Connect with us

Business

Column: With a $300-million donation to Harvard, a hedge fund billionaire shows why we need a wealth tax

Published

on

Column: With a $300-million donation to Harvard, a hedge fund billionaire shows why we need a wealth tax

Harvard College desires us to bow right down to the distinctive generosity of Kenneth C. Griffin, a hedge fund billionaire who simply made a $300-million present to the varsity’s graduate program.

Griffin’s donation to his alma mater “underscores the ability of schooling to remodel lives and to develop the attain of our analysis in each area possible,” Harvard President Larry Bacow stated within the announcement press launch. “It has been a terrific pleasure to get to know Ken all through my presidency.”

In return for the cash, this system has been renamed the Harvard Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate College of Arts and Sciences.

It has been a terrific pleasure to get to know Ken all through my presidency.

— Harvard President Larry Bacow lauds Ken Griffin, considered one of his college’s greatest donors

Advertisement

We’re not so certain concerning the rationale for that final half. This system may simply as effectively have been named the U.S. Taxpayer Graduate College, as a result of that’s who virtually actually shall be masking not less than a few of the present.

Griffin’s donation, you see, is more likely to convey him a large federal revenue tax deduction. Its precise dimension is not possible to calculate with out figuring out extra about Griffin’s particular tax state of affairs. What’s identified involves us from ProPublica, which final July drew from a trove of leaked paperwork to report on how members of the 0.01% get away with minimizing the tax chunk on their monumental wealth.

Griffin ranked excessive on ProPublica’s listing. The information group discovered that he had “averaged an annual revenue of $1.7 billion from 2013 to 2018,” making him the fourth-highest income-earner within the nation. His common tax price was 29.2% in these years, ProPublica reported.

That’s significantly decrease than the highest marginal tax price, which at the moment is 37% on revenue over about $578,000 for single taxpayers. (Griffin, in response to the newest biographical materials, is divorced.) On the uncooked numbers, Griffin might be able to cut back his federal revenue tax invoice by about $110 million by means of his donation to Harvard. Who would choose up the slack? You and me, that’s who.

Advertisement

Maybe Griffin has disavowed a tax break from his Harvard present, although that’s implausible. Certainly, a spokesperson for Griffin acknowledged, as ProPublica reported final yr, that his tax price was “lowered by charitable contributions,” amongst different components.

The soiled little secret about how plutocrats finance the charitable deductions that get their names on distinguished establishments is just one facet of Griffin’s present that ought to concern all People.

Extra broadly, it factors to the knowledge of a wealth tax on American millionaires and billionaires. As we’ve famous up to now, focus of wealth on the size seen in America at the moment would have appalled the Founding Fathers.

Thomas Jefferson, for one, advocated “a system by which each fibre can be eradicated of antient [sic] or future aristocracy; and a basis laid for a authorities really republican.”

The wealthy usually defend their gathered fortunes by ostentatiously doing good with the cash by means of philanthropy. The announcement of a serious donation on the size of Griffin’s is often accompanied by an accounting of the donor’s different charitable efforts.

Advertisement

Normally, nevertheless, what passes for selfless charity is a masks for the wealthy to fund their private pastime horses. A basic instance of this recognized in 2012 by then-Reuters columnist Felix Salmon (now at Axios) was a $100-million present to the Central Park Conservancy of New York by hedge fund boss John Paulson — who occurred to reside a number of doorways down from the park.

“Should you wished to provide $100 million to charity whereas making the barest minimal influence on the world, you’d be onerous pushed to enhance on Paulson’s efficiency,” Salmon wrote.

In some instances, massive donors get credit score for saving establishments from monetary quagmires ensuing from the kind of tax breaks the donors have loved.

They get credit score for funding anti-poverty applications and people to assist hospitals, drug rehabilitation clinics, artwork museums, scientific analysis laboratories that each one must be supported by public funding. Besides there isn’t sufficient funding to go round as a result of the rich have been gathering ever-increasing tax breaks for many years.

