I understand where you're coming from but keep in mind that the more someone spends on all of those things, the more money they're pouring back into the economy and supporting more companies.
They're still not forced to buy the Porsche. Remember that I do not mind people buying Porsches, nor do I want to stop them doing that; I mention this, though it is a repetition, because it will become useful later on in this comment. I want the right importance being given to the right things.
Your desire to buy a (surplus) Porche is worth far less than the desire of someone else to buy a car plain and simple. It is not because of envy, it is because the more people the society is able to allow to raise, the wealthier that society will be.
Plus, a single $100k Porsche is nowhere near the impact of 4 $25 Toyotas when it comes to pouring money back into the economy. Another reason to grant more people a little less than few people a lot more.
Also, how far do you take the "basic needs" vs choice argument?
As far as you like, if you want. There is no such things as a hard limit on "how much is enough". If there was, most injustice would disappear because angry people would tear apart those getting too much, effectively creating funcioning communism, which we know for a fact cannot exist.
It does not exist because how much is enough is dictated mostly by the wealth level of the society, which is always changing.
However, the lack of hard limits works both ways: someone arguing that the most extreme luxuries are basic needs is clearly a greedy bastard disconnected from reality.
We have to study our society, understand what we can do, understand what is a good investment and what not, and then strive to allow each member of the society to get to what is needed the most in increasingly easy ways, while not taking away the possibility for the very skilled ones to get real high, without taking advantages of loopholes.
Absolutely correct but again, how far will you take this argument? What's "healthy"?
I kept this here because it is in line with what I just said: there cannot be a fixed line for what is "healthy". However, if you consider something being healthy, whatever it is, then evey person not having it comes before all people having more than that. And again, not in a communistical sense, but in that who cares if you have problems getting the Porsche, if the average guy has difficulties buying himself the Toyota.
If you consider the Porsche being the standard, then you'll have to help the average guy getting it...
On the other hand, if a Toyota would be deemed too much for the average person, then you won't need a Porsche, but a Toyota would be enough for you to distinguish yourself; everything over could be taxed even more heavily to help the average guy getting their 2500$ used car.
This morning I heard the news on the radio about a fire in Boston and that the flames spread across right houses because they were so close to each other - isn't living in a single-family home on several acres much safer (i.e. healthier) than living in an apartment building?
Can everyone live in single-family homes on several acres? If this is possible, and the society can afford it, it is probably healthier. However, our technological level and our demographics tell us that this is not possible. The limit then is not "justice", the limit is "resource availability and sustainability". We cannot ignore that.
And once again, the rich get taxed at a higher rate already.
Coming from a country where some people (not the richest...) are taxed up to 70% of their income, I tell you that 40$ is really, really, really acceptable, particularly for the extremely rich.
You don't think that a doctor who spent decades in school produced much more valuable labor that a janitor?
Indeed he does, but he couldn't do it, if not for a fraction of the time (maybe not even that), if the janitor wasn't there to keep the medical office clean.
What about the CEO of a company who employs 1000 people and makes decisions that could jeopardize the entire company?
What about the fact that the each one of the 1000 employees is producing more than they earn, otherwise they wouldn't have the job? (that was one of Marx's realization, and it is spot on). How much is enough for a person who can jeopardize an entire company, considering that the 1000 employees are all paid LESS than they contribute to the company itself? Shouldn't the CEO be also paid LESS than what they actually do? How much less? A Company (the bigger, the truer) is a cooperative effort.
Also, how do you determine the worth of something? What's the worth of a Big Mac?
The perceived market value of something depends on how many people want it and how much of the thing there is.
The real market value of that same thing depends on how much it allows the owner(s) to generate.
The perceived personal value of something depends on how bad that thing is wanted by that person.
The real personal value of something depends on what that person wants to achieve and how much the thing is needed to achieve that.
The perceived social value of something depends on how much the thing is considered to be worth to the well-being of the society
The real social value of something depends on the actual effects it would have on that society.
Outside of a society composed of all the human beings on the planet, there is no value at all, as "value" is a characteristics that human beings give to things in order to deal with them (at many levels, with various, differing "values") and which is completely tied to the usefulness (in any form) of that things to the human beings.
So how do you determine the value of a Big Mac, given that it has no value outside of the human world and its value for the human beings depends on who they are, in what conditions they are and on what their goal is?
The truth is, let's set at least an objective first, that we can agree upon, and I will tell you, if possible, how much a Big Mac may be worth in regard to that objective.
in a society where there is no income inequality, what would motivate someone to become a doctor when they can just go flip burgers at McDonald's?
Passion. ...but no, that is just to say how easy it is to counter the "motivation only through money" argument. In truth:
I do not ask for a society with no inequality, because this is not possible; I advocate for a society capable of cutting out useless things whose balance of pros and cons is damaging it, and for a society that is able to allow the LARGEST PART POSSIBLE of its own members to live a good live in which they can pursue their happiness and desires.
It would be good if it was all of them, but this is not possible; so I focus on the largest number of people possible.
We have the opposite problem in my state right now where there are not enough electricians, which causes the existing electricians to raise prices, more people are drawn to becoming electricians for the high wages, and eventually wages for electricians will return to normal.
This only works if people are allowed to become electricians. Stop them from doing that, and the few there are will become unfairly rich, at your own expenses (you couldn't refuse the offer of the greedy ones).
It is the same for the doctor: the problems come when you cannot refuse. Market is a human behaviour, which only grants good to both parties when they can refuse (and go buying the same from someone else, in this case)
You're speaking from an authoritarian position that dictates who can earn how much and what someone's labor is worth.
Not at all. That is the extreme of what I say, and I am not an extremist in the least. (this is also why I wrote that small part at the beginning)
What I'm suggesting is that we, the people, make those decisions in the marketplace.
This is not bad, as long as it does not become extreme. The marketplace is a human behaviour, and it needs a series of conditions to work well. The extremists of the marketplace believe that it could work regardless of the conditions. This is what I say is plainly stupid.
The market mechanism in itself is useful, but it is a tool, not a god.