Do "gifted" people have a moral obligation to work?

[kumquat]

In 1980, IIIRC, I earned just over four thousand pounds (that was equivalent to ~$6.5K in US dollars) and paid approximately 2200 pounds of it back in income tax. I was living at home and did nothing but work and sleep. LBYM of course. Personal income tax rates in Ireland at that time were extremely high, even for people earning a moderate income. By the time I was completing my training in Ireland, I was earning about eight thousand pounds, or $13K. When I moved to the US as a Fellow I started earning $25K and paid much less in income tax. I thought I had died and gone to heaven.

Is this at all accurate?

 

[Meadbh]

Yes.

 

[ziggy29]

I could easily turn this question around: If someone hated what they did and it was impacting their health, regardless of the societal impact of their quitting, does society have a moral claim to make him keep working?

 

[HFWR]

I think saying one owes something to society is a slippery slope...

I had religious and social upbringing - Scouts, 4H - that implied there was a duty of citizenship to be productive, and I sort of agree. But I think this has to be internally motivated, and not externally forced, else it can't be considered a "moral obligation".

 

[Tyro]

I think saying one owes something to society is a slippery slope...

I had religious and social upbringing - Scouts, 4H - that implied there was a duty of citizenship to be productive, and I sort of agree. But I think this has to be internally motivated, and not externally forced, else it can't be considered a "moral obligation".

That seems (to me) to be blurring the line (if one considers there being one) between moral obligation and civic duty. YMMV.

 

[ERhoosier]

I could easily turn this question around: If someone hated what they did and it was impacting their health, regardless of the societal impact of their quitting, does society have a moral claim to make him keep working?

Not in my book. Pressuring someone to keep working beyond their point of burn-out rarely turns out well in the end for any of the parties concerned, even in (generally) ethical field like medicine-

"Studies have found that burnout and dissatisfaction influence patient compliance, patient satisfaction with their medical care, and quality of care. ... On a personal level, burnout has been shown to relate to suicidal ideation among both physicians and medical students and may contribute to other personal problems such as substance abuse and broken relationships. Burnout is also associated with malpractice suits and turnover which can create substantial cost to hospitals and practice groups."

Doctor burnout on the rise: anesthesiology - Los Angeles Times

 

[marko]

I could easily turn this question around: If someone hated what they did and it was impacting their health, regardless of the societal impact of their quitting, does society have a moral claim to make him keep working?

Let's twist that just one more notch: There are way, way too many 'ungifted' out there working away making everyone miserable!

Surly clerks, incompetent staff at ** (insert government agency here), PWAs (people with attitudes), the "just plain stupid", etc etc.

I'd say they'd make the world a much better, nicer place if they'd, please, just stop working, go collect their unemployment (or gov't pension) and let some nice, decent, somewhat intelligent people take their job.

 

[HFWR]

That seems (to me) to be blurring the line (if one considers there being one) between moral obligation and civic duty. YMMV.

I see them as mostly the same thing, since I believe morals are a human invention.

 

[rodi]

When I first read the title of this thread I started thinking about the term gifted and how it's used in my life.

I'm the parent of two school age kids who are deemed "highly gifted" - to the point they're in a special program. They're in a program for the top 0.1%, vs the regular gifted program of the top 2%. This program was created not just to address academic rigor - but because educators have learned that highly gifted kids have very high drop out rates if not given a special ed setting. And that fit for my older son... he was bored and failing to thrive in his regular "gifted" program, before he was moved to a program in our district called "seminar". And now has rediscovered his love of school.

Having observed the other kids in the program - lots (but not all) of highly gifted kids might be smart as all get out - but socially might have trouble in the world. Socially clueless is putting it nicely. And it's hard to make big bucks if you can't figure out when it's important to suck up to the boss. I'm not just talking about stuff like asbergers, or extreme INTJ type personalities... I'm talking about kids who need to be taught to pay attention to social clues... because they'd rather be solving math problems, or working on a poem, in their heads.

This also fits my brother. He was off the charts smart - but jumped from job to job because he never figured out the work world. He honestly had no clue that rules that applied to other people applied to him. He'd be highly offended if someone was rude to him - but was regularly rude to those around him - including his employers and managers. That does not help you get promotions. The term "book smart but not street smart" applied. Because of this he never got financially ahead.

So I guess my take on the topic in the OP is that not only don't gifted people have a moral obligation to keep working vs retiring early.... Some won't even be able to consider it. Sometimes their raw intelligence also comes with brains that aren't wired for social success necessary to climb the corporate ladder.

And we've all worked with folks who are dumb as a post - but socially adept at kissing the appropriate behinds to get promoted. So intelligence and "giftedness" do not equate to success.

