WEALTH
by Andrew Carnegie
reprinted from the North
American Review, June 1889
We start, with a condition of affairs
which inevitably
gives wealth to the few. Thus far, accepting conditions as
they exist, the situation can be surveyed and pronounced good.
The question then arises, - and, if the foregoing be correct,
it is the only question with which we have to deal, - What
is the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws
upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the
hands of the few?
|
CARNEGIE
QUOTE
"Why
should men leave great fortunes to their children?
If this is done from affection, is it not misguided
affection? Observation teaches that, generally
speaking, it is not well for the children that
they should be so burdened."
|
|
|
|
There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be
disposed of. It can be left to the families of the decedents;
or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally,
it can be administered during their lives by its possessors.
Under the first and second modes most of the wealth of the
world that has reached the few has hitherto been applied.
Let us in turn consider each of these modes. The first is
the most injudicious. In monarchical countries. the estates
and the greatest portion of the wealth are left to the first
son, that the vanity of the parent may be gratified by the
thought that his name and title are to descend to succeeding
generations unimpaired. The condition of this class in Europe
to-day teaches the futility of such hopes or ambitions. The
successors have become impoverished through their follies
or from the fall in the value of land. Even in Great Britain
the strict law of entail has been found inadequate to maintain
the status of an hereditary class. Its soil is rapidly passing
into the hands of the stranger. Under republican institutions
the division of property among the children is much fairer,
but the question which forces itself upon thoughtful men in
all lands is: Why should men leave great fortunes to their
children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided
affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it
is not well for the children that they should be so burdened.
Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing for the
wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate
allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate,
for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed
oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the
recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best
interests of the members of their families and of the state,
such bequests are an improper use of their means.
It is not suggested that men who have failed to educate their
sons to earn a livelihood shall cast them adrift in poverty.
If any man has seen fit to rear his sons with a view to their
living idle lives, or, what is highly commendable, has instilled
in them the sentiment that they are in a position to labor
for public ends without reference to pecuniary consideration,
then, of course, the duty of the parent is to see that such
are provided for in moderation. There are instances of millionaires'
sons unspoiled by wealth, who, being rich, still perform great
services in the community. Such are the very salt of the earth,
as valuable as, unfortunately, they are rare; still it is
not the exception, but the rule, that men must regard, and,
looking at the usual result of enormous sums conferred upon
legatees, the thoughtful man must shortly say, "I would
as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar,"
and admit to himself that it is not the welfare of the children,
but family pride, which inspires these enormous legacies.
As to the second mode, that of leaving wealth at death for
public uses, it may be said that this is only a means for
the disposal of wealth, provided a man is content to wait
until he is dead before it becomes of much good in the world.
Knowledge of the results of legacies bequeathed is not calculated
to inspire the brightest hopes of much posthumous good being
accomplished. The cases are not few in which the real object
sought by the testator is not attained, nor are they few in
which his real wishes are thwarted. In many cases the bequests
are so used as to become only monuments of his folly. It is
well to remember that it requires the exercise of not less
ability than that which acquired the wealth to use it so as
to be really beneficial to the community. Besides this, it
may fairly be said that no man is to be extolled for doing
what he cannot help doing, nor is he to be thanked by the
community to which he only leaves wealth at death. Men who
leave vast sums in this way may fairly be thought men who
would not have left it at all, had they been able to take
it with them. The memories of such cannot be held in grateful
remembrance, for there is not grace in their gifts. It is
not to be wondered at that such bequests seems so generally
to lack the blessing.
|
CARNEGIE
QUOTE
"Of
every thousand dollars spent in so called charity
to-day, it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent;
so spent, indeed, as to produce the very evils
which it proposes to mitigate or cure."
|
|
|
|
The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large
estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth
of a salutary change in public opinion. The State of Pennsylvania
now takes - subject to some exceptions - one-tenth of the
property left by its citizens. The budget presented in the
British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the
death-duties; and, most significant of all, the new tax is
to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation, this seems
the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their
lives, the proper use of which for the public ends would work
good to the community, should be made to feel that the community,
in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper
share. By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks
its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.
