If a wealth creator gives all of his money to charity and leaves none for his heirs, he denies them the chance to carry on a multigenerational family mission. Future generations might have to earn their living in jobs that are neither fulfilling nor socially redeeming, when they could have been using the family capital to make a big difference in the world.

I agree with what Warren Buffett has said: It is harmful to let anyone have a lifetime supply of food stamps just because they came out of the right womb. Sure, you want to give your children a nest egg for security, but I do not think you do them a great favor by giving large amounts of wealth.

Going to charity benefits is not really a very efficient way of giving. I think it is better to say, “No thanks, I don’t want to go to the event, but I’ll give a donation.”

Even without a large inheritance, the children and grandchildren of a wealth creator will start adulthood with more advantages than the average person. They have the family name. They probably have had a great education, and they probably inherited some of the talents that it took to make the money in the first place. They have no doubt grown up in a comfortable home and had the advantages of living in a good neighborhood and going to good schools. I think from there they should be pretty much on their own.

Nonprofits in the United States are holding their hands out to the private sector as public-sector funding dries up, but if the estate tax is permanently repealed after 2010, people will have less incentive to set up foundations.

The estate tax is actually one of the fairest ways to tax people that I can think of, and eliminating it is quite wrong. If the United States is going to continue with the system of relatively modest government aid, it ought to preserve the tax incentives for people to give. While there are many philanthropists in Europe, less private money goes to charity there because the government provides more social services and people feel that they are paying for it through their taxes.

There is a big advantage in having the public sector pay for programs, which is that the government makes sure everyone contributes a fair share through taxes. The public sector is not ever going to do it all, however, and bureaucracies move slowly, so there will always be room for private-sector philanthropy.

It is easy to tell others to live at Walden Pond with an economy car and to give away the excess, but it is harder to practice what you preach.

I give away around 20 percent of my income. I do not own a car, although I will occasionally rent one.

Increased globalization creates new opportunities to make money, but even if the playing field is level, not everyone is going to win.