Talk:The Gospel of Wealth

message: This section appears to consist of quotes by Andrew Carnegie, but does not say so, nor does it provide any context for them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.56.215 (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.138.146.166 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Carnegie on Cuba" lacks any sort of context 

message: Heading added by —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is true, please provide the quotation(s) from the piece that make that assertion. Thanks. —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assertion of mischaracterization

message: Carnegie's "Wealth" strongly supported State intervention in collecting estate taxes upon death, almost a quarter of the essay is on this subject! Nobody who read this would walk away thinking he was LAISSEZ FAIRE! From the Gospel of Wealth:
"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 - 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"
Here he openly supports a sharply progressive estate tax (or death tax, depending on your agenda). Near that section he also remarks that the moral imperative lies in the fact that all gathered capital originates from the community itself and so they should be entitled to a long-term benefit.
The sentence stating he opposed government intervention needs to be removed entirely, heavily qualified, or replaced with a section detailing this significant section of the essay. 98.236.191.219 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is outside of my scope of knowledge, but I would direct you to be bold in editing and cite sources if you would like to contribute. Thank you. —Bill Price(notyourbroom) 23:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm new to editing articles and fear I likely mucked it up a bit. I confined all of my contributions to direct citations from the essay itself so I'm not sure if it needs to be cited repeatedly, and I'm not sure if there's an official numbering of the pages by which to do so. I'm also unsure of how to markup quotations.128.2.51.144 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laissez Faire? Absolutely Not 

message: Look, this wikipedia article could not be more wrong about what the gospel of wealth is.  Either that, or Carnegie is.
But the gospel (good news) of wealth is not to preach that the wealthy should engage in philanthropy, but to argue that philanthropy is a probable benefit of wealth.  But even that is not the primary point or benefit of the gospel wealth.
Rather, the proper way to explain the gospel of wealth is as an argument in favor of wealth.  First because it capitalizes the economy and raises everyones' standard of living, and secondly because the raising of everyones' standard of living results in rising public social awareness.  The fact that libraries and concert halls may spin out of this process is no more significant than other public benefits such as changing attitudes about education or environmentalism.
And no, I don't need any sources or references for my explanation because I am explaining what the gospel of wealth is in absolute terms according to the definition of the words.
In summary, the point of the gospel of wealth is not to advocate for the distribution of wealth, but to advocate for the existence of wealth.  On this point, the article seems to have it completely backwards as the distribution and existence of wealth are axiomatic opposites.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boringdually (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redefining The Gospel of Wealth? 

message: This is a critical part of the document.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.14.3 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Darwinism