Andrew Carnegie on Taxes

"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.… Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for 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."

Neocons seem to see this as odious theft. I fail to see how supporting your community, and making sure your country has the funds necessary to continue running is repulsive or, for that matter, theft. If you disagree with something, work to change it, and stop bellyaching.

The neo-con theory (and please note that I am merely citing their reasoning; not supporting it) is that all the money earned in your life time has already been taxed. Therefore, an inheiritance tax is double taxation.

Of course, the tax that they're whining about only affects a very small percentage of Americans, and doesn't affect corporations at all. So, it's basically special pleading for the very personally wealthy to be able to continue concentrating their wealth (as if such a tax actually prevents this).

Thanks for the reply Mr Coulson. I have some understanding of the Neo-con theory, and, honestly, I find their stance infinitely more repugnant than what they oppose. If I were rich I would most certainly NOT want my kids to inherit everything because I would honestly cringe at them getting the idea that they were entitled to be rich even though they did nothing to earn it and are in fact better than everyone else because of it, which they aren't. I think their most basic misunderstanding is the thought that EVERYTHING belongs to the community, which is not what Carnegie, or any of his associates, or modern millionares who share similar views, are saying. Carnegie was a capitalist to his dying day. The fact that he did not believe he had the right to keep it all for himself does not change that fact.

ETA: My apologies if this sounds like its direct at you, that was not my intent, just some further thoughts.

I fail to see how supporting your community, and making sure your country has the funds necessary to continue running is repulsive or, for that matter, theft.

You seem to have a problem with logic. The one thing has nothing to do with the other: those things aren't necessarily "repulsive, or, for that matter, theft"; but theft is still theft. The double-taxation issue is a red herring: if X had the right to control those resources when he was alive{*}, he could have given them to Y and you wouldn't have a problem, right? But if he did it shortly before he died (i.e., Y inherited), you suddenly step in and take them for yourself, and that's "not theft" because X is dead now? How does that make any kind of sense?

{*} And if he didn't, why wait until he's dead...?

I fail to see how supporting your community, and making sure your country has the funds necessary to continue running is repulsive...

All that silly neo-con strawman stuff aside, put more explicitly, that's a false premise. Government doesn't support your community more than it hinders it. Giving money to government is about the most destructive thing you can do with your money. It bombs hundreds of thousands of brown people abroad in the name of the War on Terror, jails hundreds of thousands of non-violent people domestically in the name of the War on Drugs, drastically raises the cost of living for the poor in the name of the War on Poverty, and plenty of other repulsive things. To look at all that senseless destruction and then turn around and say "If you don't like it, work within the system to change it and stop bellyaching" is disgustingly callous. Anyone who cares about their fellow human being should give as little money to government as they can get away with.

And if you want to stop your kids from inheriting too much money from you, I find it odd that you think you need the government to take your money off your hands for you by force of law. You can just will it away to the government yourself if you like. In fact, why wait until you're dead? If giving money to government is so awesome, why would you ever file for a tax refund or file for tax exemptions? The issue doesn't change just because a person is rich either. The more wealthy a person is, the more likely that their money ends up in banks to be loaned out to others or invested with businesses that create jobs, or even sometimes end up in the hands of charity. (The latter isn't really 100% true since conservatives give more money than their better-off liberal counterparts despite earning on average 6% more than conservatives)

Truly, if you really thought that your money would be better spent in the hands of the government, you'd pay more taxes than you owe. Otherwise, stop your bellyaching.

And the gov't builds roads and bridges, makes sure that all the people driving cars on them are at least minimally competent with them, it deters criminals from stealing your property or your life, etc. I don't have time to list any more for now, but I think on balance that gov't is worth it, and in fact necessary.

#5--I can see some point to what you're saying. I suppose it depends on what govt. we're talking about. The USA wants to play policeman all over the globe and I agree that the 'War on terror'--staging troops all over the world is monies badly spent. A lot of money. Spying on citizens--intelligence services at the beck and call of multinational corporations not good at all. I don't particularly even like the NASA program. I don't see why a lot of R & D money to corporations should take precedence over the social problems of a good % of the population--just so some Naval and Air Force officers can play big shot? Why we're supporting pharmaceutical multinationals who give discounts to other countries and not our own? We could go on and on--but it's a rich man's paradise here and the freedom of corporations to buy as many politicians as they can seems to be okay with a lot of libertarians who not only don't like taxes but regulations of any kind.

Maybe I'm blind but generally speaking most govt.'s in the west don't seem to be as screwed up as ours. And at the end of the day we still need infrastructure (roads,bridges etc.)--we need education for our kids--and social safety net programs are a good thing too. No sense in having people collapsing in the street and ambulances driving right on by.

#6: And the gov't builds roads and bridges, makes sure that all the people driving cars on them are at least minimally competent with them, it deters criminals from stealing your property or your life, etc.

And bridges to nowhere...

I know, it's a very convincing illusion and all. Government takes funds and uses them for projects that people need and then people think it couldn't be achieved any other way. It brings us back to the Broken Window Fallacy, or what Bastiat referred to as "what is seen and what is not seen." You see the bridge appear out of nowhere but what you don't see is the cost in terms of what you could have had instead. Politicians spend money they did not personally earn and cannot be expected to spend it responsibly. Even if they care. It is in the very nature of collective decision-making that such necessary things becomes more expensive than they need to be, meaning people have less money left over. Less money left over to pay for more effective alternatives and less money left over to make other improvements. In an age where private businesses build towering skyscrapers, do we really think they couldn't build a bridge?

