Who Receives More Government Help, Stanford or UC Berkeley? | Robert Reich
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 มี.ค. 2018
- Robert Reich examines higher education in America, and how they are funded.
Watch More: Do Corporations Need a Tax Cut? ►► • Do Corporations Need a...
For more videos like these, be sure to subscribe. If you'd like to support our work, you can do so here: www.inequalitymedia.org/donate
Follow Robert Reich:
Facebook: RBReich
Twitter: RBReich
Instagram: rbreich
We all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free market capitalism for the poor.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
"I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic. And yet I am not so opposed to capitalism that I have failed to see its relative merits. It started out with a noble and high motive, to block the trade monopolies of nobles, but like most human systems it falls victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It has brought about a system that takes necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
true story. +1
Kind of funny MLK was called a socialist. The Hebrews from the Bible were also socialist. There was NO one individual on top of the society. The society shared everything.
@@w41duvernay Well.. it’s not funny, and the Hebrews weren’t exactly socialists. Otherwise, I agree 😁
"charity ˈtʃarɪti/
noun: charity; plural noun: charities
1. an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need."
The American Tax Office needs to look at their definition of charity.
Good points to consider- Federal Taxation is extremely biased and unbalanced, and getting worse...
the Rich getting Richer - that is the plan - what did you expect
To add on to Robert's point: vast amount of the contributions Stanford receives don't even benefit their students. It just keeps on ballooning up the endowment fund.
Pell Grant (plus other similar programs indicating need): make the percentage of the deductibility directly proportional to the Pell Grant percentage.
I have friends at a private college so I pretty much knew that they would get far more subsidies than the public college would get. They also have quite a long list of very rich donors which the public College does not get. A majority of their students students also come from fabulously wealthy families. I have friends that are instructors there as well and they've shared how many of the students look down on the public college students and poor people in general as getting large handouts when it's actually the other way around.
Frederic -- Make colleges private to save government resources. Clever idea. As private interests, especially as part of a large corporate conglomerate, colleges would then be in line for what is by far the government's biggest socialist outlay: corporate welfare.
@Frederic Bastiat Deductions for stock options for CEOs, no-nid contracts, weapons systems DOD doesn't want, for starters.
@Frederic Bastiat The point is that stock options were a way around a rule that limited deductibility for executive pay, stating that "performance" was allowed with no limit. If someone cashes out a.$100MM option when the limit was supposed to be $1MM, that's a $33MM or so government subsidy right there (probably closer to $20MM after the tax cuts). Who's the moron? Nowhere did I say "unrealized stock options."
@Frederic Bastiat I'm discussing no such thing. I'm discussing limiting *the tax deduction* for CEO pay. If a corporation decides that the CEO is really worth $100MM, they shouldn't get to use $20MM of taxpayer subsidies to do it.
@Frederic Bastiat Or maybe there's value to education and the gov't recognizes that. BTW I'm not sure what Robert's height has to do with anything. Grow up.
what a provocative topic, loved the session
The problem with Reich is he begins with the assumption that all the money is the government’s and we miss use it. There is no government subsidy in his example- at all. He says because you lower your tax liability the government is effectively letting you decide how to spend government money. He was a bad economist when he worked for Jimmy Carter and Barrack Obama. He has to be a professor, because he can only work in theory, not in results
Great point about public and private education funding.
Charitable contributions shouldn't be tax deductible. Congress should decide where taxes revenue is spent, not donors. Why should all taxpayers chip in to support what a donor wants to support.
Good video professor!
Why doesn't the federal government subsidise all accredited universities the same per capita?
My guess is Stanford as I am watching this at 1:10.
Robert Reich said that charitable deductions are deducted from your income tax. Not true. They are deducted from your INCOME, the income on which your taxes are calculated.
I like the idea of basing tax deductibility on %Pell eligibility a lot more than basing it on race or gender quotas. I would worry that it would set a precedent that could lead to race or gender quotas, however. That would be horribly divisive.