 

[okapi]

When some new guy on my old job started talking about moral obligations,rules,etc.I would tell them to watch "Training Day" starring Denzel Washington. Look behind the curtain.

 

[Zathras]

I believe I am doing more to help society after retirement than I was before.

 

[mountaintosea]

No

 

[Sirka]

I say no.
I can't think of anyone that is so important to society that he/she cannot be replaced by someone else.

On the flip side, it could be one's moral responsibility to retire to allow others the opportunity to ascend to the highest level.

+1
I totally agree. Life goes on; and if the unemployment gets bad enough and you are 'old' they may ask you to retire, so the young can have your job. It happened to my mother in Czech Republic. It cold happen here - do you remember mandatory retirement age? It is now generally unlawful in the US, but who knows. I hear a lot of 'fair share' comments (for this or that) from the media lately.

 

[haha]

Canada is not the only place where doctor's education and training are government subsidized. Anyone doing residency training in the USA is essentially paid by Medicare without which there would be no residency programs.

Is that why no residency programs existed before Medicare was enacted in 1965?

 

[ERhoosier]

I could easily turn this question around: If someone hated what they did and it was impacting their health, regardless of the societal impact of their quitting, does society have a moral claim to make him keep working?

Interestingly, several studies seem to show that health risks may be particularly higher for those working irreg night shifts-

Shift workers face increased risk for heart problems, especially those working night shifts - HealthPop - CBS News

-That which does not kill you makes you stronger, but always favor the latter option

 

[gerrym51]

since i am below average i'll retire when i want with no thought

 

[HFWR]

since i am below average i'll retire when i want with no thought

+1000

 

[kumquat]

As for the Irish government, both I and my parents paid more than our share of taxes. When I was an intern in Ireland, my marginal tax rate was sixty-five (65)%. I paid taxes for 6 years at rates like that before I left.

In 1980, IIIRC, I earned just over four thousand pounds (that was equivalent to ~$6.5K in US dollars) and paid approximately 2200 pounds of it back in income tax. I was living at home and did nothing but work and sleep. LBYM of course. Personal income tax rates in Ireland at that time were extremely high, even for people earning a moderate income. By the time I was completing my training in Ireland, I was earning about eight thousand pounds, or $13K. When I moved to the US as a Fellow I started earning $25K and paid much less in income tax. I thought I had died and gone to heaven.

Is this at all accurate?

Yes.

Do doctors have to learn basic arithmetic?

 

[eytonxav]

Do doctors have to learn basic arithmetic?

I don't know about arithmetic, but always wondered about penmanship

 

[Meadbh]

Do doctors have to learn basic arithmetic?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

[Huston55]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

I think s/he's questioning the "...65% marginal tax rate..." vs £2200/£4000 and the link to tax rates of 35% max up to £5000.

Regardless, I think your point is still valid.

IMO, almost all discussions of "morality" eventually lead to some level of differing views and disagreement; not that such discussions are bad, just not always productive. And, of course, the very question posed by this thread takes us there.

 

[Meadbh]

I think s/he's questioning the "...65% marginal tax rate..." vs £2200/£4000 productive.

e.

Thanks for the clarification.
There is a difference between marginal and average tax rates, of course.

 

[Milton]

In recent conversations with my father, he's expressed the position that someone who is "gifted" or might have higher aptitude for success, has some what of a moral obligation to do a job that is deemed more worthwhile, or more important. The discussion stemmed from my desire to retire early. He feels that it is greedy or self-centered for someone to retire early if they have the potential to impact events or people. I am by no means trying to toot my own horn here or paint myself as a Jack Bauer, but that's my father's (and probably most dad's) view of his son.

FWIW, my own father retired at age 55, enjoyer 15 years of living live on his own terms - including enjoying my mother's constant companionship - and then died of cancer at age 70. While he is no longer around for me to check with, I doubt that he would agree with your father's view.

 

[kumquat]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point was that you claimed to have paid 2200 pounds tax on a 4000 pound income while agreeing that the top marginal tax rate on 4000 pounds of income was 35%.

While I will ignore the lower rates on the first 1000, 4000 X .35 = 1400, no?

Thanks for the clarification.
There is a difference between marginal and average tax rates, of course.

Yes there is. The marginal are always higher, at least in a 'progessive' system.

 

[Meadbh]

kumquat, please reread my post #94, in which I mentioned that I was paying a top marginal tax rate of ~65%. Clearly, everyone is incredulous that this could be so. Hence, please look at this link showing historical tax rates in various countries during the period in question. Recall that this very week in France, the introduction of a 75% top marginal tax rate was ruled unconstitutional. There is no limit to the greed of the taxman!

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/oecd_historical_toprate.pdf