It is desirable that nations should go much further in this
direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share
of a rich man's estate which should go at his death to the
public through the agency of the state, and by all means such
taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing upon moderate
sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts
swell, until of the millionaire's hoard, as of Shylock's,
at least
" -- The other half Comes to the privy coffer of the
state."
This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man
to attend to the administration of wealth during his life,
which is the end that society should always have in view,
as being that by far most fruitful for the people. Nor need
it be feared that this policy would sap the root of enterprise
and render men less anxious to accumulate, for to the class
whose ambition it is to leave great fortunes and be talked
about after their death, it will attract even more attention,
and, indeed, be a somewhat nobler ambition to have enormous
sums paid over to the state from their fortunes.
There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes;
but in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal
distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and
the poor
The surplus wealth of the few will become,
in the best sense, the property of the many, because administered
for the common good, and this wealth, passing through the
hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for
the elevation of our race than if it had been distributed
in small sums to the people themselves. Even the poorest can
be made to see this, and to agree that great sums gathered
by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public purposes,
from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more
valuable to them than if scattered among them through the
course of many years in trifling amounts.
Take for instance, that of Mr. Tilden's bequest of five millions
of dollars for a free library in the city of New York
Let us assume that Mr. Tilden's millions finally become the
means of giving to this city a noble public library, where
the treasures of the world contained in books will be open
to all forever, without money and without price. Considering
the good of that part of the race which congregates in and
around Manhattan Island, would its permanent benefit have
been better promoted had these millions been allowed to circulate
in small sums through the hands of the masses?
Rich men should be thankful for one inestimable boon. They
have it in their power during their lives to busy themselves
in organizing benefactions from which the masses of their
fellows will derive lasting advantage, and thus dignify their
own lives.
This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth:
First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living,
shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for
the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after
doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him
simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer,
and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the
manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce
the most beneficial results for the community - the man of
wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer
brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience,
and ability to administer, doing for them better than they
would or could do for themselves.
|
FACTS
& FIGURES
People
75 years of age or older give nearly 5% of their
household income to charity. Retirees as a group
report higher than average giving - 2.5% of their
household income compared with 2.1 % for the average
American household.
More Facts
& Figures
|
|
|
|
It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich
were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the
slothful, the drunken, the unworthy. Of every thousand dollars
spent in so called charity to-day, it is probable that $950
is unwisely spent; so spent, indeed, as to produce the very
evils which it proposes to mitigate or cure.
In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to
help those who will help themselves; to provide part of the
means by which those who desire to improve may do so. Those
worthy of assistance, except in rare cases, seldom require
assistance. The really valuable men of the race never do,
except in cases of accident or sudden change.
The best means of benefiting the community is to place within
its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise - parks,
and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and
minds; works of art, certain to give pleasure and improve
the public taste, and public institutions of various kinds,
which will improve the general condition of the people; -
in this manner returning their surplus wealth to the mass
of their fellows in the forms best calculated to do them lasting
good.
Thus is the problem of Rich and Poor to be solved. The laws
of accumulation will be left free; the laws of distribution
free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will
be but a trustee for the poor; intrusted for a season with
a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but
administering it for the community far better than it could
or would have done for itself. The best minds will thus have
reached a stage in the development of the race in which it
is clearly seen that there is no mode of disposing of surplus
wealth creditable to thoughtful and earnest men into whose
hands it flows save by using it year by year for the general
good. This day already dawns. But a little while, and although,
without incurring the pity of their fellows, men may die sharers
in great business enterprises from which their capital cannot
be or has not been withdrawn, and is left chiefly at death
for public uses, yet the man who dies leaving behind him millions
of available wealth, which was his to administer during life,
will pass away "unwept, unhonored, and unsung,"
no matter to what uses he leaves the dross which he cannot
take with him. Of such as these the public verdict will then
be: "The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced."
Such, in my opinion, is the true Gospel concerning Wealth,
obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem
of the Rich and the Poor, and to bring "Peace on earth,
among men Good-Will."
Transcribed by Katie Morgan from "Wealth,"
North American Review, CXLVIII (June 1889), 653-64
|