It would have been interesting to have figures regarding postgraduates as well. This might (or might not) help to justify a higher expenditure per student given the greater costs involved in academic research. Roughly 25% of UC Berkeley students are postgraduates. By contrast, postgraduates comprise more than half the students at Stanford. The raw figures (according to Wikipedia) are: Berkeley: 11,666 (fall 2018), Stanford: 9,437. The specialist subjects of a university will also have an impact upon the expenditure required to run its programmes. Liberal arts universities should be considerably cheaper to operate than those focused upon STEM subjects (given the need for laboratories and expensive specialist equipment for the latter disciplines).
What if we had all donors contribute not to an individual university, but to a larger fund from which we were able to distribute funds?
In before he explains that getting a tax cut is the same as being subsidized
Edit: Nailed it
I feel like private colleges would find some shady workaround to the proposal. Maybe it would be better to mandate charitable contributions to universities must be split evenly between public and private colleges.
How about making that the percentage donation eligible charitable deduction *is* the percentage of students eligible for Pell Grants?
Flaw in the argument subsidy assumptions imply donations would be same without tax exemptions
Excellent lecture!
K through 12 education is right that all kids in America at least in theory have a right to have. We should also allow all exceptional students who are willing to work hard an avenue to attain the highest education possible. It is in our best interest to give tomorrow’s leaders the skills to excel.
Also a "consumer" needs chemistry just to shop safely.
For the $9600 and $26000 per undergrad subsidies, are these amounts actually going to the students?
No.
A. I support but maybe the percentage of people affected or that receive the reward is higher than 25%
Wouldn't we be better off if part of that charitable contribution were assigned to some more useful application, like the military, so we can destroy two worlds instead of just one.
Because I am unable to discern how subsidies have helped me in my life, this was a tough class to soak in.
I worked in the oil industry for 10 years. That's hella subsidized.
I served in the military for 8 years.
I attended a public university for both degrees and will soon start a graduate degree.
I bought a home leveraging VA benefits.
I'm a disabled vet, so the government is subsidizing every aspect of at least a portion of my life, for services rendered.
For 18 years I paid no federal taxes, and in many cases received $10k+ returns because I had three kids.
Now, I might play some of the definitions of a subsidy a little fast and lose, but I hope I'm making a broader point.
Examine ASU pls
A. Stanford
As austerity reduces the number of Pell grant recipients, your proposal would set schools in competition, one against another, for the small number of recipients remaining, with extraordinarily high financial stakes if the threshold is all-or-nothing.
@Kevin Kenny
Yeah, they'd have to pick a specific year for Pell eligibility instead of just using whatever's current.
That, in turn, would fail to reward schools that move toward greater diversity, but rather pick winners and losers based on past behavior without any incentive to change.
@Kevin Kenny
Whose past behavior?
The schools: number of Pell grant recipients admitted in some benchmark year becomes a factor that the school cannot change.
If they have a vote, it should be same as ours
Since the professor is posing the "out of the blue" question; my uneducated guess would be Stanford.
Is that you in your dp ??
I've always said that charitable donations made for the sake of tax deductions is a bad idea. The government may only take a 50% pay cut, but who's to say the donation is put to 100% of its purpose? What's the figure on United Way? Like .30 on the dollar actually goes to need? (I'll admit I haven't looked in a while and my memory is not great). But guys like Bill Gates investing millions to feed the hungry in Africa while American students struggle and pile on the debt so just absurd.
Your struggle must be so much worse than those in Africa receiving a bag of rice from Bill Gates.
Stanford
How about, if you want to donate to education, you donate to a general fund which is spread evenly over all qualifying students every year?
You shouldn't be able to donate to s specific school or institution and then deduct it from your taxes.
Tax money distribution is decided by the Government, not the individual.
You want to give money specifically to Stanford? Great. Do it. It's not a tax deduction. If you want to deduct the donation from your taxes, it goes into the general fund.
Same for every class of non profit. Want to deduct your donations from your federal taxes? You donate to the general fund for that donation and the Government spreads it evenly over all individuals in that qualifying class.
But right now, I can set up a non profit legally and accept donations from friends and family which they then get all of you to pay for through tax breaks. My charity can do some actual work, not even be a scam, but still benefit no one but my own community.
