One of the biggest subsidies of universities is the student loan program. Through programs like federally, guaranteed loans, the government has enabled colleges to jack up their tuition and fees to obscene amounts.
Many of these loans are not being repaid and the Biden administration tried mostly successfully to stop collection on the loans.
According to this source, in 2024, Americans owed about $1.74 trillion of student loans
In general, the UK and Europe are more enlightened about transgender‘s than the United States. They stopped the mutilation and poisoning of children a number of years ago. So this is a good ruling along that line.
Edit. JK Rowling celebrates with the women’s rights groups who fought the government of Scotland and won.
Trump vs Harvard, shots fired. Their $50B tax free hedge fund / endowment is about to face the IRS.
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service is making plans to rescind the tax-exempt status of Harvard University, CNN reported on Wednesday, citing two sources familiar with the matter.
Another government confirms reality
The government of Hungary has ratified a new amendment to the nation’s Constitution that recognises the biological scientific fact that there are only two genders.
After years of accusing Dems of weaponizing the IRS to go after political adversaries… nice to see this administration being above such tactics…
It’s just enforcing the law here, right? I mean, Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983) is a decades old Supreme Court ruling, 8-1, that supported stripping the tax exempt status of a college when they violate civil rights, and here Harvard already was proven to have been violating those in their racially biased admissions policy.
But in 1970, the IRS concluded that it could no longer justify allowing tax-exempt status under § 501(c)(3) to private schools that practiced racial discrimination, and in 1971 issued Revenue Ruling 71-447 providing that a private school not having a racially nondiscriminatory policy as to students is not “charitable” within the common law concepts reflected in §§ 170 and 501(c)(3).
Since Harvard has agreed to comply with the Supreme Court decision of 2023, why would their funding and tax exempt status be penalized now? I have not seen evidence that their current admission policies are still racially biased.
Well their Asian % didn’t increase at all for the class of 2028, and given they put on some “tell us about how you’d contribute to diversity on campus” new application question, I’m sure they’re hoping to get away with continuing under the fig leaf of not asking about your race and then picking you for writing about how Black or Hispanic you are.
https://www.fas.harvard.edu/2024/09/11/new-harvard-college-admissions-data/
Either way, when you’ve got an egregious violator of civil rights, it certainly makes sense to put an oversight process in place to make sure they’re actually following the law unlike the last 30 years or so. Before that, they knew better who belonged on campus and had quotas on Jews for a long time as well.
Here’s a good writeup of Princeton’s civil rights violations, and how they bragged about making racial preferences (ie anti-White, Asian, Jewish) a priority in everything from admissions, to hiring, to contractors.
I’m sympathetic to the general message (I think admissions should be on merit alone so race-blind) but that article is also so biased to the point of misrepresenting behavior they disagree with as illegal.
It blames a fair amount of Princeton decision to use race in admissions PRIOR to the 2023 decision of SCOTUS to call affirmative action a violation of the 14th amendment. But prior to 2023, Princeton were on legal ground based on Grutter v. Bollinger 2003 SCOTUS decision to keep race as admission factor. All the definitive evidence the article provides is from 2022 or before as it acknowledges that questionable programs were cancelled in 2024. Now I can disagree with Princeton’s decision to do that but it was also not illegal prior to SCOTUS reversal in 2023. The article makes unsubstantiated claims that the racial discrimination still goes on. If true, THAT would be illegal now but the article falls way short of providing evidence of it.
Interesting take on the Amazon tariffs gambit.
This will backfire.
Amazon buys Chinese trash for $0.70 cents. Pays $0.50 tariff. Sells to you for $18 plus $0.50. Customer realizes they’re buying Chinese trash.
Problem is, most people will focus just on the extra $.50 line. Amazon still isnt disclosing the product cost, and people arent going to do math to realize a 100% tariff means a $.50 surcharge equates to a $.50 product cost. And they’ll continue to happily buying it at a 3600% markup, and blame Trump for Amazon being forced to add an additional surcharge.
I don’t see it that way personally. I’m totally in favor of the transparency, both in terms of tariff charge and product origin. Tariffs are a consumption tax so let’s not shy away from showing it for what it is.
And if Amazon sells me something for $18 and the tariff charge is shown as $0.50, I can see the effective impact of tariffs on prices (and my budget), not just the media headline numbers. On the other hand, if the tariff charge is $6 on an $18 purchase, that’s a different realization. And I’d like an annual summary of total tariff charges, if possible split by country, so that I know how much tariffs cost me at each retailer. That’d give me a better estimate of whether I’m better off paying tariffs or a higher marginal income tax rate.
And knowing the tariff charge, I could also make a better informed decision to buy American goods or foreign ones. Transparency is always better.
I’m just speaking to the linked article, that says Amazon adding a tariff surchage will backfire.
I dont understand this - isnt the retail price what matters in making such decisions? Does knowing that $18 Chinese product includes a $4 tariff really affect your decision when choosing between that item and the comparable $22 American-made item?
Or are you just assuming that with the same retail price, less tariff means higher production costs, which implies a higher quality item?
Ultimately I want to know what goes into the bottom line price. Amazon has been showing me the sales tax I pay for my purchases for years. If I’m paying an import tax, I want that displayed as well in the interest of transparency and as a direct explicit reminder of the policy decision by my government to shift from progressive income tax to regression consumption tax.
Also I’ll know the $4 in tariff for the Chinese item adds to my government tax revenues instead of being extra profit margin of Amazon, the seller, the importer, and/or the manufacturer.
At same price, first think I’ll consider is the merits of the products. Junk US product loses to quality foreign-built item any day at comparable costs. I’m not sure I equate production cost with quality. US manufacturer cars in the 1990s made that point clear to me decades ago.
But I’d also consider the fact that purchasing an item made in the US returns some of my money to the US economy. Just like all things being equal, I’d rather buy something made in my state (or city) than made in another state. The sales tax goes to my state and the money will end up in the pockets of someone likely to spend it in my state as well if only through income tax-, keeping the money closer to home.
Granted, I don’t need to see the tariff tax amount to decide on that. Only provenance of the product would be sufficient but quite frankly, enough sellers obfuscate this information for me to want a definite way to tell the origin of a product.
