Food, shelter, education and other basic needs are supposed to be taken care of in developed countries (by definition) in the 21st century. Just leaving it up to the market means that poorer people won't have these needs fulfilled, and we can't pretend that it's just fine and so be it.
Maybe energy prices should be proportional to your wealth, like fines in some countries.
The idea to make energy cost proportional to wealth is also bizarre. The first problem with it is how will you determine wealth? The second problem is how will you determine need? The goal is to provide according to need while taking according to ability, right?
This has been tried many times in many ways and inevitably results in more inequality and a lower standard of living than allowing market forces to balance supply and demand based on economic signals.
You're conflating markets with inequalities and implilying a causal relationship when the market is simply the scale in the middle attempting to balance consumption with economic contribution.
It's almost ironic that markets are the way in which you can achieve this Marxist ideal.
What does then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country mentions quality of life, aren't basic needs part of that?
> how will you determine wealth?
Some countries have wealth-based taxes and so have apparently answered this question, so that can be a starting point.
I don't understand your point about markets solving inequalities on their own. If energy is expensive, poor people don't have heating, rich people do. Are you saying that's just fine?
Also not sure what the Marxist ideal is, is wanting poor people to have heating a Marxist ideal? I'm honestly confused by your comment.
Public education in particular sees very bad outcomes for poor students. It is time to privatize.