Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The bill raises the excise tax rate on net investment income of private colleges and universities from 1.4 percent to 21 percent, effective for taxable years beginning after enactment. Revenue is deposited into the Treasury’s general fund and designated first to reduce the federal deficit and then the national debt.
Left supports taxing wealthy institutions but worries about student impacts.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and narrowly focused statutory amendment that precisely changes a tax rate and sets an effective date.
The bill raises the excise tax rate on net investment income of private colleges and universities from 1.4 percent to 21 percent, effective for taxable years beginning after enactment.
Revenue is deposited into the Treasury’s general fund and designated first to reduce the federal deficit and then the national debt.
The bill does not alter other provisions of section 4968 in the text provided.
Substantial fiscal impact on a concentrated, politically active sector with few compromise features makes enactment unlikely absent major revision or offsetting deals.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and narrowly focused statutory amendment that precisely changes a tax rate and sets an effective date. It lacks supplemental implementation, fiscal, and oversight detail that would ordinarily accompany a major tax-rate change of this magnitude.
Left supports taxing wealthy institutions but worries about student impacts.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left supports taxing wealthy institutions but worries about student impacts.
Likely cautiously supportive of taxing large, wealthy institutions to increase fiscal fairness, but concerned about downstream effects on students and research.
Would favor using revenue for direct social programs rather than unspecified deficit reduction.
Views depend on evidence that the tax targets wealthy endowments without harming low-income students.
Skeptical that a sudden jump to 21 percent is prudent; favors measured, evidence-based tax policy.
Wants thorough analysis of revenue estimates and institutional impacts before supporting.
Concerned about unintended consequences and administrative complexity.
Generally favorable because it taxes wealthy private universities and directs revenue to deficit reduction.
Sees it as both punitive toward perceived elite institutions and fiscally responsible.
May still want assurances on legal defensibility.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantial fiscal impact on a concentrated, politically active sector with few compromise features makes enactment unlikely absent major revision or offsetting deals.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left supports taxing wealthy institutions but worries about student impacts.
Substantial fiscal impact on a concentrated, politically active sector with few compromise features makes enactment unlikely absent major r…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and narrowly focused statutory amendment that precisely changes a tax rate and sets an effective date. It lacks supplemental implementation, fiscal, and ov…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.