The fact that you disagree with my interpretation of the term "windfall profits" and explain the definition you favor does not obligate me in any way to accept your definition, as you seem to think.
I do not normally use the term "obscene profits", I prefer the more accurate term "extortionate profits" for those made on $4.50 a gallon gasoline or a $15 charge for one Tylenol tablet. $5 for a bottle of water at a Peruvian festival was also a major ripoff, but less so, because free warm water was availabel.
Universities are not asked to pay taxes on donations because donations to nonprofit schools are tax deductible, like donations to churches and such. If you find this to be unjust, then you should inform your congressperson. N one here is responsible for this affront to your sense of justice.
You seem to disagree with the idea that a university and a for-profit corporation are fundamentally different in their goals and should be treated differently. I disagree with this. Universities profide a socially beneficial service and should be encouraged to do so. In countries where this has been disallowed to religious-based universities, there have been no religious based universities until the disallowance has been repealed, which means that the government has had the exclusive role of providing higher education.
But if this is the case, then there are certainly a lot of religious organizations that should also pay taxes.
If donations were taxed, then this would put an end to such donations, as most such donations are made to avoid paying taxes. John Q. Philanthropist believes that if he pays income taxes or estate taxes, the money will be used to pay for things less beneficial than the John Q. Philanthropist School of Whatever, so he donates money to the latter.
If the deduction is disallowed, then he would simply pay the taxes, and make no donations. It is my belief that if this were to happen, education would suffer, fewer people would receive a good education and we would mostly all be worse off for it. So I favor the government making a distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit entities. There are some non-profits that seem to be quite profitable for their administrators and do not seem to do a lot of good for their donors, such as some televangelists (Benny Hinn comes to mind), and if I were running the show, I imagine I would examine these with a bit more scrutiny.
This is not really a discussion about how stupid I am because I do not accept your definition of "windfall profits". It is actually a discussion about how you think that universities should not be classified as non-profits, or perhaps how all corporations not be taxed at all on their profits.
