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 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?
Under its sway we shall have an ideal state, in which 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.
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-a reign of harmony-another ideal, differing, indeed, from that of the Communist in requiring only the further evolution of existing conditions, not the total overthrow of our civilization.
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 by far the most fruitful for the people.
He stresses the importance of doing charity during one’s lifetime, and states “…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’…” (401).
Carnegie&squot;s observations on the responsibilities of the rich man intrigued many of his contemporaries, and became one of the chief texts of a kind of socially minded conservatism.
He is saying a wealthy person, with millions at their disposal, should spend their money on the betterment of society, during their lifetime, because it will benefit us all as a race.
From the reading, In The Gospel of Wealth, Andrew Carnage offers a different perspective on the vitality of their recirculation of wealth or money in the society and that the giving away of money to charity organizations is not enough in this process as the use of the money cannot be guaranteed. According to Andrew, the wealthy individuals in the society had a vital role in the redistribution of wealth in the society. Through his arguments, the wealthy in the society had to take responsibility and ensure that they did not have surplus wealth than they needed. The classification of wealth in terms of what one had been vital so that the level of taxing such individuals is different from the percentage of taxing individuals who were poor. Through this system, money could be recirculated, and once the government is in possession of part of the surplus wealth, then it is possible to improve the livelihoods of the poor. The accumulation of wealth in the society is not unconstructive, therefore; the government should not try to hamper it.
In terms of the classification of wealth, it is vital that the wealthy individuals be classified under special groups so that the government can be able to create their own tax brackets to improve the distribution of wealth. In this instance, Andrew believed that the government was better off with the money from the rich individual’s n that laws governed the government and the money could be put into good use, for instance, the improvement of infrastructure that could be used by all people in the society.
The historical context of the document can be traced to the nineteenth century whereby a new class of individuals was coming up. This instance was unprecedented, and this may be related to industrialization in the American economy. As a result, there was a development of huge multinational corporations that created monopolies and different kinds of trusts in the small business. The individuals who run these huge corporations and monopolies an opportunity to make unprecedented profits and wealth arose.
The other issue of great importance during this time was the inheritance of wealth by heirs, and the heirs had not worked for this wealth. This created a gap between individuals living without the necessities of individuals who had more than they needed. This may result in individuals mismanaging their wealth, as they do not have the experience to manage huge amounts of money.
The topic that Andrew wrote about is still relevant in today’s society. This is because most of the countries in the world practice capitalism and as a result, there are individuals who are still able to accumulate surplus wealth. These individuals have the responsibility to ensure that the money that they leave behind when they are dead is put into good use. By setting up charities and foundations, these individuals may guarantee that their money is put to good use and that someone who is unfortunate in the society may be assisted.
The other relevance of the essay in today’s society is that governments can be able to classify people with different levels of taxation brackets to enable the distribution of wealth. Additionally, governments are in a position to ensure that no few individuals are able to amass huge wealth that cannot be used for the betterment of the society.
His father, Will, was a weaver and a follower of Chartism, a popular movement of the British working class that called for the masses to vote and to run for Parliament in order to help improve conditions for workers.
Carnegie was a self-made, wealthy industrialist who founded the Carnegie Institution of Washington (now called ), which funded the Mount Wilson Observatory.