I have not found the bill online. This announcement was probably released to tease out opposition to such a raise in taxation of Foundation funding. "W" changed the non-profit definition/status of Foundation to drain their asset value to their missions.
This is the very definition I have given before in that any elected Republican looks to sources of RESERVE CASH in the USA economy in order for Grover Norquest's pledge is safe in that there were no taxes raised on the taxpayer. This draw on CASH into the USA economy is nothing short of robbing the poor to pay the wealthy.
January 8, 2016
By Janet Lorin
A U.S. Congressman (click here) is floating an idea that’s likely to find opposition from the wealthiest colleges: devote 25 percent of a school’s annual endowment income for financial aid or lose tax-exempt status.
This is the very definition I have given before in that any elected Republican looks to sources of RESERVE CASH in the USA economy in order for Grover Norquest's pledge is safe in that there were no taxes raised on the taxpayer. This draw on CASH into the USA economy is nothing short of robbing the poor to pay the wealthy.
January 8, 2016
By Janet Lorin
A U.S. Congressman (click here) is floating an idea that’s likely to find opposition from the wealthiest colleges: devote 25 percent of a school’s annual endowment income for financial aid or lose tax-exempt status.
Almost 100 endowments with assets of more than $1 billion would be required to give that percentage to lower college costs for middle and low-income students, according to a draft congressional bill provided to Bloomberg. If they didn’t comply for three consecutive years, they could lose their nonprofit status.
The bill, aimed at addressing the skyrocketing cost of college, is expected to be introduced during the congressional session that began this month and could undergo changes in the meantime, said Representative Tom Reed, a New York Republican who is sponsoring the proposal. No co-sponsors are attached to the proposal....
This proposal in the US Congress has the audacity to demand higher amounts of a foundation's treasury to fund HIGHER EDUCATION.
Unbelievable. This TAXATION on foundations is under the radar and isn't regularly visited.
Make no mistake this is taxation on foundations. Under the "W" years non-profit corporations were required to payout at least 5 percent of their value every year to fund their causes.
What is the 5 percent payout requirement? (click here)
The purpose behind the minimum payout requirement is to prevent foundations from simply receiving gifts, investing the assets and never spending any funds on charitable purposes. The basic rule can be stated simply, but its calculation is complex: Each year every private foundation must make eligible charitable expenditures that equal or exceed approximately 5 percent of the value of its endowment. The word "payout" while convenient is somewhat misleading and is not used in the Tax Code section that creates the rule. The word "payout" suggests grants or contributions paid out to other charities. Although these grants normally make up more than 93 percent of the expenditures of most foundations, many other expenses can also qualify in meeting the minimum payout requirement. In short, the 5 percent payout rule need not be satisfied solely with grants....
The new 5 percent tax on foundations was to increase circulating capital in the USA economy to paint a better economic picture.
So, why don't we put it out there, if such draconian laws were passed The Clinton Foundation would come under scrutiny for their spending. It won't stop with the Clinton Foundation. ALL non-profit foundations will be effected and drained of valuable equity leaving them even more vulnerable to Wall Street's ups and downs.
Most significant foundations invest in Wall Street to grow their value. Much of the FOUNDATION monies of non-profit foundations are invested monies across America. Those monies are ALREADY at work to grow the USA economy, not just in financial investment, but, in real benefits to carry out investigation of better medications, supporting other non-profit foundations that care for children and women's health.
Taking 25 percent out of non-profit foundations is a direct attack on the poor when they receive benefits from these foundations to protect their health and otherwise. How many homes will "Habitat for Humanity" be able to build if this 25 percent tax is passed by the US Congress.
This is a common strategy by Republicans. Real tax cuts that helped the economy was when the FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act : Social Security) taxation rate was cut with the Democratic majority of 2008 following the 2008 economic collapse. The tax cut worked and was a great help to a recovering economy shedding jobs at 100 thousands per week.
The "W" hump (click here) was caused by an illegitimate economy. The consumer was bathing in a false sense of wealth. They were borrowing monies from their primary residence to purchase multiple residences as investments. The housing collapse beginning in 2007 was a direct result of a false sense of wealth beginning in 2002 and 2003.
But, to realize the lost jobs were real, the cut in FICA under Obama stopped the economic disaster. It would not have stopped if there wasn't a money infusion to the Middle Class, the economic giant of the USA.
When examining the "W" economy, one has to realize the implementation of taxes leveraged by changing the definition of a non-profit as an example, was draining any and all money resources/reserves to drive an economy. The entire "W" economy can best be defined as "Draconian" with absolutely no real change of wealth equity among the middle class and the poor.
This is not good governance. It will deplete reserves of foundations and cause their failure. Realize how these non-profits were effected in 2008, with perhaps the best example is the Harvard Endowment. Their losses were considerable and needed a reassessment of their funds and investments to decide their spending while still maintaining the integrity of the funds. An entire housing complex had to be abandoned after the 2008 economic collapse. Wall Street will feel these foundations taxes because it will have a direct depletion of foundation investments.
September 10, 2009
Harvard Management Company (HMC) reported today that the University’s endowment was valued at $26.0 billion as of June 30—29.5 percent less than the record $36.9 billion reported for the prior fiscal year. That result reflects a negative 27.3 percent investment return on endowment assets after expenses and fees; plus capital gifts received during the year (total giving, reported on September 10, was $602 million, down just 8 percent from fiscal year 2008, but the portion directed to endowment has not yet been disclosed); minus the distribution of somewhat more than $1.6 billion from the endowment to support University operations during the year. The latter figure is surprising: it represents an increase over the funds distributed in fiscal year 2008. Details presumably will be forthcoming with the autumn publication of the University’s annual financial report—but the planned reduction in endowment distributions in the current and next fiscal years is driving cost-cutting throughout Harvard...
