NationStates Jolt Archive

Something to think about:

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. Ofa ll 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.

Later he adds this:




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.

Really? Not a single conservative will comment on what it means when a true master of capitalism supports a heavy estate tax?

I am disappointed!

I'm libertarian and I *HATE* the estate tax

I'm libertarian and I *HATE* the estate tax

Well, thank you for your opinion. Would you like to discuss Mr. Carnegie's?

lets not get our tights wadded here, a capitalist and a conservative are NOT the same thing, Carnegie was very liberal and many of societies lowest classes are VERY conservative, you shouldn't get them confused. In fact, communists, the anti thesis of capitalists, are also, by modern standards, some of the most conservative people in the world.

Carnegie said this stuff in order to appear nice to the nation's poor while his co-corporate executives dominated the industries. This same sort of thing is happening today, as corporations in order to seem for enivronmentally friendly give small amounts to charities and spend just enough on making their products environmentally friendly that they can legally use it in their advertising.

lets not get our tights wadded here, a capitalist and a conservative

That's not the point. The point is that those who despise the estate tax often argue "if you take 'everything' when people die, why would anyone bother to work at all?"

Carnegie said this stuff in order to appear nice to the nation's poor while his co-corporate executives dominated the industries. This same sort of thing is happening today, as corporations in order to seem for enivronmentally friendly give small amounts to charities and spend just enough on making their products environmentally friendly that they can legally use it in their advertising.

Certainly it is true that corporations (and Carnegie) are (were) very good at public relations. Still, this is a pretty strong opinion on the estate tax. He was not suggesting "small amounts" or "just enough." He argued very strongly that the only justification for great inequalities in wealth is that, ultimately, they benefit society by making everyone better off... and therefore, very wealthy people who refuse to use their wealth to benefit the public are in the wrong, and it is perfectly legitimate for society to "take back" their "trust" at the end of their lives.

While I do not necessarily agree with his logic regarding inequality's beneficial effects, he still makes a powerful argument from the point of view of a wealthy self-made capitalist that opponents (and most advocates) of the estate tax completely ignore.

So a wealthy self made capitalist is an advocate of the estate tax?

If I found a poor unemployed communist who said he didnt like the estate tax would the two balance out?

Does the logic(or what passes for it) run both ways or only in the direction of wealthy people wanting more taxes?

So a wealthy self made capitalist is an advocate of the estate tax?

If I found a poor unemployed communist who said he didnt like the estate tax would the two balance out?

It is not merely the fact of his being a wealthy self-made capitalist that is important here. It is the fact that he is such and offers an argument explaining why an estate tax makes sense from his perspective. Furthermore, Mr. Carnegie is especially qualified to answer a major objection to the estate tax, as I have already mentioned: "People will not be motivated to acquire wealth and drive the economy." As one of the people about whom this claim is made, it is interesting to see how he contradicts it.

If you found a poor unemployed communist who says he doesn't like the estate tax, what I will be interested in is his argument. However, since neither side in this debate has much to say about the motivations of poor unemployed communists, I doubt the fact that it comes from his mouth will add anything to the discussion.

That argument really doesn't seem logical to me. To say that being able to donate huge sums of money to the state would be a motivation to succeed is ludicrous, at least for the people who don't have the motivation to do it while alive.

good evening anarchy, would you like to continue our discussion? i would. i was browsing the forums and i came across "the anti-communist thread." some thoughts of yours intrigued me (i at least know how to keep a discussion civil, as opposed to certain individuals *cough*BAAWA*cough*). let me know if you're up for it.

