What exactly does it mean to "contribute to society?&qu

Post Reply New Topic

I've heard people say that anyone who is severely disabled and cannot live independently shouldn't be aloud to live because they don't "contribute to society." But what exactly does that mean? What do you have to do in order to be considered a contribution to society? How much do you have to do? Why are certain things considered as contributions, while other things aren't? Does teaching someone as valuable lesson count, or does it not stimulate the economy enough?

Maybe the people who say that shouldn't be allowed to live.

In the normal course of employment or of running a business only a small sub-population of the society benefit at first. However an important innovation eventually become part of the common property of the society. Any who invents a device or introduces an idea that is useful and beneficial which eventually beomes part of the common stock can be justly called a benefactor of society.

Thomas Edison meets those requirement. His invention of the incandescent elictric glow lamp and a power generation system to make it work show the benefits of electrification. Edison's DC did not become (or did not remain) the primary type of power system (that was Tesla and Westinghouse's doings), never the less Thomas Edison broke the ground which lead to a general electrification of the Industrial World. So both Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla could justly be called benefactors of society. There are many more such examples. Make your own list.

ruveyn

Paying taxes is a good start.

I've never actually heard anyone make this claim.

When you hear that, it's almost invariably a straw man argument against someone who disagrees with forced redistribution of wealth in society, when in fact most people who are against forced redistribution are very much in support of helping those who cannot live independently.


Contributing to society simply means that a person is adding value to society rather than subtracting it. Since value is a subjective term, it doesn't really mean much. If you break it down purely into economic terms, it would mean that you produce more than you consume, but that's only valid in a debate about economics.

The right to life is universally the core of all human rights. No rational person believes in exterminating disabled people.

I think I'd agree with most of that....though I think society is more than economics, having a good economy for instance does not necessarily mean there is a good society to go along with it.

Sweetleaf, I was not trying to start a debate on redistribution. I was answering his question.

As for my statement that most people who are against forced redistribution are supportive of charity, this is from my own experience, not from a study. I've been libertarian since long before the "Ron Paul Revolution" and I've had many debates on the subject.

And what if the tax is an unjust tax?

ruveyn

define unjust in that context.

without some clarification there is little to be had.

For example a tax on consumers to pay for subsidies to producers.

Bail outs for failing companies

ruveyn

If you are in the US, then of course, the tax system is unjust because the rich should be paying more. In that case, in addition to paying taxes, donate some of your time or something.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

But I do it for egotistical reasons.

May the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob burn me with Holy Fire if I ever do anything for altruistic reasons.

ruveyn

Contributing to society means in my opinion, working a job, living on your own and paying taxes (Even if you don't agree with them) and contributing to the well-being of others around you. After all, regardless if you have a disability or not, WE are all in this boat together.


Best Regards,

Jake

You're answer to the question is the only answer? You haven't seen anyone say what was mentioned in the OP and I have so it does happen. As for what I said about redistribution of wealth that is just my opinion on it. Besides even if I hadn't posted my opinion its not like that debate wasn't already likely to come up in this thread.

Yes I am sure the god of abraham, Isaac and Jacob really appreciates egotistical reasons for doing things so much more. Sometimes you really don't make any amount of sense. I think you'd more likely be burnt with holy fire for the egotistical reasons than the altruistic reasons.

Let's say you and I both make a dollar an hour. You work 60 hours and I work 40 hours. You worked 50% harder than I did and consequently earned 50% more than I did. This is just.

With a static 20% income tax rate, I pay $8 and you pay $12. I have now earned $32 and you have earned $48. You worked 50% harder than I did and consequently earned 50% more than I did. This can also be considered just.

Let's consider a progressive tax. To make my example relevant, we'll make it 20% for <=40 and 25% for >40. I have now earned $32 as before since I remain at 20%. But you are now at $32 (80% of your first 40 hours) plus $15 (75% of your additional 20 hours) for a total of $47. You worked 50% harder than I did and earned less than 50% more than I did. This is not just -- you have been devalued in my favor.

Up until you are financially independent (around $1.5-2M), you pay a higher tax rate. After that, your rate generally goes down since your income is based on capital gains rather than labor.

Capital gains tax is less to encourage investment into capital goods. This is good for the economy and increases tax revenue.

The rich already carry a disproportionate amount of the tax burden in the US. Making them pay even more is not just.