&gt; Certainly. And we change those laws over time to reflect changing circumstances.<p>Which would be quite different from the article&#x27;s positioning that acts entitled to that money in the first place.  But at that point, it would be reasonable to ask why such a change should target non-profit educational institutions in particular, rather than non-profits in general.  (Obvious answer: because that would be wildly unpopular, and would threaten some of the primary organizations that non-profit laws were created for, which have enormous lobbying power.)<p>&gt; That blanket statement is as true as the statement that companies have no problem spending more money than they have.<p>And those companies doing so typically go out of business, which is strong encouragement <i>not to do that</i>.  Government departments have no such controls or requirements in place to enforce fiscal responsibility; when they spend more than they have, they still get more to spend in the future.  And lo and behold, they often demonstrate extreme fiscal <i>irresponsibility</i>.<p>&gt; I mentioned Cooper Union as an example of how non-profit universities are also not immune.<p>And they very nearly went under due to (as far as I can tell) epic mismanagement, yes.  Mismanagement occurs in many places.  It&#x27;s worse when it happens with other people&#x27;s voluntarily donated money, and even worse when it happens with taxes.<p>&gt; Who am I likely to believe more, you or Piketty?<p>I&#x27;m hardly the first or only person to argue against what is commonly euphemized &quot;wealth redistribution&quot; on moral&#x2F;ethical grounds.  Whether you&#x27;re inclined to believe those arguments depends rather heavily on your political beliefs and morals, as it&#x27;s a question not solely decidable based on economics.  Sounds like you&#x27;ve already made up your mind that &quot;wealth redistribution&quot; is acceptable to you, which is a political viewpoint, not solely an economic one.