No, as there are already numerous Hopkins things bearing Bloomberg's name for many years -- including a 7-story physics/astronomy building, and the entire graduate public health school. The new $1.8B is in addition to previous total gifts of $1.5B.
Bloomberg previously established a scholarship program for high-achieving incoming undergrads, but it was limited in size to a few dozen students a year. It sounds like the new money will allow this to expand to all students in need. Some universities like Harvard already did this, but Hopkins never did, due to its endowment being smaller than its peer institutions.
This could be very good for the future of Baltimore. Many decades ago, a decent percentage of Hopkins undergrads came from Baltimore public schools, and that percentage has plummeted precipitously as Baltimore's fortunes declined.
I do understand your overall point, but it's Bloomberg's money, and it's his decision how to spend it. I'd also suspect he gives money to other causes, although perhaps not on this scale.
A large chunk of that money is subsidized by tax payers, as he would not keep the 1.8 Billion if he had bought a sports team or other vanity project that was not tax deductible.
I am not saying spending taxpayer money to promote giving is a bad idea, but it is an expensive one that’s generally forgotten about.
Perhaps it will eliminate his personal tax bill for 2018, but his yearly income is far less than $1.8B, and his tax bill is only a portion of his yearly income... the tax implications of this gift are only a small portion of the amount.
Even if he had 1.8 Billion in cash and ‘only’ got to deduct from his current tax bill that still means the US population is giving up money to support his cause.
Taxes are not about the government. They are a shared burden by tax payers and anyone paying less is increasing that burden for everyone else. The only way to reduce it is for the government to sped less money.
He would need to pay tax on the capital gains. We have no way of knowing what the stock's cost basis is.
For sake of example, let's say the $1.8B had a cost basis of $1B. In theory the tax bill would be $160M. While that's a decent chunk of change, I definitely wouldn't describe it as "a large chunk" of the $1.8B being "subsidized by tax payers".
Also keep in mind the ultra-wealthy have all sorts of tax avoidance schemes anyway, and regardless of what he spent this money on, he is likely paying a much lower taxation rate than you or I (or the example above). That's a separate topic though.
Also, I would call 0.16 billion a large chunk of 1.8Billion as it would drop that down to 1.64 billion.
Anyway I would not call a basis of 1B out of 1.8B a highly appreciated assets. If he wants to keep a more appreciated asset with a basis of say 1/2 or 1/10th it's current price as a better long term investment you can still do this. Donate the highly appreciated stock, sell some less appreciated stock and use the proceeds to buy the stock you want which now has a much higher basis.
Then if the stock you buy tanks you can at least take a deduction when you sell it.
We hand out money to people buying a Tesla Model S’s, or paying a mortgage payment. Agree or disagree with the idea, just understand it’s not free.
So, legally they are the same thing.
PS: Though with various caviots as the law is never that simple.
And what do you think the current difference in tax is?
Companies also get tax deductions. Should or should not is a different issue, but currently they do.
There’s a good article on unintended consequences here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences A lot of debate in philanthropy policy deals with these, so it’s important to understand how someone can disagree with something no one has explicitly advocated for, but could happen if the advocated course is taken.
Sure, I get that it might have undesirable consequences, like creating a harmful habit or addiction, but also 'such a donation to a state school' would mean (obviously) a relatively poor school gets a lot of money, which seems to me a good thing. No?! It almost seems like people are saying....that all mega-donations should go to schools that already have lots of money. Which does seem going overboard a bit.
I could see trouble if a state school doesn’t effectively manage endowments and receives too much money to handle, but as long as proper governance exists elsewhere, I don’t see how concentrated donor influence could hurt the school more than the money would help, even if the money weren’t allocated as well as it could’ve been.
[1] https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/the-personal-...
Also you probably need to factor in living allowance if supporting underprivileged and once you give a scholarship you're looking at a 3-6 year commitment to that person.
Plus if you want the scholarships to run in perpetuity you can only spend at a rate that keeps the endowment at certain payout rate that does not reduce its value + inflation
So at say 6% being spent a year, divided by $80k to cover tuition and living cost, average 4 year course commitment your looking at 338 new scholarships a year.
That whittles down fast doesn't it....
Had it been spread to low-cost universities and community colleges, those numbers could have easily been 10x. And wouldn't require the son of a farmer to relocate to one of the highest COL states in the US. Or a daughter from someone in Detroit (went back to find the details of that anecdote and got locked out from paywall).