I fundamentally disagree; the smartest and wealthiest of our society should also be working hard to make the lives of the poorest better. You are sort of makin

I fundamentally disagree; the smartest and wealthiest of our society should also be working hard to make the lives of the poorest better. You are sort of making my point; proposals like this assume that those who contribute "less" are less valuable - but of course that is only true on one scale. As a though exercise; if someone is physically disabled to the extent they cannot work and need regular care should they a) live hand to mouth and unable to afford non-essentials? Or b) should they be comfortable and capable of indulging in luxuries. Currently our society says they have zero value so (a). I argue that it should be (b)