I'm libertarian and I *HATE* the estate tax


Libertarians are practically anarchists anyhow, its why they arent taken seriously.

oh yeah, a thought or two on this thread: as you know, i am staunchly opposed to many forms of taxation. but on this issue i stand divided. on the one hand, an individual should have complete rights to his property and earnings (you disagree, as i recall? society gets something as well? we can deal with that later.) while he is alive, that is. after he is dead, he has no will, no last wishes. he is dead, and has no claim to anything. if you see a problem with that, either by your view or mine, i'd like to know it, because it doesn't sound exactly right to me, but i can't find it. anyways. if he gives away all of his money before he dies, fine. but once he is dead, and can no longer claim any rights (as the right to life is the basic right, and he can no longer claim it,) he has no say over where his property goes, regardless of any "last will." if he wants to do something, he needs to do it before he's dead. equal division among relatives/friends is simply not possible without a will, and i hope the reasons why are clear to you. thats why i'm for it. my questions against an estate tax (less a tax and more a case of lost and found) are thus: why should the government get it, and what will they do with it to justify their seizure of it. are they to receive it simply by default, by virtue of not having anyone else able to justly and quietly take it? what will they do with it in the system i advocate, where government is solely for defense. the money was not given to the government (though nor was it stolen) for a specific purpose, and is therefore at the decision makers hands. it is not solely for defense, it is a check without the payee written in. so what is it to be spent on that could justify government seizure of it?

Libertarians are practically anarchists anyhow, its why they arent taken seriously.
No, there's a significant difference. Many people never bother to find out, though, because they're too busy listening to propaganda like that.

Libertarians believe in strong punishments for crimes with victims, such as murder, rape, theft, assault, and fraud. There would also be laws against improper business practices, such as agreements not to raise wages or (in my opinion) environmental destruction. The Libertarian Party advocates a strong national defense and stipulates that it should only be used for defense.

Which part of this sounds like anarchy?

i wonder if it would be possible to fund the state based solely on estate(and perhaps gift) taxes. whatever you make is yours as long as you live, but you can pass nothing on, it all goes to the state.

i wonder if it would be possible to fund the state based solely on estate(and perhaps gift) taxes. whatever you make is yours as long as you live, but you can pass nothing on, it all goes to the state.
Nah, people would never report deaths. Can you imagine the voter fraud?

To say that being able to donate huge sums of money to the state would be a motivation to succeed is ludicrous, at least for the people who don't have the motivation to do it while alive.

First of all, you have to understand that Carnegie was addressing a somewhat different audience than he might today... He was on the cusp between a world in which honor meant something and one in which wealth is a virtue unto itself. In some ways his comments are an argument for a cultural return to the sense of honor.

But even if this is impractical or impossible, he also refers to the motivation for public praise and esteem. He reasons that as long as the amount collected from an large estate is a matter of public record, the people motivated by a desire for fame and remembrance will be happy to amass wealth for the recognition conferred after death. Indeed, Carnegie thought that this should help motivate them to spend extensively for the public good during their own lives.

Carnegie recognized that capitalism rewards a very special skill set that includes entrepreneurial prudence and "business sense." Successful businessmen are, of course, hard-working and industrious... but he realized that they were not really more hard-working than most other people, and might even do less work than others. They may not even be as intelligent as scholarly and scientific workers. The argument that great wealth is "deserved," therefore, carried little weight for him. Every social/economic system rewards certain skills, and his success was based as much on having the good fortune to possess these skills as on his own hard work and initiative.

Since he could not justify vast inequality based on merit, and he understood that the existing economic system is a kind of social choice, he reasoned that economics -- including economic inequality -- could only be justified from the perspective of society. The question for him was, "Why should a society choose this system or that?"

His argument for capitalism, and the inequalities that go with it, was that capitalism results in benefits for all social classes -- that even the lowliest worker is better off than the peasant of ages past. However, this means that society chooses to put great wealth in the hands of the few, and it follows from the argument that this must still serve society's ends. Thus he argued that it is the responsibility of wealthy men to spend their money to establish libraries and schools for the public good. And if they refuse to do so, accumulating so much private wealth that much is left over after death, it only makes that society takes back for its own good what it had entrusted to the wealthy few.

