" Easier to negotiate against big entities like HR as a "little guy" because you have similar info to them (which they pay for)." This if upside down - in fact

" Easier to negotiate against big entities like HR as a "little guy" because you have similar info to them (which they pay for)." This if upside down - in fact - it will reinforce class. Do you know why your employer may ask in an interview: 'How much did you earn before'? Because they know if they offer you a little bit more than before, you'll probably take it - even if it's 'under market wages'. Someone who earns very little can be held to that lower income, and there's also a social stigma to it: if you're a low-income earner - you will be judged as less valuable than high income earners. People will judge the value of people by how much they earn - making it very difficult for working class people or students to move up. Also - it's a deep transgression of human rights. Your finances are your private information, nobody should have the right to see them unless there is a case for 'public good' i.e. public officials etc. Also - your idea of libertarian in this case is a little upside down - this is the opposite of classical liberalism. It's massive government overreach. Classical liberals would be very weary of having the government interfere in one's private life. By your logic - your bank account, your investments, land holdings etc. etc. could feasibly be public knowledge. All of those supposed 'good things' are intangible - there's no evidence they will happen (or are good). It's classic socialist folly: a 'do gooder idea that really is just more state control. I have no doubt that in some cases, income could be public information - for example, state officials should have to publish certain kinds of information - especially stock ownership and business contracts so that we can ward off corruption. But in general, we should be deferring to privacy.