Is it really worth all the badly maintained roads? Who'd think that something as mundane as asphalt and paint would require the "magic" of government intervention? Who really thinks that the Department of Motor Vehicles does much to keep bad motorists off the road? Or traffic cops? You're really relying on cops to notice reckless drivers? If no one notices a reckless driver in time to give it a wide berth and there's an accident, how could the cops do much to prevent that? And how often do cops actually swoop in right in the nick of time to catch a thief in the act? The local rent-a-cop (which is really a very demeaning put-down a cop might use) does more to deter crime than city cops do. Even just having street lights is a major cost-effective deterrance (but I guess only government knows how to change a light bulb!?).

Even if we agreed that government is a mixed bag, that it does some bad things and some good things with people's money, what if government were a person who was reckless to the same degree? Is that an argument for the necessity of giving that person money by force of law? Do you give money to drug addicts on the excuse that they need to feed their kids? The logic is just so alien.

I think before anyone demands that the government receive more money, people who believe in the system should get involved and get their government's act together first. Or don't you believe in the system?

"selfish millionaire’s unworthy life"

This is the problem. Carnegie wasn't talking about the current world, but about the world of 1889. Back then there was an "idle rich"—aristocratic WASP men in New York and Boston who got into Harvard on their name alone, belonged to a private club and listed their profession as "gentlemen." While an attractive fantasy this world doesn't exist any more.

Incidentally, Carnegie's next paragraph is:

"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."

Does anyone really think there are rich people who don't "attend to the administration of wealth" now? No. Carnegie was talking about something that scarcely exists anymore—a multi-generational monied class, whose distant ancestors made money and didn't themselves do anything. Carnegie and some of the other robber barons hated these guys, because they made their money. These days rich people are as likely to be Greeks, Jews or Chinese, the east-coast WASP elite is a shadow of itself, and while rich people's children get a huge leg up, everyone works. It's socially unacceptable to be a "gentleman" today. You'd be a loser.

There may well be good reasons to tax people at death. Certainly wealth conveys benefits. (That my son will benefit now and later is one reason I work hard. Doesn't everyone feel that way?) But Carnegie's world is Mars to us now. And, incidentally, we got from there to here more by increased opportunity than by taxing dandies.

This is the problem. Carnegie wasn't talking about the current world, but about the world of 1889. Back then there was an "idle rich"—aristocratic WASP men in New York and Boston who got into Harvard on their name alone, belonged to a private club and listed their profession as "gentlemen." While an attractive fantasy this world doesn't exist any more.
==============================

Without reaching the merits of death taxes, the above is one of the silliest assertions I've ever seen. Students aren't routinely admitted to Harvard on the basis of their social standing? What? There aren't exclusive clubs, and resorts, and private planes and (you just name it) for the ultra-rich? There aren't? Really? You really need to get out more often, Tim.

===============================

Does anyone really think there are rich people who don't "attend to the administration of wealth" now? No. Carnegie was talking about something that scarcely exists anymore—a multi-generational monied class, whose distant ancestors made money and didn't themselves do anything.

===============================
Well, let's see, one of my clients of a couple decades ago was a descendant of the DuPont family. He was effectively illiterate but had been promoting a $30 MM development in the Phoenix area that had finally gone South on him after his rather extensive bungling. His wife, fortunately, had walled off her own inherited fortune through an iron clad prenuptial agreement. One of the current litigation matters that I am involved in has to do with an Eli Lilly heiress. About the same story, except that she has a degree in Urban Sociology that she has never used. Her recent testimony was that her job at present and for the foreseeable future was to supervise the litigation in which she is now involved. Her idea of supervision is to move between houses in different localities so that she can't easily be subpoenaed for discovery.

Yept, none of those sorts around at all.............

Interesting. Perusing Daily Kos today I ran into a story concerning Gov. Schweitzer of Montana who had the temerity to veto items on the state budget to districts to which he thought they were not wanted. It would seem that the tea party backed legislators in those areas had as a matter of principle voted against these budget improvements in their districts and Schweitzer may have got the idea that since they voted against these improvements they did not want them so he took them out. The voters in these districts are not happy--neither apparently are their the legislators. Apparently they did want the money for the improvements they just voted against them because they vote against them on principle.

I have no doubts that Lunar for one is sincere in what he says but maybe not everyone who says they're sincere too are as a matter of fact as sincere as they say they are.

#11: Well, that's politics. I'm just as glad to welcome the the voices of hypocritical tea partiers as I am glad to welcome the vetoes of Democratic governors.

11> I'm no Tea Party supporter, but the people in those districts will still be paying the taxes so why shouldn't they get the benefit, even if they don't think that anyone should be paying the tax or getting the benefit.

Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu' il a été proprement fait. - Balzac http://ancilla.unice.fr/~brunet/BALZAC/Go/Go254678.htm

#12--Just pointing out that sometimes (though not all the time) theory meets reality and theory does the budging.

#13--Still I presume you can see where Schweitzer (who does have a perverse streak) is coming from? The rep is voting against it--just maybe the people who voted him in don't want (or even need) the help. That being the case... Anyway the about face later on is worth a laugh and the truth seems to be that despite voting and/or saying they were against something they really wanted it.