>>>>Guess I didn't phrase the question well. What's the 'something' that's absent. What 'value' is absent?
>>>>
>>>>I know a lot of people with inherited wealth (and a lot on welfare) who contribute greatly to their communities - often more than others who fall into neither category. If paying taxes is the only way one supports a community then it's not much of a community.
>>>
>>>In the case of rich people contributing to their communities, we call that "laundering the biography". The whole idea of charity is to have a system whereby one can accumulate wealth far above one's needs, then calculate how much of it to give away, with full discretionary rights as to when, to whom, and for what purpose. Mostly the goal is to buy goodwill and PR.
>>>
>>>As with any other twisted idea, there will be those who fully believe in it, and who feel they are doing the right thing. At the same time, the idea of paying their workers better never crosses their minds.
>>
>>Seems that you, like almost everyone on this thread, are assuming that the only way to contribute to a community is financially. I think that, in most cases, that's the least important way.
>
>True, but when people speak about one of those "who contribute greatly to their communities" is mentioned, it's usually about what they financed, not the hours they devoted.

Then the problem lies with the mindset of the people who are speaking.......