Yesterday’s Times discussed the development of a new class of the super rich. “One in every 825 households earned at least $2 million last year, nearly double the percentage in 1989, adjusted for inflation.” They interviewed one man who instead of using his medical degree to cure cancer, went on to Wall Street and made a fortune as a managing director of health care investment banking.

The article was very sympathetic towards this new class. They live modestly, or relatively modestly, in four bedroom suburban homes and apartments on Park Avenue. And they dabble in philanthropy.

In an earlier Gilded Age, Andrew Carnegie argued that talented managers who accumulate great wealth were morally obligated to redistribute their wealth through philanthropy. The estate tax and the progressive income tax later took over most of that function — imposing tax rates of more than 70 percent as recently as 1980 on incomes above a certain level.

Now, with this marginal rate at half that much and the estate tax fading in importance, many of the new rich engage in the conspicuous consumption that their wealth allows. Others, while certainly not stinting on comfort, are embracing philanthropy as an alternative to a life of professional accomplishment.

In a break between getting my Masters and going on for the PhD, I worked for a year in a small art museum. I so enjoyed being around art all day that I considered making it my profession. After watching the director at work, I reconsidered. Her primary efforts were not looking at the paintings and sculptures. In fact, she rarely entered the gallery. She spent most of her time sucking up to rich people to get their stuff. She flattered these old rich people who were lucky enough to enough to inherit money from their grandfathers who invented things like the window envelope or the jiffy bag. When they did hand over an old painting that they didn’t care about, there were given a plaque, applause, and a tax write-off.

Sucking up to rich people is an enormous waste of time. Why reward the accident of wealth in this manner? It is so much more efficient and fair to tax the super rich without fanfare and then distribute the wealth to various causes (some may be too unglamorous to gain the attention of the super rich) and with central planning. As our fortunes improve, we’re giving much more to charity and have discussed the best way to donate. As much as I like philanthropy, I think that the ego should be taken out of it. The super rich should not be portrayed as Mother Theresa for their “modest” Park Avenue suites or for getting rid of their excess cash that should have been collected at tax time.