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. here about a principle or idea about how societies or civilizations work. Once students reach this understanding, teachers should point out that Carnegie is making the claim here that unequal accumulation of wealth as a “...law of civilization” is the way civilization comes from In other words, this is the way we become civilized. Teachers should point this out as an example of how we can learn from close reading and how students can do this on their own as they get better. What is the main question that Carnegie is posing here? Carnegie is asking what we do with this wealth which only a few people have, “… administering wealth… thrown into the hands of the few”? Some students might also note that Carnegie is saying this is the only question we need address. What differences between types of wealth does Carnegie define? He distinguishes between “fortunes” and great wealth, “...not moderate sums... the aim of all to acquire.” What is “surplus wealth”? Money that goes beyond what a family needs to get by on a daily basis. What are the two most common things that happen to “surplus wealth” a person dies, according to Carnegie? It is inherited, or it is given away to charities or taken by the government after the wealthy person died.
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.... 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 [to prevent something].... The growing disposition [changing of thought patterns] 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. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the of a rich man's estate which should go at his death to the public through the agency of the Rewrite the last sentence in the paragraph to the left so that it isn’t a double negative… i.e. put it in the positive! Or, explain what the last sentence means. There are many cases where what the testator wants to happen, doesn’t; others involved in the process prevent the original wishes of the deceased. Carnegie is saying here that these two means don’t work out in practice. Note to Teacher: Point out to students that the last sentence is a double negative. This sentence structure is frequently difficult to comprehend, and requires multiple readings. Encourage students to rephrase the sentence so that it is a positive statement. Why does Carnegie believe that there should be a tax on “...large estates left at death...”? Carnegie believes that the community or the state should be able to use the wealth that has been accumulated. The state deserves its “proper share.” What did Carnegie mean by “...such taxes should be graduated…”? This refers to the idea that the rate or percent of the tax should increase according to the amount of money or wealth the