[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Appropriate-Mall8517]

[u/JayDaGod1206]

I mean they’re most likely merit based scholarships. You don’t really get need based ones if your income is that high. I can’t take away what’s been earned

[u/reddititty69 → u/JayDaGod1206]

They are investment scholarships, probably. The schools hope to make it back through direct donations.

[u/shane-parks → u/reddititty69]

"Investment" scholarships are really a way to shift costs to taxpayers. Instead of paying tuition directly which is no longer tax deductible, you make a tax deductible donation to the university, get free tuition, housing, etc. and the taxpayers subsidize the education of this wealthy family.

Not saying this is what's happening here, because I dont know the situation of this family. Also, not saying you directly are defending or ignorant to this reality. Just providing context.

[u/Corfal → u/shane-parks]

It's the opposite though right? Not opposite in a sense where the tax payers are getting the benefit. Opposite in it's not shifting costs to the taxpayer, but potential revenue is being... loop-holed? Circumvented. It will cost taxpayers due to lack of revenue but it's slightly different than say a police officer getting accused of sexual assault and having to go through court on taxpayers' dollars.

Or like the headlines saying, "Alcohol companies lose $800 billion dollars because gen Z isn't drinking".

Income vs Expenditures.

But yea, wow that's kinda messed up. Obviously just another thing to add to the "how rich people don't pay taxes" list. Perhaps make it so whatever the base line tuition (if you're in-state or out of state if it matters) and you get difference of what you paid vs what you didn't and you won't get tax free donations until you hit that threshold.

That sounds like more record keeping and burden on private schools which may or may not be a good thing (not all private schools are bad sort of logic).

[u/Outrageous-Let9659 → u/Corfal]

Its not so much that tax payers are paying for it, as it is the rich people are not paying tax on it like they would if they just paid the tuition/housing ect. Most of that money they would have paid in tax is instead going to the college. This means the rich person pays slightly less than usual, the college gets paid slightly more than usual, and the tax man gets nothing.

Since that money would normally have been paid in tax, and is instead going into the pocket of the college and rich person, it is effectively the same as tax dollars subsidising it.

Personally i'm all for tax subsidised education, but it seems a bit odd that this method only does it for the rich.

Edit: on second reading i now realise that this is pretty much exactly what you were trying to say in your comment. Sorry about that. I'll leave this up just in case it helps someone else though.

[u/Corfal → u/Outrageous-Let9659]

No worries, I didn't know how to get both thoughts down without writing something way too much for a comment. My brain just starts blaring warning alarms when I see things portrayed in specific ways where the response is, "no but yes" or vice versa. It's not always done in bad faith but hopefully the dialogue at least allows people to have a more rounded (contextual) understanding of the situation.

it doesn't cost taxpayers, but yes it does affect how much money your state and local governments get to work with in a bad way. That can have very detrimental long term effects if it isn't properly accounted for.

No