Carnegie worried that if capitalism should progress to the point that the wealthy no longer feel an obligation to the poor, and great wealth served exclusively private ends, there would remain no moral justification for the system. Indeed, this is the point we seem to have reached today. Ironically, it has become cliché to refer to socialism as "intellectually bankrupt," when in fact this is true of capitalism. Capitalism's has two remaining defenses: first, it claims -- as Carnegie did -- that it ultimately benefits everyone, but this claim is increasingly difficult to maintain against the facts of global capitalism. Secondly it tries to prop itself up with the claim that the individual has a "right" to whatever wealth he or she produces... but this claim is rather shallow seen from Carnegie's perspective, as well as measured against the rights of society to determine its own good.

Ultimately, of course, being an anarchist and a socialist, I do not agree with Carnegie. But I respect him as a capitalist who understood its real moral foundations, and recognized the danger to capitalists in allowing them to be eroded. He speaks a language that I understand. Modern capitalist ideology, on the other hand, is virtually incoherent in that it confuses its own material claims for moral claims, and vice versa.

good evening anarchy, would you like to continue our discussion? i would. i was browsing the forums and i came across "the anti-communist thread." some thoughts of yours intrigued me (i at least know how to keep a discussion civil, as opposed to certain individuals *cough*BAAWA*cough*). let me know if you're up for it.

Greetings, Oplet.

I would be happy to discuss some of the issues raised in the anti-communist thread, with two caveats:

1. I am entering a particular busy and work-filled period, so I am unlikely to be able to respond as frequently or as thoroughly as I have in recent threads.

2. During the period in which I offered BAAWA the generous benefit of a meager doubt, I toned down and even significantly altered my views in an attempt to find some common ground on which we might have a reasonable discussion. (Obviously, this failed.) Also, some of my views may have changed since that time. I therefore reserve the right to respond in either of the following ways:

a. "I no longer think that." (Probably with some explanation of why my view has changed.)

b. "I said that for BAAWA's benefit."

Otherwise, anything is fair game... Why don't you go ahead and start a thread, since if anyone wants to find that discussion they will probably not look under "Andrew Carnegie." I am sure I will find you.

<snip>
So, then, he isn't saying that such a person would be motivated. He's saying that such a person should be motivated. I can deal with that.

For somebody who does recognize this moral obligation, though, why wouldn't he just take less money from the company to begin with? Can it be considered ethical to take extra money from the worker class and the consumers and then give it to the government to be distributed randomly?

he is dead, and has no claim to anything. if you see a problem with that, either by your view or mine, i'd like to know it, because it doesn't sound exactly right to me, but i can't find it.

Believe it or not, I do have some problem with it. I think a person has no right after death to those things we broadly term "private" (i.e. deprived of their public quality) property. That is, private property is a legal distinction in which society defends a person's right to administer certain goods. (We have "deeds" and "titles" that define this right.) In general, what has been deprived of the public during a person's life returns, by default, to the public on their death -- with the following exception:

Long before there was private property there was personal property. Personal property consists of those things bound up directly with a person's identity -- things they use personally or which have personal value to them (rather than mere economic value). Such things tend to be relatively few, but may include items as large as homes. These items, I think, a person has a natural right to will into particular hands after death. The reason is that "what happens to this personal item after I die" has meaning for a person while they still live. It is a part of writing the story of one's life. Moreover, heirlooms have meanings for children that they would not for anyone else. Thus, to confiscate them literally devalues them -- makes them worth less than they were worth before.

As a practical matter, I agree with Carnegie (and Thomas Jefferson) that a person should be allowed to make reasonable provisions for her/his heirs.

questions against an estate tax (less a tax and more a case of lost and found) are thus: why should the government get it,

I hope my explanation of Carnegie's position in an above post sheds some light on this. The fact of the matter is that society sets up and maintains a society that allows accumulation of wealth in the first place. We decide the terms under which people can accumulate, use, and administer it while they live. There is no reason we cannot "take it back" when they die. Any wealth beyond what individuals can produce alone in the woods is inherently a social product. Society has the first right, not the second.

and what will they do with it to justify their seizure of it.

