AFAIC, there is only one area where people's *needs* vary, i.e., medical care. Apart from that, I see no problem at all with giving everyone in society the same income. You mention:
> >most people wouldn't be interested in a large
> > library
> >of philosophy books, but I would;
Under the equal-income scheme, if you want to spend a lot of money *owning* philosophy books instead of borrowing from a public library, then you'd simply have less discretionary income to spend on, say, foreign travel or neckties. So what? I myself would be much more interested in spending money on gardening than dining out or going to concerts. But no one needs to own tons of books *and* travel the world constantly *and* have the biggest garden *and* dine out often *and* have the best seat at the opera. People who sincerely believe they do have a need to possess more than everyone else in multiple categories are sociopaths whose real need is for intitutional care.
I don't see how imposing equal incomes is at all unfair.
Carl