That was a $10.9 billion US lost out of the Harvard Endowment. A similar loss occurred with the USA's SSI fund.
Realize that Harvard carries some of the best genetic research on Earth. Harvard was the first to begin genetic research with old stocks to prove no matter how hard the US government under a Republican can make research impossible, it is never going to end.
The USA is very lucky to have these magnificent foundations that function to improve our quality of life. If the Republican Congress wanted to increase monies used in the economy annually, then change it from 5 percent to 6 percent; not 25 percent. 25 percent would result in an initial dump of money into the USA economy in 2016, only to tank in 2017. It is a ridiculous idea and Americans need to end the draconian economics of the GOP.
This proposal in the US Congress has the audacity to demand higher amounts of a foundation's treasury to fund HIGHER EDUCATION.
Unbelievable. This TAXATION on foundations is under the radar and isn't regularly visited.
Make no mistake this is taxation on foundations. Under the "W" years non-profit corporations were required to payout at least 5 percent of their value every year to fund their causes.
What is the 5 percent payout requirement? (click here)
The purpose behind the minimum payout requirement is to prevent foundations from simply receiving gifts, investing the assets and never spending any funds on charitable purposes. The basic rule can be stated simply, but its calculation is complex: Each year every private foundation must make eligible charitable expenditures that equal or exceed approximately 5 percent of the value of its endowment. The word "payout" while convenient is somewhat misleading and is not used in the Tax Code section that creates the rule. The word "payout" suggests grants or contributions paid out to other charities. Although these grants normally make up more than 93 percent of the expenditures of most foundations, many other expenses can also qualify in meeting the minimum payout requirement. In short, the 5 percent payout rule need not be satisfied solely with grants....
The new 5 percent tax on foundations was to increase circulating capital in the USA economy to paint a better economic picture.
So, why don't we put it out there, if such draconian laws were passed The Clinton Foundation would come under scrutiny for their spending. It won't stop with the Clinton Foundation. ALL non-profit foundations will be effected and drained of valuable equity leaving them even more vulnerable to Wall Street's ups and downs.
Most significant foundations invest in Wall Street to grow their value. Much of the FOUNDATION monies of non-profit foundations are invested monies across America. Those monies are ALREADY at work to grow the USA economy, not just in financial investment, but, in real benefits to carry out investigation of better medications, supporting other non-profit foundations that care for children and women's health.
Taking 25 percent out of non-profit foundations is a direct attack on the poor when they receive benefits from these foundations to protect their health and otherwise. How many homes will "Habitat for Humanity" be able to build if this 25 percent tax is passed by the US Congress.
This is a common strategy by Republicans. Real tax cuts that helped the economy was when the FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act : Social Security) taxation rate was cut with the Democratic majority of 2008 following the 2008 economic collapse. The tax cut worked and was a great help to a recovering economy shedding jobs at 100 thousands per week.
But, to realize the lost jobs were real, the cut in FICA under Obama stopped the economic disaster. It would not have stopped if there wasn't a money infusion to the Middle Class, the economic giant of the USA.
When examining the "W" economy, one has to realize the implementation of taxes leveraged by changing the definition of a non-profit as an example, was draining any and all money resources/reserves to drive an economy. The entire "W" economy can best be defined as "Draconian" with absolutely no real change of wealth equity among the middle class and the poor.
This is not good governance. It will deplete reserves of foundations and cause their failure. Realize how these non-profits were effected in 2008, with perhaps the best example is the Harvard Endowment. Their losses were considerable and needed a reassessment of their funds and investments to decide their spending while still maintaining the integrity of the funds. An entire housing complex had to be abandoned after the 2008 economic collapse. Wall Street will feel these foundations taxes because it will have a direct depletion of foundation investments.
September 10, 2009
Harvard Management Company (HMC) reported today that the University’s endowment was valued at $26.0 billion as of June 30—29.5 percent less than the record $36.9 billion reported for the prior fiscal year. That result reflects a negative 27.3 percent investment return on endowment assets after expenses and fees; plus capital gifts received during the year (total giving, reported on September 10, was $602 million, down just 8 percent from fiscal year 2008, but the portion directed to endowment has not yet been disclosed); minus the distribution of somewhat more than $1.6 billion from the endowment to support University operations during the year. The latter figure is surprising: it represents an increase over the funds distributed in fiscal year 2008. Details presumably will be forthcoming with the autumn publication of the University’s annual financial report—but the planned reduction in endowment distributions in the current and next fiscal years is driving cost-cutting throughout Harvard...
That was a $10.9 billion US lost out of the Harvard Endowment. A similar loss occurred with the USA's SSI fund.
Realize that Harvard carries some of the best genetic research on Earth. Harvard was the first to begin genetic research with old stocks to prove no matter how hard the US government under a Republican can make research impossible, it is never going to end.
The USA is very lucky to have these magnificent foundations that function to improve our quality of life. If the Republican Congress wanted to increase monies used in the economy annually, then change it from 5 percent to 6 percent; not 25 percent. 25 percent would result in an initial dump of money into the USA economy in 2016, only to tank in 2017. It is a ridiculous idea and Americans need to end the draconian economics of the GOP.