That depends on the society, how it is run, and what are its ends.

what will they do with it in the system i advocate, where government is solely for defense.

You answer your own question. They would use it for defense. If they have a surplus, they might lower taxes on the living.

For somebody who does recognize this moral obligation, though, why wouldn't he just take less money from the company to begin with? Can it be considered ethical to take extra money from the worker class and the consumers and then give it to the government to be distributed randomly?

This is perhaps the greatest problem in his theory. :)

His response would be that if you leave the wealth distributed in small amounts in the hands of the workers, they are not very likely to do good things with it for society. How likely would it be, he asked, that the workers would get together and decide to buy a library?

This is perhaps the greatest problem in his theory. :)

His response would be that if you leave the wealth distributed in small amounts in the hands of the workers, they are not very likely to do good things with it for society. How likely would it be, he asked, that the workers would get together and decide to buy a library?
Well, that works a lot better for a socialist than a libertarian. I would prefer to see a private citizen supply a library where he sees a demand. The government is there to provide things that would disadvantage an individual but benefit society.

Well, that works a lot better for a socialist than a libertarian. I would prefer to see a private citizen supply a library where he sees a demand.

Then you agree precisely with Mr. Carnegie. He just thought government should step in to "fill in the holes" here or there where private individuals overlooked a very pressing need.

I disagree... but as I said I find Carnegie interesting, and I would very much like to have a discussion with his sort of capitalist: one who is interested in really discussing the problems of justification in social systems.

The problem with so many contemporary capitalist apologists is that they approach philosophy from the perspective of looking for a justification for capitalism. They eagerly devour any text that seems to support the status quo, but cringe with a sense of indigestion while reading anything that challenges their existing belief. Thus, like a reality-TV contestant confronted with a foreign delicacy, they shove it down their throat as quickly as possible so as to avoid the unpleasant flavor.

Carnegie, like any reasonable person, recognized the need to establish the standards against which society must be measured before making the measurement. In other words, he is willing to state the conditions under which his own system -- or any system -- "fails." (Scientists will recognize the principle of "falsifiability.") Then he prepares himself to taste the dishes of various traditions, allowing time to adjust to the foreignness of each before rendering a judgment.

True, his unavoidable biases get in the way... and we, in commenting on him, take note of this. However, it is the fact that he would be interested rather than insulted to hear our comments that makes him more philosophical than any capitalist I can name today.

Then you agree precisely with Mr. Carnegie. He just thought government should step in to "fill in the holes" here or there where private individuals overlooked a very pressing need.
This is true. I don't see how it addresses my concern, though. Is it ethical for a businessman to tax his employees and customers in order to start more businesses, even if they provide a valuable service to the community? Ideally, it would not only be unethical but impractical, as competing businesses could take advantage of the situation. It makes a lot more sense to me to take a loan from a company that specializes in giving loans to entrepreneurs.

So, again, why would an ethical businessman take excess money from his company in the first place?

This is true. I don't see how it addresses my concern, though. Is it ethical for a businessman to tax his employees and customers in order to start more businesses, even if they provide a valuable service to the community? Ideally, it would not only be unethical but impractical, as competing businesses could take advantage of the situation. It makes a lot more sense to me to take a loan from a company that specializes in giving loans to entrepreneurs.

So, again, why would an ethical businessman take excess money from his company in the first place?

Okay... I am no longer sure we are talking about the same thing. :) What do you mean by "tax" his employees and customers?

And, if "excess" means to you what it means to me, then by definition an ethical businessperson would be satisfied with something that is not "excessive."

Okay... I am no longer sure we are talking about the same thing. :) What do you mean by "tax" his employees and customers?

