More broadly speaking, any number of systems could compensate people for innovation and problem solving (note I don't think competition should be rewarded in its own right, and risk taking isn't necessary in many systems) by providing them an elevated quality of life. The main difference to our capitalist system today is that rather than trying to accumulate as much personal capital as possible, value created from innovation would only go to the individual as needed to incentivize them. The rest would go to improving the world and lives of the people around them. Of course this requires the individual have some agency in that improvement, which we find lacking in the Soviet Union or other failed communist states.
An alternative system could reward all stakeholders equitably, instead of just investors. The larger set of stakeholders include employees, customers, even members of the community that don't actively participate in the business (but they sure are affected by the business' success--witness traffic problems in Seattle caused largely by the growth of Microsoft and Amazon).
It's a brilliant trick the capitalist class has played on us (and apologies to those of you on the capital side--it's probably not your individual fault), to get us to believe that the only way to get competition and innovation is to take their money and give them all the profits.
Following your line of reasoning to conclusion, what incentive do I have to work if all my "needs" are provided already? Extrapolate that out to the rest of the population. Oh so now I am being forced to work? What motivation do I have to do a good job? What will happen, I'll get fired from the job? Who cares, all my 'needs' are already taken care of. By who? I don't know. Oh wait I do know, by NOBODY.
This communism bullshit has got to stop, it's just never going to fucking happen.
To answer your question, though, if everyone’s needs were actually met why should anyone work? Within the century we will be living in a world where a lot of our most basic needs can be fulfilled by fully autonomous machines. Who should benefit from this? A few trillionaires, while the rest toil their lives away? Or the majority, whose lives can all be improved?
Likely every country will answer that question for themselves. But I submit that a country where there are the better part of a million homeless people (including children) and a handful of space-faring billionaires and celebrities hardly has the moral authority to shake their fingers at the others.
How can you possibly know that? Answer: you can't.
Back in the 50s it was assumed we would have flying cars by now. Turns out we don't.
Dismissing my point with "well in 100 years.." is, to be blunt, a lazy, bullshit response.