It's just Taxachusetts. That said, it's hard to feel sympathy for organizations that promote taxes for others while hiding in a tax exempt tower. Ask Greg Mankiw about Pigou taxes, i.e. taxes as tools of social policy.

This is riddiculous!I read somewhere that Massachusetts has the 28th highest tax rate in the country at 10.8%. With deficits projected for the coming fiscal year, the state is greedily looking for new sources of taxable income to make up the difference. The solution however, is not to increase the tax burden on universities, but instead to start cutting costs at the municipal level while leveraging those gains into building future prosperity for Massachusetts.

Hrm, looks like someone should look at the definition of a non-profit in his dictionary. A non-profit is non-profit not because they don't make a profit, but because they provide a service that is a public good, and one that the government therefore does not have to provide. Education is a public good and, last time I checked, those endowments were being spent on, among other things, awesome scholarship programs that brought down the cost of education for low-income students. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/education/31harvard.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
If the alums of an institution want to give money so that the university can continue to provide a public service, then the government should keep its paws off.

It's so weak of the MA government to reach for money where it's publicly known, instead of looking internally at processes that could be cut. I'm not talking education or healthcare, here, but simple redundant processes we all know are out there. If the universities can cut some bureaucracy and save money for more students, then the government can likewise wisely manage the funds we entrust to them.

A non-profit is non-profit not because they don't make a profit, but because they provide a service that is a public good, and one that the government therefore does not have to provide.

I'm certainly no advocate of government micromanagement of nonprofit finances. Nonetheless, if nonprofits go too far, it isn't hard to see that there will eventually be a reaction. In this case, we've seen tuition and other collateral student expenses inexorably rising for a period of decades, consistently outstripping inflation -- even though many schools have had more than enough endowment income to hold the line against these increases. Yet what hope do we have of keeping higher education meritocratic when the tone is set by universities such as Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, who (until recent threats of government intervention) have done next to nothing, even though sitting on hoards so large that they could easily afford to waive undergraduate tuition entirely?

Wow -- I can't believe my eyes: "piling up wealth rather than using it for any public good"

Can you really be serious?? These schools have done A LOT of public good (as in, they have trained the minds of our premier scientists, politicians, academics, doctors, lawyers, authors, thinkers, ect) -- your point is so very invalid that there is no need to elaborate any more than that.

I am going to support what Dr. Who noted...the MA state government has instituted ineffective taxes for inefficient programs. When each town in MA has its own firehouse, education system, and hospital, who do you think is losing?? ITS US! We are digging into our pockets for money that will be used to promote these program. Rather than attacking the universities who produce the leaders of this country, why don't we attack the programs that are costing us money. Last I checked, Harvard doesn't charge ME for being a citizen of MA....but the state does. So which one should i really be holding accountable?? (hint: The state and my wallet).

Check this out: http://www.eagletribune.com/puopinion/local_story_132022738.html?keyword=secondarystory

I suggest that we impose a 20% "tax" on all government spending, agency by agency, position by position, and that the spending talents of legislatures can easily be satisfied. They will have 20% of their previous budget to play with and mess around with, rather than ask us for more. Each time government at any level needs money then, they can simply impose another self-tax as needed and continue to spend, spend, spend. I recall the late comedian Pat Paulsen (Smothers Brothers TV program) and his run for President. His campaign pledge was, "Elect me and I will promise to do nothing for four years and I will leave you alone and not interfere in your lives." Sounds refreshing.