“I may not like the rich, but I would be a little ambivalent about that statement should the same opportunity ever fall to me.”
The wealthiest one percent of the U.S. population, holds about 33% of the nation’s wealth, leaving the rest of us, being 99%, holding the remaining 67%. By this I mean corporate executives, owners of big businesses, heirs living off trust funds, self-made people, movie stars, rock musicians, sports figures, the idle rich, all kinds.
In their defense, I will say that this top one percent pays 38% of the federal income
taxes. Also, the top 10% of the U.S. population spends more money than the bottom 80. (All the above figures are from The Wall Street Journal, October 22-23, 2011, pp. C1, C2.; Robert Frank, “The Wild Ride of The 1%,”). This, in turn, benefits the economy as a whole.
The big controversy today is that the tax rate favors the rich, and it started when then-President George W. Bush decided to lower taxes for this class of people. This resulted in helping to wipe out the current budget surplus acquired under President Bill Clinton, bringing back the deficit, and raising the national debt extensively. I myself never forgave Bush for this, never mind what he subsequently did.
One fear from all this is the middle class being wiped out, some going to the upper class, but most descending to near poverty levels. It’s the classic example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. As for the country, we are now deep in debt, other countries, like China, are well on their way of surpassing us on the economic ladder, while we become a second rate power. America will soon be unable to afford anything: rebuilding the infrastructure, funding much needed social programs, cutting back on public services, research and development, education, pensions for the retired, the military. Everything is now on the cutting block, and it’s our own fault. What’s really sad is nobody wants to sacrifice anything to help a community, and a country, that’s going broke.
What do these people do with all the money they acquire? Some, I admit, do good and creative work, like help the environment, the poor, campaign for a worthy cause, even help those in poor countries and contribute to finding cures for diseases such as AIDS and multiply sclerosis. These people are the models that everyone else should emulate.
One example is Jon M. Huntsman (Kirk Johnson, “A Billionaire WIth Distinct Ideas of Philanthropy and Presidential Politics,” The New York Times, National Section, Sunday, October 16, 2011, p. 21). Owner of a chemical company that he started himself, Huntsman is now a multi-billionaire. He suggested to Warren Buffett, also a philanthropist, that billionaires give away 80% of their wealth to worthy causes and projects. Huntsman founded the Huntsman Cancer Institute, dedicate to research for finding cures for cancer, in addition to helping patients with cancer survive.
As for many other people, much of the time, their money simply sits in their accounts, doing little or no productive work. These people can’t even begin to spend it, and some spend it foolishly. Inheriting wealth from their parents who earned it can be detrimental to the heir(s) if they don’t know how to handle it. Many do become spoiled, stifling their own creativity, thus becoming idle. This can lead to self-destructive behavior, as we have seen in many of our celebrities. There are exceptions, where the child learns the trade, uses his or her own creativity and improves the company the father created, but that is rare.
I would like to bring up a book by Andrew Carnegie, “The Gospel of Wealth.” This is a book I strongly recommend for anyone who handles money in any way, being just about everybody in business. In fact I recommend it for everybody. He has also written other essays pertaining to this subject, and they have been put together in a book titled “The Gospel of Wealth Essays and Other Writings.”
Andrew Carnegie, an immigrant from Scotland, started working in a cotton factory, at the age of twelve, for $1.20 a week. He worked his way up as an apprentice, established Carnegie Steel (later U.S. Steel), becoming the second richest man in America, possibly the world, after John D. Rockefeller. When he retired, he collected a pension of one million dollars a month. Carnegie then proceeded to give away much of his wealth, a total of $350 million, benefitting communities all over the world. For example, he donated (bought) pipe organs for churches worldwide, established over 2,500 public libraries in the English speaking world, and of course, you know of the famous Carnegie Hall in New York City.
Carnegie’s book, “The Gospel of Wealth” emphasizes all this, for he has stated, and I quote, “The man who dies rich thus dies disgraced.” (Carnegie did leave his children enough money for them to last the rest of their lives, but no further. The grandchildren had to start fresh.) You must note that Carnegie didn’t have anything against wealth itself, only the administration of it. A lot of it goes to waste. Also, flaunting wealth is not only a bad idea, it’s dangerous.
This essay is based of what Andrew Carnegie has written on this subject, and I will apply this to the present problems of this country, the United States, in the year 2011 as of this writing. What I am trying to discuss here is not socialism, but philanthropy. In a bigger sense, this is giving back to the community, to society, and to the nation as a whole.
Carnegie did not advocate giving money to any individual having their hand out, for the majority of the times, he or she would spend it on their own pleasure, moral or not, or they would use begging as a substitute for work, and that he despised. Many do make this mistake, but it can do more harm than good. It’s easier to give than to refuse.