And, if "excess" means to you what it means to me, then by definition an ethical businessperson would be satisfied with something that is not "excessive."
By "tax", I mean lowering their wages and/or increasing the price of the product. By "excess", I mean more than he intends to use himself, as would be affected by an estate tax. Further, I stipulated that it would not be ethical to tax his employees and customers in order to start another business.

By "tax", I mean lowering their wages and/or increasing the price of the product. By "excess", I mean more than he intends to use himself, as would be affected by an estate tax.

Well, by any capitalist's logic, including Carnegie's, he can and should lower wages and/or increase the price of the product as the market allows. It is the capitalist's profit-maximizing behavior that produces the high quality, inexpensive products which, for Carnegie, constitute much of capitalism's "advance" over previous economic systems.

Of course, experience has taught us that, despite the rhetoric of the market, there is something exploitative about the way employers can (and do) treat employees, which we expect to correct through collective bargaining (unions) and government regulation.

As for "more than he intends to use himself," Carnegie thought that it benefits society for the capitalist class to accumulate excess wealth... so that it would be concentrated in hands capable of using it for the public good (e.g. building libraries). (Again... not my theory, just trying to explain his.)

Further, I stipulated that it would not be ethical to tax his employees and customers in order to start another business.

Not if all of this occurs in the context of a fair market (or regulated approximation thereof). If it were "unethical" for employers to initiate wage and price changes, the market could not function.

All right. So, an estate tax punishes the person who hoards money because it could have been used to benefit society. Fair enough.

Believe it or not, I do have some problem with it. I think a person has no right after death to those things we broadly term "private" (i.e. deprived of their public quality) property. That is, private property is a legal distinction in which society defends a person's right to administer certain goods. (We have "deeds" and "titles" that define this right.) In general, what has been deprived of the public during a person's life returns, by default, to the public on their death -- with the following exception:

Long before there was private property there was personal property. Personal property consists of those things bound up directly with a person's identity -- things they use personally or which have personal value to them (rather than mere economic value). Such things tend to be relatively few, but may include items as large as homes. These items, I think, a person has a natural right to will into particular hands after death. The reason is that "what happens to this personal item after I die" has meaning for a person while they still live. It is a part of writing the story of one's life. Moreover, heirlooms have meanings for children that they would not for anyone else. Thus, to confiscate them literally devalues them -- makes them worth less than they were worth before.

the government can't take personal motivations into consideration, it is far too complicated.

As a practical matter, I agree with Carnegie (and Thomas Jefferson) that a person should be allowed to make reasonable provisions for her/his heirs.

while they're alive.

I hope my explanation of Carnegie's position in an above post sheds some light on this. The fact of the matter is that society sets up and maintains a society that allows accumulation of wealth in the first place. We decide the terms under which people can accumulate, use, and administer it while they live. There is no reason we cannot "take it back" when they die. Any wealth beyond what individuals can produce alone in the woods is inherently a social product. Society has the first right, not the second.

this is where we disagree, and i will post about it later. i don't have time right now.

That depends on the society, how it is run, and what are its ends.

You answer your own question. They would use it for defense. If they have a surplus, they might lower taxes on the living.

yeah, probably.

Greetings, Oplet.

I would be happy to discuss some of the issues raised in the anti-communist thread, with two caveats:

1. I am entering a particular busy and work-filled period, so I am unlikely to be able to respond as frequently or as thoroughly as I have in recent threads.

2. During the period in which I offered BAAWA the generous benefit of a meager doubt, I toned down and even significantly altered my views in an attempt to find some common ground on which we might have a reasonable discussion. (Obviously, this failed.) Also, some of my views may have changed since that time. I therefore reserve the right to respond in either of the following ways:

a. "I no longer think that." (Probably with some explanation of why my view has changed.)

b. "I said that for BAAWA's benefit."

Otherwise, anything is fair game... Why don't you go ahead and start a thread, since if anyone wants to find that discussion they will probably not look under "Andrew Carnegie." I am sure I will find you.

agreed. i may start a new thread.