Want to evade all taxes? Start a church. Doesn't even have to be a religion that exists at this second. You can make it up. Literally. The bar is set so low you can roll over it in your sleep. Then you and all your friends donate all your income to the church except the 12k or so that won't be taxed anyway. Then the church provides all your housing, vehicles, food and other living expenses including health care.
Church property can't be taxed. Since the church is an entity in itself, you can swallow up property and when members of the church die, they technically have no assets to be taxed by estate taxes either.
The Church of Scientology is a prime example of this. You can literally use a science fiction book written as a joke by a science fiction writer as your basis for a 'Deeply held belief'
Which is impossible to disprove. In fact a court of law is forbidden from ruling on religious matters entirely.
The US legal system is rife with exploits of every nature. You just have to watch what powerful people do and you can see how it's done.
I'm sorry to be breaking into your theme. I want to talk about your former focus, Labor. Specifically, its abuses. driving up costs at certain military and shipbuilding establishments. As a contractor in the 60's, I visited Electric Boat in Groton, looking after a prototype navigation buoy for the USCG. What I saw there alapalled me because of the wasteful work rules in the yard and up in the engineering spaces. Similarly, at Vandenberg AFB, the restrictive union rules on intrabase travel significantly reduced a productive workday by about an hour and a half. Curiously, a 5-month stint at Cape Kennedy in 1967 revealed no such restrictive union rules. It's interesting that the media has not revealed the situation to the public.
John Leach Stoltz
stop the union bashing already the reason we have unions is because of the abuses of big buisness. if you are enjoying the weekend thank the unions they brought you that.
@@edchenock7616 +John Leach You've both got valid points, but I suggest that you're both being too absolute; labor unions are neither entirely heroic nor entirely villainous. They can be corrupt and over-regulating, and they can also be an important protection for workers that increases wages and boosts overall GDP. Like most things, it's not as simple as black or white. The right question, IMO, is "History clearly shows that labor unions *can* be a good thing that benefits both workers and the economy as a whole. What is the right way to structure them to maximize the good they do and minimize the potential for corruption and waste?"
B
It pays to be rich, the tax codes is written in their favor, donations for them is only on paper, they don't actuality gives away any money.
STORMY DANIELS FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020 ! Tax returns ?
Does she get a 1099 from a certain someone? HAHAHAHA!
Good point that giving to a university does NOT equal giving to people of need
We honestly should just eliminate all charity deductions, why let the rich decide where their tax money goes? Can we decide to NOT pay for things?
A
There must be 500 students in this class - yes??
And they are not grateful??
1. a
2. a
SUPPORT 25% students in need for tax deductable status.
I say screw the taxes! & screw the fed! It will never be fair! Just bypass the fed... and start the printing press! Tax, Debt, & Interest free money for everyone! A moderate UBI would be a good start! K.I.S.S. I've had it with the chit chat, & kicking the can down the road! & screw the pilot runs too. My motto is "jUST DO IT" already!
dude, quit looking at the camera. We paid for some of these students to be there. Your attention should be on them.
He's looking at his smart board so he can read his lecture notes.
Crooked.
2️⃣0️⃣1️⃣9️⃣🇺🇸😍❤😎👊👊
Republican hypocrisy
He picked them randomly? Bahahaha.
Armandhammer If you'd listened, you would have caught the clues he gave that he was being ironic?
I usually find your videos insightful, even if I don't always agree. However this one just seems over the top and seems to deal in misinformation. A subsidy is taking money from one person and giving it to another. A tax break is just giving someone more freedom to do what they want with their own money. It is a subtle but important difference. In your example Stanford doesn't get any of California's money, but because they have more donations, you are imputing a subsidy. But Stanford isn't receiving a subsidy, the donors are receiving a tax break. Stanford hasn't received any government help, it received third party donations, something which Berkeley is also freely able to pursue. Furthermore, Stanford doesn't receive any greater benefit on a per donation than Berkeley does. It just happens that Stanford is more successful at obtaining third party donations. Why should Stanford be punished for being successful? Clearly people find value in the education Stanford provides, otherwise they would give their hard earned money to some other tax break. Perhaps Berkeley should step up its fundraising game.
