I used to feel this way and I understand where you are coming from. You are right in the sense that people providing huge benefit to society should definitely be compensated to a greater extent than a person that contributes nothing.
The problem is that in an ideal situation, two things will happen: 1) human labor will be replaced by technology and 2) human population will increase with technology. Both trends will leave us with a society where there isn't enough work to occupy 40 hours per week for each person.
As we move closer to this 'utopia', I think it makes sense as a society to decide on a basic standard of living and provide that for every person while having additional lifestyle benefits for those that contribute to society.
It will also help if we move towards more employees working for fewer hours, so we all have more free time and more people have employment.
Obviously, the implementation of something like this is extremely hard and will probably create problems, but I think it is the ideal future situation. Additionally, to implement this type of society, it will require some level of 'redistribution'.
The problem is that in an ideal situation, two things will happen: 1) human labor will be replaced by technology and 2) human population will increase with technology. Both trends will leave us with a society where there isn't enough work to occupy 40 hours per week for each person.
As we move closer to this 'utopia', I think it makes sense as a society to decide on a basic standard of living and provide that for every person while having additional lifestyle benefits for those that contribute to society.
It will also help if we move towards more employees working for fewer hours, so we all have more free time and more people have employment.
Obviously, the implementation of something like this is extremely hard and will probably create problems, but I think it is the ideal future situation. Additionally, to implement this type of society, it will require some level of 'redistribution'.