> Why would you remove a system which rewards effort, and replace it with a system that rewards everyone the same, regardless of effort.

Alright, so a couple of things. First, I think we're starting off with different evaluations of the current system, or at least, different valuations. Either way, let's agree to disagree on its value.

I don't believe the current system rewards effort as consistently as we're led to believe. More so, it rewards workers according to the value they produce and to whom. For example, while a garbage collector's service is invaluable to me, he is almost always paid less than a marketing manager for say Coca Cola, who provides zero value for me. There's an obvious gap between private and public employment in terms of pay. Then, factor in entrenched biases such as gender and race, you'll find a lot more pay inequality there that disputes people being paid based on "effort".

What the system does a great job of, as your comments actually do a good job of highlighting, is allow people to believe that most of the time, their effort can get them ahead regardless of their current circumstance. And, not to totally disagree with you, this is true if you're the marketing manager for Coke. However, this is unlikely to be true for the garbage man, as in his/her current course of work, there is an undisputed glass ceiling.

Given that the top is far heavier than the bottom, then as long as I am classed somewhere in the plain 99%, I will always favor a more equitable distribution. Not only because it benefits me more directly, but because I just find it more ethical. I believe this because of how often chance plays into success. The most successful people often claim that their station in life was achieved through both luck and hard work. We have no control over where or when we were born, and due to existing laws, cultural phenomenons, and other external factors, it's not as simple as moving here or doing that.

We really have to quantify the overall output rather than individual effort and doing so is difficult. There is no easy way to calculate the effects of stress and worry associated with an economy based on capitalism. So, while I believe universal healthcare, basic income, etc. would alleviate much of the stress associated with being a citizen, I can't really prove it because there is no answer as to how detrimental it is in the current system. However, I will say that we've seen articles written recently on how the rich go back to work because of x, y, and z; in my scenario, there really isn't "rich", so I hope that most of us would find the satisfaction in a job well done that was once indicative of community.

Additionally, I just think that below the math it makes reasonable sense. Whereas we see averages distorting things. For example, 4 workers in a capitalist economy average an effort (or good job) of 75% because the one go-getter really wants a promotion. In reality 25% (his products) are awesome, but 50% of them are mediocre because of the 2 average employees, while the last 25% are horrible because the fourth employee knows he'll never be as good as the first resulting in 25% of the products being unusable. Yes, he'll be fired and replaced, but it doesn't do anything to actually fix the problem. I'm hoping that if all 4 employees are well taken care of, in the vein of Google, and are no longer worried about that promotion or raise, each can at least do an average job, some may even do a great job based on pride or skill level. In the end we have products that are about the same, if not better, in quality without the emotional distress.

Finally, while it may not seem like it, there definitely should be some kind of consequence for those who refuse to contribute. My ideal system requires a hardline level of acceptability. There shouldn't be anything wrong with minimally-acceptable effort as long as we do a good job of setting that floor initially.