Also, you are only assigning one value to both of these universities, the value of the education they provide. However many universities, including these two, provide more than just education; they are also important research centers. Why are you only valuing the public value of these institutions solely on the basis of the education they provide?
I believe his point was that the donors are getting a subsidy from the US Government. A tax-break is considered a subsidy. If donors are getting a subsidy for charitable donations from the US Government, perhaps they should be gently encouraged to donate to institutions where students demonstrate greater need? They could obviously still donate to any school they choose, but they would not receive a subsidy for that donation unless the school met the threshold of demonstrated need. The US Government would thus be rewarding the donations that have the greatest impact, that most benefit the "common good" if you will...
My issue is the equation of subsidy and tax break (please see the distinction in my previous comment). A tax break can't be a subsidy because no one is taking anyone's money away and giving it to someone else, unless one argues that the government is entitled to all your money, and they subsidize you with the money they let you keep. That is a purely socialist position, with which I doubt most people would agree.
My point is nothing is stopping Berkeley from ramping up their fundraising efforts and beating Stanford at their own game. If anything, Berkeley has a head start from the money it gets from the state, so what is their excuse? People must perceive that Stanford offers a greater value to Berkeley, otherwise they would give their charity dollars to Berkeley.
People support causes they deem beneficial to society, and should be free to do so without the government getting involved. In a very real way this democratizes the common good. There is a real danger in allowing the government to define the common good, as one might not always agree with their definition.
The revenue shortfall is passed onto other tax payers. Basically you are quibbling over who sent the $ while ignoring the effect to government revenue.
If the $100 you give me means you pay $100 less in Tax, others need to pay the $100 to make up the Government shortfall.
You're just babbling dude.
Robert, lets talk about your highly subsidized, Harvard Law education? Your generation, paid hardly anything for your Ivy League education.
George B GIGO
And it should be the same today.
He didn't get his JD from Harvard, you dimwit. Now suppose you tell us how, despite thirteen years of publicly funded education, you still manage to be such a cretin.
If your brains and grades had earned you a spot in higher education, you would have learned that Boomers benefited from the fact that World War 2 wiped out the leading economies and left a gap that the US filled for and unprecedented thirty or forty years, meaning that there was money for guns *and* butter. Now, after more than thirty years of Republican spending without taxation, we have a staggering national debt and a reduction in all services, across the board.
All this has been possible due to useful idiots such as yourself who like to get mad at the wrong people because you're too dumb to know when you're being played. You're the idiot in the schoolyard who gets kicked in the ass, and believes it when the guy who kicked you points at someone else and says "he did it."
Whatabout the colors in the rainbow, can we talk about that? just as relevant
A lot of tricky presentation to make some kind of point here.
I don't really like that. Liberals really do not need to spin or
dramatize information like Conservatives seem to have to do.
At least Stanford doesn't have people attacked for a political opinion. Berkeley deserves cuts for producing such a violent and unsafe environment.
arthinugami Unsafe for who? When you throw gasoline on a fire...why be surprised when you get burned?
BigHenFor What a thuggish thought process. Are you a socialist/commie or a fascist?
This is the best example of why he is a horrible economist. First, fare is a false comparison. The assumption is that all universities are the same except where you compare to make a point. It’s a pick and choose comparison. Secondly; taxes not paid is not a loss. A charitable contribution is between 1/2 - 1/3 write off. If I write off half the value it’s not a loss for the government of 1/2 my money, it’s a gain of 1/2. The assumption is that it all belongs to the government and they should decide what to do with it. What scares me is these kids believe this mess.
This is the best example of how much an idiot many people are. If you deduct charity, you reduce your tax owed. Get it? No you don't
Neither school should get any assistance! For the simple fact these schools don’t produce anything other than snowflakes and headaches for the rest of us fair minded real Americans.
Dustin Punks
Yup, only high school dropouts are real muricans! Anyone with any type of degree is a socialist Russian troll! (Sarcasm)
Dustin, your a total dipshit.
+Dustin Punks One more with half of brain and half of dick to whom smart people is guilty that he is so miserable.
Stanford