justice and being a "social justice warrior", as the term is generally understood today (the meaning has shifted a good bit in the last 20 years).

As far as I can tell, at this point when people hear "social justice warrior", they hear: (1) the person's interaction with the world is all about status signaling, not achieving actual justice and (2) the "warrior" part is taken seriously, in the sense of perceiving anyone not perfectly aligned with you as an enemy to be destroyed, by any means necessary.

It's obviously still possible to be a skilled worker with a mindset leaning in that direction; I've met some. But it can make someone very hard to work with, for sure.

Obviously the pure form of "social justice warrior" as described above is a caricature that one encounters rarely in practice. Most people grow out of point (2) once they get old enough, for example.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#148

Post by notSupplied »

manigandham wrote: post #124
notSupplied wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Wow, geez, the Republican party is so one sided, like, everyone there is a Republican!" That is such an utterly meaningless argument. You can use that argument to challenge literally any well established fact regardless of it's merits. It is by this argument that increasingly extreme viewpoints have entered the political mainstream. E.g., "It's a problem that everyone in this room so one-sidedly believes the Holocau…

That's not what I said though, is it? Arguing against a made-up statement is indeed meaningless. Academia is not a political party, and has all kinds of people, so being so one-sided politically is a valid concern. There's also a big difference between beliefs on issues and historical facts. Facts, by definition, cannot be debated as they are objective truths.

You just repeated the claim I am arguing against: that the mere one-sidedness of a group of people's beliefs is in itself a problem without discussing the merits of those beliefs, for which I constructed the example of "the mere onesidedness of Holocaust believers is problematic and equal representation from deniers should be introduced"

If you've got a problem with beliefs commonly held within academia then debate them on their merits and not on the mere fact that some group of people seem to have consensus on something.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#149

Post by nickthemagicman »

manigandham wrote: post #104
addicted wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the spouse of someone who suffers from depression and suicidal thinking the outrage against “trigger warnings” really pisses me off. Trigger warnings are just that. Warnings. We watched A Star is Born, and having my spouse go back on almost a years worth of progress and treatment when a single “trigger warning” could have avoided that is beyond enraging. And what’s most hypocritical is the people who are complaini…

The underlying fact is that everything is subjective and trying to enumerate every possible situation that someone may react to is impossible. Why is it not the responsibility of the individual to learn more about the movie by checking the ratings and synopsis? Can you explain what exactly a trigger warning would even contain that somehow helps here? It seems that if a single movie can unwind a "years worth of progre…

I have zero issues with trigger warnings. If it helps someone so be it. No skin off my back.

Just alot of this country views them with disdain which is unfortunate. It's been branded as weak to have a mental disorder. Meanwhile beliveing in Q-Anon is perfectly ok to them.

Re: Why I’m Giving $1.8B for College Financial Aid

#150

Post by Retric »

michaelt wrote: post #144
Retric wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you donate 100 $ and then get X dollars rebated from your taxes you donated 100 - X dollars.

What do you think should be the difference in tax between a rich business owner donating money directly from their company, and a regular joe donating money from their paycheck? And what do you think the current difference in tax is?

I am not making an argument for what should be, only what is.

Companies also get tax deductions. Should or should not is a different issue, but currently they do.

Post reply on HN