A really big problem in society, one that is ignored by all utopian fantasizers is what do you do with the bottom 10% (by IQ) of people?

Capitalists would rather ignore them (and so they become homeless without someone wealthy enough to support them)

Communists just treat them as another cog. (and what happens is everyone has to cover for them. Your line had to make 100 widgets, just now you get to do it with one less person)

The US military has simply banned them. ("There is nothing we can have them do that is a net benefit.")

How much does it cost?

At the bottom end, we basically have a giant baby that needs to be cared for the rest of its life. (this may include changing diapers)

How many people have to give up part of their lives to provide this care? They need a house, they need food, they need a care taker. Basically a mother and a father, for the rest of this person's life. How much of their lives do they have left? Are we spending one normal person's life to keep a low-IQ person alive?

If we have two people spending half of their lives, each, to keep one other person alive, are we making a good bargain?

If we didn't care about life, then the answer would be a HUGE, NO!
But we do care about life.
But even the greatest caretaker gets tired of it, and this is for the rest of the low-IQ person's life.

Ways we have worked with this:

Capitalistic countries just ignore these people. They mostly become homeless, now that we have gotten rid of mental institutions.

Communistic countries just get rid of these people. Send them to the gulags. Kill them off to motivate other workers (decimation) Sorry, the communal, care for everyone, is just window dressing to sell communism to the easily fooled youth.

In olden days, you usually had the village idiot do chores like sweeping and delivering notes/messages. The village as a group, fed them, and they slept in a barn, or a small room somewhere.

Without a mother and a father that are rich enough to pay for and care for this individual, there is no one that cares enough to give up their life to let this low-IQ person live.

Back when times where far tougher, the child would be drowned in a river. There was not enough food, let alone care for someone who couldn't contribute. (and that is putting it nicely. Low-IQ people often are very destructive, because they just do not know any better. Imagine coming home and finding your whole garden ripped up... because they decided to weed the garden. Your life has just been placed on death's door)

Today, in rich countries, we have a lot of welfare workers who's job is to keep these people alive.
So, how much of your life, through taxes, is used to keep this 10%?

Summary

Most people handle this in one of three ways:

Those who will absolutely not allow a low-IQ person to die, no matter what, no matter how destructive keeping them alive is.

Then there are those who just want them to go away. Who have no problem in getting rid of them. It is best for society they say.

Most people just do not want to think about it. So, we have a society where homeless are just ignored. Hoping that the problem just goes away on its own.

Only a few know what it takes to care for one of these low-IQ people, and have the desire and the ability to do something about it.

Unfortunately, this is not a problem we can just throw money at and make it go away.

... and then you have the eugenicists. Lets not allow low-IQ people to breed...
but will this actually work? No one really knows, and it seems to not work, else they would have been gotten rid of in the harsher times of our existence.

Hard question;
Harder answers.

All images in this post are my own original creations.