My subversive interpretation of Omelas is that the kid whose suffering the good of the entire place depends on is a taxpayer. We tax the kid in suffering, and we use the suffering to buy prosperity for everyone else. Of course, this is a tax which hurts people unequally (the kid: a lot, everyone else: not at all), but even conventional taxes can't make everyone better off, and this is especially so for taxes that are intended for redistributing wealth.

What makes this interpretation subversive, of course, is that the very same people who talk about how we should consider how our actions affect others are generally the biggest proponents of taxation and wealth redistribution. I'm pretty certain that LeGuin isn't a libertarian; you're supposed to read the story and conclude that you're victimizing others and that you have obligations towards others--not that you're the victim.and other people have obligations towards you.