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

Buy Me a Chair: The wacky world of university endowments

musgrave.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: Buy Me a Chair: The wacky world of university endowments

#51

Post by tempodox »

musicale wrote: post #15
TheAtomic wrote: post #3

I went to a graduation a few years ago at Carnegie Mellon. Some hedge fund guy was making his biggest donation yet and gave the commencement speech. It was endlessly about him and the new building to be named after him and how he was about to own an NFL football team. There was a Nobel Prize winner seated next to him on stage. I don't think she got to say anything, but was recognized for her work in cancer research.…

> The juxtaposition felt Kafkaesque and a bit sleazy How surprising that Carnegie[1] Mellon[2] University would honor a businessman and financier who donated a small fortune to the school! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon

Those guys were rich and powerful, but were they also self-centered and vain?

Re: Buy Me a Chair: The wacky world of university endowments

#52

Post by metalforever »

fsckboy wrote: post #4
TheAtomic wrote: post #3

I went to a graduation a few years ago at Carnegie Mellon. Some hedge fund guy was making his biggest donation yet and gave the commencement speech. It was endlessly about him and the new building to be named after him and how he was about to own an NFL football team. There was a Nobel Prize winner seated next to him on stage. I don't think she got to say anything, but was recognized for her work in cancer research.…

to be fair, if she had finished the job and cured cancer, she could buy a Premier League team* (*cuz academics == soccer) There is a natural tendency to diminish money as a measure of anything good, but money really is the yardstick by which we jointly measure all things, trading off time with kids, family, travel, leisure against other priorities, and being rewarded by the rest of society for our contributions to wh…

I don't know, I was pretty poor and CMU let me go there for free.

Re: Buy Me a Chair: The wacky world of university endowments

#53

Post by [deleted] »

beefield wrote: post #50
fsckboy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to be fair, if she had finished the job and cured cancer, she could buy a Premier League team* (*cuz academics == soccer) There is a natural tendency to diminish money as a measure of anything good, but money really is the yardstick by which we jointly measure all things, trading off time with kids, family, travel, leisure against other priorities, and being rewarded by the rest of society for our contributions to wh…

> we do that because everybody loves a philanthropist giving. Count me out. I have a really unpopular opinion that philanthropy is nothing more nothing less than entertainment for the giver. There is no difference between me buing a movie ticket or giving money to a charity. (Well, other than in the movie case I create jobs, in the charity I foster helplessness) If society thinks there are some things where money sho…

[deleted]

Re: Buy Me a Chair: The wacky world of university endowments

#55

Post by jimnotgym »

> as when someone donates large sums to endow professorships in niche topics

Linking to

> When Strings Are Attached, Quirky Gifts Can Limit Universities

Going on to say that Princeton is being forced to run lots of greek courses due to dead guy paying for it.

Well...duh...of course. Wasn't that the point of the donation? The donor obviously wanted to imagine Greek studies going on forever.

I presume after some period they could stop? Give the money away, or repurpose it.

For me this is an arguement against the whole concept of wealthy benefactors vs taxation. If you tax the money the government can spend it on the public good. If you let the rich guy keep it they will spend it on their own whims.

Re: Buy Me a Chair: The wacky world of university endowments

#56

Post by fsckboy »

Shaanie wrote: post #49
fsckboy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

giving a 100 million dollar donation allows you to subtract 100 million from your income (assuming you had a lot more income, there is a limit) which at a 50% tax rate means you gave $50 million out of your account and the charity received $100 million into theirs, the rest coming from the govt in the form of taxes you would have given them but they didn't get from you. non-profits accepting donations will allow you…

Seems a pretty obvious solution to this loophole is to reduce non-cash deductibles by what would have been paid in capital gains, and have the non profit pay capital gains when they sell?

I don't know if there's an easy answer, the question is how valuable to society is it for large donations to be made to all the things that qualify as non-profits? The public likes the idea of philanthropy, and the type of elites who have access to political networks like these types of institutions.

My goal/interest here is simply to be transparent about how it works; how it works could be a good thing, I don't know. The wealthy donors are giving lots of money; the question is, is it ok for wealthy elites to give a chunk of money, let's call it 50%, and influence where the money goes in a way that's similar to and impacts govt budgets that are set politically? There are plenty of rich people on both the left and the right; but elitism is a separate issue.

Re: Buy Me a Chair: The wacky world of university endowments

#57

Post by Ekaros »

TheAtomic wrote: post #3

I went to a graduation a few years ago at Carnegie Mellon. Some hedge fund guy was making his biggest donation yet and gave the commencement speech. It was endlessly about him and the new building to be named after him and how he was about to own an NFL football team. There was a Nobel Prize winner seated next to him on stage. I don't think she got to say anything, but was recognized for her work in cancer research.…

I think only wrong thing there is that students are subjected to that bullshit. Now if it was the faculty or other donators it would be perfect.

Re: Buy Me a Chair: The wacky world of university endowments

#58

Post by defrost »

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #33

This doesn't explain what "endowing a chair" means. How does this plump a donor's rep and ego? Meanwhile, the entire college ecosystem is disgusting. I went to a top private university and will never give them a penny, for the way they treated both students and non-professor faculty.

    The Reverend Henry Lucas (c. 1610 – July 1663) was an English clergyman and politician who sat in the House of Commons from 1640 to 1648.
A full 360 years later we're still rather in awe of the chair he endowed.

    Since its establishment, the professorship has been held by, among others, Isaac Newton, Charles Babbage, George Stokes, Joseph Larmor, Paul Dirac, and Stephen Hawking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucasian_Professor_of_Mathemat...

Re: Buy Me a Chair: The wacky world of university endowments

#59

Post by jimnotgym »

fsckboy wrote: post #56
Shaanie wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a pretty obvious solution to this loophole is to reduce non-cash deductibles by what would have been paid in capital gains, and have the non profit pay capital gains when they sell?

I don't know if there's an easy answer, the question is how valuable to society is it for large donations to be made to all the things that qualify as non-profits? The public likes the idea of philanthropy, and the type of elites who have access to political networks like these types of institutions. My goal/interest here is simply to be transparent about how it works; how it works could be a good thing, I don't know…

I have really enjoyed your comments on this thread fsckboy.

> The public likes the idea of philanthropy

I think that may be because very rich donors can afford good PR. Also there are few politicians strong enough to say, "sure x spent 100m on postgrad study of his niche interest, but if the treasury had got it instead it could have spent it on teaching everyone's kids to read and write".

I think a (real) cap on tax deductability would have a interesting consequence. a) the government has more money and better public services. It no longer has to cosy up to a 'philanthropist', helping them look good b) real philanthropists would still donate. However people pursuing dubious interest, like funding niche courses for elite kids at an elite school, would wane. Public stops looking at philanthropy in same way, perhaps

Re: Buy Me a Chair: The wacky world of university endowments

#60

Post by jimnotgym »

wddkcs wrote: post #7
fsckboy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, dude, but am an UHNW individual, my income comes from investments, and year in year out I pay about 50% in tax (don't forget state and city income tax, and alternative minimum wipes out long term capital gain favoritism)

You need to get more money, then youll be able to avoid those taxes, seems to be the point. Paradise Papers leak reveals secrets of the world elite's hidden wealth https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/paradise-papers...

It is worth remembering that this doesn't have to be the case. The governments of the world could stop much of this tax avoidance if they had the will.
Post reply on HN