Andrew
Carnegie, one of the wealthiest industrialists of his day, made his opinions on
the wealthy well known in the late 1880’s with his book, Gospel of Wealth. Carnegie’s philosophical beliefs were somewhat of
a new view regarding wealth and the role the wealthy played in society. He
stated that the wealthy were the elite of society, as they possessed a
spectacular talent, which allowed them to make their fortunes in a capitalist
society. Due to their natural intuition, the wealthy had a duty to watch over
the gap of classes in the capitalist society in order to make sure the gap
didn’t grow too much to cause an uprising from the poor (Gandolfo). Carnegie
had many ideas regarding how the wealthy should handle their fortunes to
maintain a sufficient gap; one was that of a 100% inheritance tax upon the
death of the prosperous figure. This tax would encourage the well-off
population to figure out ways to spend their money in alternative ways, because
who would want to give all their money straight to the government? Carnegie
thought that with this tax, the government wouldn’t have as much control of the
gap of classes, since the government workers were not the wealthy, which means
they did not possess the sought after hardworking, creative gene that graced
the top tier of the world (Gandolfo).
Another
conclusion made by Carnegie was that any person that dies filthy rich is a
disgrace because the money is supposed to circulate in philanthropic ways to
help to common good. Carnegie also stated that leaving all of your hard-earned
money to family isn’t a great alternative since the family weren’t graced with
the same fabulous talents as the wealthy, so it wouldn’t be fair to society to
have untalented rich people.
Recently,
the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, decided to follow in Andrew Carnegie’s outline, as
he plans to give away his $785 million fortune, minus the money he put aside to
pay for his nephew’s college education (CNBC). Many other millionaires and
billionaires have gone in the same direction, finding it necessary to aid the
remainder of society rather than frivolously spend and leave it all to family
members.
Many
arguments can be made against Andrew Carnegie’s philosophy. The biggest being
that of his idea of the wealthy being the most talented people in the world
(Gandolfo). What about public heroes such as Mother Teresa or influential
figures like Martin Luther King? Are they not considered spectacular because of
their small bank account?
I
completely support wanting to give away your fortune to the less fortunate or
public services, but I also believe that it is entirely up to the
wealth-holder. If they want to hand it all down to their decedents, go for it.
If they want to build thirty libraries, all power to you.
I don’t
believe that a person’s economic status decides how talented, hardworking, and
creative they are. So many factors play into the character of a person, not
just wealth.
Andrew
Carnegie brought up many solid points, but like every opinion, it can be
disputed.
"Apple's Tim
Cook Will Give Away His Money." CNBC, 26 Mar. 2015. Web. 26 Mar. 2015.
Gandolfo, David,
Prof. "Andrew Carnegie." Philosophy Lecture. Forman University,
Greenville. 26 Mar. 2015. Lecture.
It's interesting that someone we think of as a paragon of free enterprise would be so in favor of a 100%, essentially confiscatory, tax. Now of course, the issue is that they might also spend as much of it as possible rather than give it away, or alternately just buy things for their children during their life. I think some sort of progressive consumption tax, in combination with an estate or gift tax, might make a good deal of sense.
ReplyDelete