What Carnegie does advocate is giving to communities something that could be of great benefit, such as a theater of a community center. Once that theater or community center is built, however, it would be up to the people of that community to maintain it. What is pointed out here is helping people who can help themselves without the gift. Being a recipient here is not for the lazy or incompetent. If one receives a scholarship, that person/student has to study hard and maintain a high grade point average and be active in school to show for it.
In his book, Carnegie listed seven objects of philanthropy: universities, libraries and museums, hospitals and medical research, parks and recreation, theaters and community centers, swimming, and churches (here you can add synagogues, mosques, temples of any faith). Here, the philanthropist would donate money to build these institutions, and the public, from then on, would use and maintain it.
I would like to add it all this. At present, we have a very serious problem with the U.S. infrastructure; it is deteriorating. The roads, the highways, bridges, railroads, tunnels. all needed for not only private but also public transportation as well. Commerce, and even global trade in this country relies on well maintained roads and bridges, as well as high paying jobs. If global commerce cannot function here in the U.S., companies will take their businesses elsewhere, meaning no jobs, and no money for us. New companies will not come in either, so the situation will only get worse.
With the federal, state, and city/town budgets as they are, and with the country needing to rebuild and renovate its infrastructure, perhaps the rich could supplement or substitute for the government in rebuilding much of this badly needed base. This would be a form of both serving one’s country and giving back to the community, the society that helped the person to build his fortune in the first place. If the government cannot afford to build some parts of the infrastructure that so desperately needs it, perhaps the very wealthy, foundations, private sector could fill in for it. They can all help donate bridges, roads, new sewer systems, power plants, flood control systems, replant forests, even fund public schools that are closing, perhaps even buy newly required books and computers for the school he or she is sponsoring.
For example, if there is a small community, with a very wealthy person living there, and a new bridge is needed, and the government can’t afford it, perhaps that particular person could step in and pay for it. Employment would be produced, and the new bridge would then be built. The person sponsoring it would have the privilege of naming it, be it after himself, the street, the town, or any other name he so chooses.
One urban problem is that badly needed public schools are shutting down due to lack of funding. One can come in, sponsor one school, buying updated educational materials such as text books, computers, sports equipment, artistic materials, whatever that particular school might need. The school can be more demanding of the students, and inspire them. New programs for that school can be established, such as the performing arts, or a new sports team. An incentive can be given for college scholarships. The people in the community would benefit, crime would go down, and more productive citizens would appear. If the school is in a dilapidated neighborhood, the neighborhood the school is in can be improved, such as building a community center, repairing streets and sewers, and more employment would be produced in restoring this neighborhood.
This is a problem in Los Angeles right now, with badly needed schools closing down, and the youth having nothing to do but get into alcohol, drugs, and gangs. A few miles up the road is Hollywood, with movie stars and other wealthy people living in Beverly Hills, a world apart from these slums. If we can convince many of the wealthy to sponsor one school each, the communities in L.A. would greatly improve, with renewed schools, infrastructure, more productive citizens, and a lot less crime.
In addition to the infrastructure, new technologies can be sponsored, such as space exploration and development, electric automobiles, new power plants with little or no pollution, new forms of electronics, new recycling plants, and new forms of public transportation, such as high speed rail. Here, the sponsor can profit from this, making even more money for himself. This could also mean more money for more projects. Previously cancelled projects, such as the rail tunnel between between New York and New Jersey, can go back on the board. Many good projects have been cancelled due to lack of funding.
According to Forbes, there are about 414 billionaires in the U.S., with a net worth of $1.53 trillion. This is more than enough to sponsor projects that this country so desperately needs, and these people are a good resource to tap. (Charles Landow and Courtney Lobel, “How Billionaires Can Build Bridges to the Middle Class,” The Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2011, p. A17).
Much of the wealth is thrown into the hands of the few. It is given to him to administrate it. If this society, by its laws, freedoms, and laborers helped this person obtain the wealth he or she has, then he or she should give some of it back in the form of institutions, infrastructure, and facilities their community, society, and country badly needs but could no longer afford because of its present economic crisis. It is up to them to help this country, since this country help him achieve the position he is in today.
It is of no value to hoard his wealth, or leave it to heirs who will simply use it to remain idle and bask in luxury. It would be a great disservice to his family should he decide to do so. He should be able to use it to help others while he is still alive, not after he dies. Doing so will earn him good standing while he is still living rather than after he dies.
Obviously, he is entitled to keep much of his wealth for the lifestyle he so desires. However, the vast majority of the wealth that has been given to him, that would otherwise be hoarded, where he can’t even begin to spend, should be put to good use to benefit society, especially at a time like this where it is badly needed, where the government itself is in financial trouble and cannot continue to carry out its duties in serving the American people.
No comments:
Post a Comment