There are many ways to describe Andrew Carnegie such as self-made millionaire (billionaire in today’s terms) or philanthropist. However, one way in which most would not expect to describe Carnegie is as a firm believer in the estate tax. This may be due to the fact that many people do not know the definition of an estate tax or have no experience with it. An estate tax is defined as “a tax levied on the net value of the estate of a deceased person before distribution to the heirs.” However, an exclusion limit exists, so only estates with combined assets of over $5.45 million are subject to an estate tax. Thus, only the nation’s most wealthy citizens ever need to plan for these sorts of taxes. Yet Carnegie still believes the estate tax to
…show more content…
As a self-made man, it’s interesting that Carnegie would be so passionate about spreading the wealth that he worked so hard to obtain. Still, the man strongly criticized those who simply sat on their riches and did nothing to enhance society. In his essay, The Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie outlines “three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of.” The first mode is simply to leave one’s wealth to one’s children, which Carnegie deems the least helpful to society. In fact, this mode can even prove somewhat detrimental, as it breeds generations of rich children who do not know how to work for what they’ve earned. The second mode of distributing surplus wealth is to leave money for “public purposes” after death. Though it may contribute some good to society, Carnegie finds this mode to be a mere “means for the disposal of wealth.” Rather, Carnegie is in support of the third mode outlined which is to distribute wealth during one’s lifetime. By distributing wealth during one’s lifetime, the possessor is able to ensure that funds go to worthy causes and are used appropriately. As Carnegie argues, wealth has little impact for good when it is mindlessly donated postmortem. After all, who is better at deciding what is best to be done with an individual’s wealth than the possessor himself? The answer is certainly not some other agency, or worse, the …show more content…
Where some may argue that the estate tax is a government overstep, I think that this tax acts in an opposite fashion. While the estate tax may threaten government overstepping, it encourages individuals to deny the government of this particular overstep by taking care of their own funds and reallocating them for societal good. Let us imagine that someday in the foreseeable future I develop a very profitable business which earns millions of dollars for my family. Seeing as, in the present, my family, unfortunately, has no hidden riches, all of my wealth will have been self-made. When it would come time to leave behind an estate, I believe that, even in a position of wealth, I would still be in strong favor of an estate tax. This estate tax would encourage me to plan for the future. In order to avoid being heavily taxed, as the possessor of my wealth, I would be responsible for deciding where it will best serve society rather than allow the government to make those decisions, as Carnegie warned
As a self-made man, it’s interesting that Carnegie would be so passionate about spreading the wealth that he worked so hard to obtain. Still, the man strongly criticized those who simply sat on their riches and did nothing to enhance society. In his essay, The Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie outlines “three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of.” The first mode is simply to leave one’s wealth to one’s children, which Carnegie deems the least helpful to society. In fact, this mode can even prove somewhat detrimental, as it breeds generations of rich children who do not know how to work for what they’ve earned. The second mode of distributing surplus wealth is to leave money for “public purposes” after death. Though it may contribute some good to society, Carnegie finds this mode to be a mere “means for the disposal of wealth.” Rather, Carnegie is in support of the third mode outlined which is to distribute wealth during one’s lifetime. By distributing wealth during one’s lifetime, the possessor is able to ensure that funds go to worthy causes and are used appropriately. As Carnegie argues, wealth has little impact for good when it is mindlessly donated postmortem. After all, who is better at deciding what is best to be done with an individual’s wealth than the possessor himself? The answer is certainly not some other agency, or worse, the …show more content…
Where some may argue that the estate tax is a government overstep, I think that this tax acts in an opposite fashion. While the estate tax may threaten government overstepping, it encourages individuals to deny the government of this particular overstep by taking care of their own funds and reallocating them for societal good. Let us imagine that someday in the foreseeable future I develop a very profitable business which earns millions of dollars for my family. Seeing as, in the present, my family, unfortunately, has no hidden riches, all of my wealth will have been self-made. When it would come time to leave behind an estate, I believe that, even in a position of wealth, I would still be in strong favor of an estate tax. This estate tax would encourage me to plan for the future. In order to avoid being heavily taxed, as the possessor of my wealth, I would be responsible for deciding where it will best serve society rather than allow the government to make those decisions, as Carnegie warned