&quot;To look at it another way, the private university provides what most people consider a &quot;better&quot; education without receiving any public funds; clearly we need more such institutions if possible.&quot;<p>If Harvard were taxed, would it still provide better education?<p>For accounting purposes, what&#x27;s the difference between the non-profit status and a subsidy on the equivalent service provided by a for-profit company? Because I don&#x27;t see a difference. It&#x27;s the same as having a deduction on my taxes vs. paying less taxes, no? The end result on what I pay is the same.<p>Which is why I think that tax free status on &quot;investments that range from stocks and bonds to California wine vineyards&quot; does count as being similar to a subsidy on the for-profit equivalent.<p>Which is why I see this as a policy question - is it better to have one person with a &quot;better&quot; education at a private school, or use the same money to have two people receive a college education at a public school?<p>I don&#x27;t dismiss your point regarding past evidence. However, I think that&#x27;s symptomatic of a different structural failure, where the cult of hiring MBAs running something &quot;like a business&quot; has taken over schools, health care, government and other organizations which should not have the high rate of failures seen in businesses. (Eg, Cooper Union.) That topic is quite outside of this discussion, and I&#x27;m willing to accept your conclusion.<p>Regarding &quot;looking at the contents of someone else&#x27;s bank account and wishing it was yours&quot; - that&#x27;s a wealth tax, and it exists in France, Norway, Spain, and several other countries, so it does make sense to some.