>If society decides that everyone should have minimum standard of living despite their skill level or net contributions There is a fallacy here where you assum

>If society decides that everyone should have minimum standard of living despite their skill level or net contributions There is a fallacy here where you assumed society operates in a certain manner but provided no evidence to support that. The idea that people's standards of living is a directly a function of their skill level and not deeply influenced by other uncontrollable factors is a very contested and argued point of view. On the contrary, it's clear to see that despite individual productivity sky rocketing over the last 40 years, wages have remained stagnant. Even the framing of your question is odd - who is the "society as a whole" that bares that burden, when most people who make up society are working class? Rephrased you could have simply stated that the majority working poor shouldn't cause undue burden on the aristocrats. Lastly, I'll add that the state is already burdened in one way or another. Having a large amount of uninsured people due to corporations off loading their social contract creates a public policy problem. The state can't have people dying in the street or spreading disease because the vast majority of them are underinsured - and to solve these problems the state then increases taxes on everyone just so a corporation or two and get away with the bare minimum.