It’s honest to presume that one goal of all this eleemosynary exercise is to obscure the much less uplifting ways in which the wealthy deploy their wealth. One is lobbying to maintain and increase their tax breaks.

Advertisement

In 2020, as an example, Griffin contributed $54 million to a marketing campaign combating an Illinois poll measure that might have raised the state’s marginal tax price on incomes larger than $750,000 to about 8% from 5%. ProPublica estimated that the measure may have price Griffin about $50 million a yr. The measure was defeated.

Through the marketing campaign, Griffin wrote in an op-ed that this opposition to the tax improve was merely an expression of his civic-mindedness.

The tax measure’s promoters, together with Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker (additionally a billionaire) “search to shift much more hard-earned taxpayer cash into the palms of politicians who’ve persistently confirmed to be irresponsible stewards,” he wrote. “I’m prepared to face up for what is correct.”

He wasn’t prepared to remain, nevertheless. The next yr, Griffin moved his household and the headquarters of his Citadel hedge fund and Citadel Securities agency to Miami from Chicago.

Griffin stated tax issues weren’t at difficulty, however in contrast to Illinois, Florida has no private revenue tax. Since his transfer, he has change into a serious monetary supporter of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. (Whereas dwelling in Chicago, he was a monetary backer of former Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat.)

Advertisement

One notably questionable class of high-level philanthropy is tax-advantaged donations to wealthy universities resembling, effectively, Harvard. That ostensibly nonprofit establishment has an endowment of greater than $50 billion, the biggest within the nation. On what planet can a taxpayer-subsidized addition to this endowment be justified?

We raised the identical difficulty again in 2016, when Nike founder Phil Knight collected plaudits for making a $400-million present to Stanford College, the place he obtained a enterprise diploma.

Knight received his title on the scholarship program funded by his present; an earlier donation received his title on a brand new classroom constructing on campus.

What was hanging then, and stays notable at the moment, was the mismatch between the general public funding of elite personal universities and public assist for even the very best public universities.

A 2015 information survey by Nexus Analysis positioned the discrepancy in stark aid by evaluating the implicit per-student subsidy at wealthy personal establishments with the federal government funding of public schools of their state. In California, it confirmed that Stanford obtained about $63,000 per scholar, whereas UC Berkeley received $10,500, Cal State Fullerton received $4,000 and Fullerton Group School $8,100.

Advertisement

The figures had been primarily based on estimated exemptions from capital positive aspects taxes for the personal faculties and authorities appropriations for the others.

Tax-deductible donations are inclined to circulation towards a tiny cadre of extraordinarily well-heeled establishments. In line with a 2015 survey by the Council for Help to Training, practically one-fifth of the file $40.3 billion raised by U.S. schools and universities that yr went to simply 10 faculties. Alumni and different people had been the biggest supply of items, accounting for practically 47% of the overall. Via the tax deductions these donors claimed, taxpayers lined roughly $7.5 billion of the overall donations. (That’s the quantity donors would have needed to pay into the federal treasury, had been it not for the deductions.)

None of that is to counsel that the philanthropic donations of Griffin or every other American plutocrats aren’t honest and heartfelt. Amongst Griffin’s beneficiaries are the Obama Basis, applications to convey web entry to low-income pupils, museums and COVID analysis applications. Earlier than his newest present to Harvard, he gave the college $150 million for scholar monetary assist.

If all that makes you suppose that you simply shouldn’t have the temerity to query Griffin’s spending on political affect, then his charitable efforts have carried out their job.

However you shouldn’t overlook that you simply’re paying for a lot of their efforts, with an bill that is available in mid-April yearly. You’re not getting your title on the edifices they’re constructing, and also you don’t have a dime’s price of say about the place they put their cash.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Mark Suster: The face of L.A. venture capital

Published

on

Mark Suster: The face of L.A. venture capital

Mark Suster, photographed at the Los Angeles Times in El Segundo on Sept. 8.

