Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

My-Left-Plate t1_izteywi wrote

Reply to comment by TeaWithMingus in MIT campus will remain open to public by reveazure

Yeah I mean they pay a lower rate than you and me do, but they are a non-profit so those are just… the rules.

Technically they don’t have to pay anything.

1

TeaWithMingus t1_iztioej wrote

“Non Profit”

1

My-Left-Plate t1_izuiyf0 wrote

I mean they are a non-profit. Whose fault is it that you don’t like the definition of ‘non-profit’?

2

TeaWithMingus t1_izujm2c wrote

Boston estimates their property tax would be 10 times higher if they didn’t have non profit status it’s how they grow their endowment. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/5/21/harvards-role-as-a-nonprofit-harvard/ they masquerade as a nonprofit but are and act like a business

1

My-Left-Plate t1_izulb74 wrote

They are by definition and the law a non-profit. Again if you don’t like the law, run for office and change the law.

These universities act very differently from a public corporation and also very differently than a private for-profit corporation. The decision makers have very different motives which lead to very different outcomes.

These universities educate our brightest, but mainly they are huge economic wealth creators. If you made a country out of the companies that have been created and spun off of MIT it would be the 10th wealthiest country in the world. These are the companies that employ America. This public/private partnership is one of the bedrocks of America and it is something to be excited about, not complain about.

0

TeaWithMingus t1_izuls6v wrote

I would argue they are part of the reason for our country having such a class divide and obvious disparity of wealth

1

My-Left-Plate t1_izur7s8 wrote

Having companies that generate wealth is not the reason we have an increasing wealth gap. We had MIT and these companies being generated in 1955 too. But what we had then was a 95% top marginal tax rate.

1