[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Pols shouldn't be in the business of deciding what we need I guess the proposal for a new tax on Massachusetts colleges with big endowments is, as they say at the Statehouse, a "nonstarter" — for the moment. But if I were the leaders of those colleges, I wouldn't relax. The mentality that led to the proposed 2.5 percent tax on endowments of more than $1 billion is alive and spreading like a virus. It's the mentality that says government gets to decide how much you, your business or your institution "needs." Anything more than that, you don't really deserve, and they can take it away — all so they can swell with false pride at their "compassion" in giving other people's money to those they have defined as "less fortunate." Be afraid. Be very afraid. The current proposal is dead for all the right reasons. It is not just rich universities like Harvard, with its $34 billion endowment, that are opposed. Even a college like Gordon, in Wenham, with a paltry $35 million endowment, doesn't like it. Its leaders know that once government gets its hooks into the big fish, it will come after the small fish. House Speaker Sal DiMasi is opposed. State Rep. Ted Speliotis, D-Peabody, vice chairman of the House Committee on Higher Education, noted the obvious — it would be a tax on charitable donations. Will the Legislature move next to tax donations to cancer foundations, he wondered? Not right away, of course. But even they had better not look the other way. It's all based on the socialist mantra that should have been dead decades ago — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need (as defined by government). We've seen how well that works haven't we. Yet, it keeps coming back, sustained by the inexhaustible fuel of jealousy: If anybody has more than I do, it's not fair. This past week it sprung from the lips of state Rep. Mary Grant, D-Beverly, who said she would consider such a tax because some families are having trouble paying for gas and food. Harvard's $34 billion endowment, the largest in the nation, "sticks out like a strobe light," she said. Yes, it does. But that endowment has accumulated from donations over centuries. People sacrificed of their own, already taxed, assets to donate. What does its size have to do with those having trouble paying for gas and food? And since when is Grant, or anybody else in the Legislature, the arbiter of what a person or an institution "needs?" I doubt there are any legislators who are having trouble paying for gas or food. If they are so concerned for the downtrodden, they ought to start by looking in their own wallets, not those of others. Do they want me deciding what they need? Michelle Obama spoke recently about how tough it is for her and her husband, Barack, to provide all the extracurricular activities their daughters need — piano and ballet lessons, summer camp — on a mere $500,000 a year. I wouldn't have any trouble at all with that much money. Should I get some of theirs? Maybe the reason she's having trouble is because they're already taxed so heavily. But, I could also argue that piano, ballet and summer camp aren't even needs at all. They're just wants. Why should the Obama kids have them if everybody else can't have them too? It is also dangerous to demand money from those with "more" to give to those with less without asking why they have less. Are they buying lottery tickets? Going to Foxwoods? Spending their money on electronic gadgets that everybody wants but nobody really needs? In short, are they literally innocent victims of poverty, or is their poverty a result of their own free choices? There are already plenty of programs in place for those who are poor — even those whose income is two or three times the poverty level. Finally, colleges and universities bring untold amounts of economic benefit to a region. Has anybody calculated the value of the economic activity generated by students and faculty at Harvard over the past 100 years? It probably dwarfs $34 billion. One of the most famous, and important, phrases in the Declaration of Independence is that everybody has an unalienable right to, "... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Notice, it doesn't offer a guarantee of happiness or success. It guarantees opportunity, not the result. It is what has made this country great, and the coveted destination of generations of immigrants. It is what motivates people to use their imagination, skill and energy. Politicians who meddle with that principle, even in the guise of compassion, will sap that motivation and undermine that greatness. That is what we don't need.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||