Cancer-fighting robots. AI-powered baby monitors. The future of American shipbuilding.

These are the kinds of startup ideas that get Mark Suster out of bed in the morning, into his Tesla, and down to the Santa Monica offices of Upfront, the venture capital firm he joined 16 years ago.

“There’s that old saying — the future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed,” Suster said. “My job lets me see where the world’s going five years before the general population.”

Advertisement
L.A. Influential

Discover the changemakers who are shaping every cultural corner of Los Angeles. This week we bring you The Money, a collection of bankers, political bundlers, philanthropists and others whose deep pockets give them their juice. Come back each Sunday for another installment.

But Suster, 56, didn’t become the face of the L.A. venture capital scene thanks to his day-to-day investing. He got there by throwing a party called the Upfront Summit.

Every year, Suster’s splashy tech conference takes over an iconic L.A. location. One year, it’s at the Rose Bowl. Another year, it’s at a retreat center high in the Santa Monica Mountains. There are zip lines, hot air balloons, and, among the talks with tech founders about software and product development, fireside chats with celebrities, politicians and authors (Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Novak Djokovic graced the stage this year).

The razzle-dazzle is part of the draw, and Suster clearly relishes his role as emcee (“I was a theater kid — I still love going to the theater,” he said.)

Advertisement

‘My job lets me see where the world’s going five years before the general population.’

— Mark Suster

But the real appeal comes down to cash. Suster’s strategic move was to invite not just venture capital investors, but the people who invest in venture capital investors. Called limited partners, these are the managers of pensions, sovereign wealth funds and other giant pools of money that want to tap into the tech market. By making sure they’re on the guest list, Suster has made the summit one of the easiest places in America for fellow venture capitalists to raise a new fund.

Mark Suster

The summit loses Upfront money. When Suster started it in 2012, it cost around $300,000. In 2022, costs hit $2.3 million, Suster said, with a handful of sponsors chipping in to cut the losses. But throwing the premiere professional party in California comes with intangible benefits, like bringing in deals that would otherwise leave out Upfront and other L.A. funds and founders.

Advertisement

The 2024 party was a little scaled back, now that higher interest rates have throttled the fire hose of money that went into venture capital during the last decade. But Suster says that he welcomes the less frothy environment. “I’m having a lot more fun now,” he said, investing in founders “looking to build real businesses.”

More from L.A. Influential

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Steve Ballmer: NBA owner in search of a miracle

Published

on

Steve Ballmer: NBA owner in search of a miracle

He sits in a conspicuous baseline seat, where he cheers like nobody’s watching.

The large balding man in long sleeves roars with every splashed basket, gestures with every scintillating pass, face reddening, arms flailing, celebrating so hard he once ripped a hole in his dress shirt.

He could be any die-hard Clippers fan, with one exception.

He owns the team.

Steve Ballmer is the perfect symbol of the power of Hollywood hope, the strength of California dreaming and the resilience of those who come here searching for a miracle.

Advertisement

Discover the changemakers who are shaping every cultural corner of Los Angeles. This week we bring you The Money, a collection of bankers, political bundlers, philanthropists and others whose deep pockets give them their juice. Come back each Sunday for another installment.

Ranking eighth on the Forbes 500 list with an estimated net worth north of $120 billion, Ballmer could afford to buy any sports team in any league.

He chose to buy the Clippers, spending $2 billion in 2014 for a perennial loser and one of five teams to never reach the NBA Finals.

Advertisement

“A team comes up for sale in a city I love that’s near me?” said Ballmer, 68, a former Microsoft executive who lives in Washington state. “You say, ‘OK, but it’s the Clippers,’ and my theory is, you can do anything if you put your mind to it.”

As the richest owner in North American professional sports, he had the wealth and influence to move the bedraggled franchise to a city far away from the big brother Lakers, perhaps even into his adopted hometown of Seattle.

‘It was clear to me, we had to have our own home, our own identity.’

