Leaving large sums of money to descendants might not be a wise idea, but if more middle-class or poorer families do not leave their children anything, it can keep them from getting a leg up and possibly bettering their own lives. This would perpetuate the class and socio-economic status of that hereditary line, and thus not enable these people to obtain the sort of wealth that Carnegie had and was talking about in his gospel. This is very related to the idea of economic growth; without putting a substantial amount of capital back into industry, there would be no economic growth. Carnegie states in his gospel that the goal of spending during one's lifetime is to enrich the poorer people and enable them to obtain better lives and standards of living. If there is no economic growth, then there won't be any well-paying...
Carnegie addresses many of the philosophical, ethical, and moral issues involved with the accumulation and distribution of wealth, but despite his obviously apparent expertise in business, his gospel is quite short on practicality.
It is somewhat surprising that Carnegie's treatment of this economic topic is so lacking in reference to actual business matters. Then again, it is perhaps indicative of Carnegie's character. He believed in people, and in the right of all people to have access to certain commodities and luxuries. His "Gospel of Wealth" is further evidence that he did not see people and money as purely numeric functions that required control and accumulation, but rather that he saw them as human beings, worthy of and necessitating respect.