— Clippers owner Steve Ballmer

Advertisement

Yet he doubled down and not only kept the Clippers in town but spent another $2 billion to build his own arena: the glitzy Intuit Dome, which is scheduled to open in October in Inglewood.

“It was clear to me, we had to have our own home, our own identity,” Ballmer said.

Cynics would describe his ownership of the Clippers as charity work, but his real philanthropy has had an even larger impact in the region, with his Ballmer Group investing hundreds of millions of dollars in everything from inner-city businesses to the renovation of 500 Clipper Community Courts in diverse pockets of the city.

Steven Ballmer

“Impacting kids is the kind of thing that pulls at my heart,” Ballmer said. “A fan will tell me that he drove past a Clipper court and I’ll think, that’s really, really, really cool.”

Ballmer is accessible, generous and, most of all, the head cheerleader for a drowned-out swath of a Lakers-owned city.

Advertisement

“I love our die-hard fans,” he said. “I love the culture of c’mon, we have a chip on our shoulder, we’ve got something to prove, we’ve never done it before, c’mon!”

It is a Thursday afternoon early in the 2023-24 NBA season and Steve Ballmer is shouting into the phone, because of course he is, the sound of undying faith, the voice of a true believer, c’mon!

More from L.A. Influential

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Occidental trustees vote against divesting from Israel-linked companies

Published

on

Occidental trustees vote against divesting from Israel-linked companies

Occidental College’s Board of Trustees voted this week not to divest from companies with ties to Israel, saying the move would further divide the campus and limit freedom of expression.

In a letter to students, faculty and staff on Monday, Occidental Board of Trustees Chair Lisa H. Link acknowledged the devastating effects of the Israel-Hamas war but said that taking a position on a complex geopolitical situation could alienate certain members of the community and undermine its diversity.

“The diversity of community members’ opinions was a compelling reason to refrain from acting on the proposal, as the Board believes a decision in favor of the proposal would be divisive and damaging to the College community,” she said.

The divestment proposal set forth by leaders of the Occidental chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine in May called for the college to identify and disclose any investments in four manufacturing companies that have provided arms and equipment to the Israeli military.

The board said Occidental’s endowment does not include direct investments in any of the four companies.

Advertisement

Indirect investments in the Israel-linked companies make up less than 0.1% of the college’s endowment assets and are managed by third parties that restrict the college’s ability to divest from specific parts of a fund, Link said.

“The Board believes it is not in the best interests of the College, or our current and future students, to jeopardize the endowment by divesting from managed funds that have minimal exposure to certain companies,” she said in the letter.

The board’s vote on the divestment proposal hinged on students taking down their pro-Palestinian encampment, not impeding commencement and not returning to occupy a space on campus without prior approval.

The board held the vote after Occidental’s school year ended in early June.

Matthew Vickers, a co-organizer of the encampment and spokesperson for Occidental’s Students for Justice in Palestine, said he was disappointed by the board’s decision but not surprised.

Advertisement

“Based off of the pressure from Zionist parents and off-campus organizations such as the Brandeis Center and [the Anti-Defamation League] and personal political biases of the Board of Trustees, they caved in to rejecting divestment,” he said.

The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and the Anti-Defamation League filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in May against Occidental and Pomona College, accusing the universities of permitting discrimination and harassment of Jewish students on their campuses.

Occidental Hillel directed inquiries to Director for Religious and Spiritual Life Susan Young, who declined to comment on the board’s decision not to divest and the alleged antisemitism on campus.

Although the board’s vote came after many students had vacated campus for the summer, Vickers said students who are still in L.A. are planning to hold actions on and off campus to protest the board’s refusal to divest.

On UCLA’s campus, students continue to stage pro-Palestinian protests into the summer, erecting a new encampment on Monday that resulted in about two dozen arrests.

Advertisement

“People are still galvanized and willing to continue the struggle,” Vickers said.

Continue Reading

Trending