Well now we're conceiving of the problem differently, and my lib is showing. I guess I don't see 100k a year for everyone as a realistic possibility. To put it into perspective, if we were to evenly divide today's GDP among the world population, each person (adult and child) would receive about 11k a year in income. Now that's in part because we are inefficiently utilizing resources to satisfy the preferences of a TINY minority (basically, capitalism only works for the international bourgeois in the long run, the hundred millionaires and billionaires and yes, maybe even eventually trillionaires 🤮). Were we to change production I don't think we'd see the scarcity we have today for so many, so maybe 11k a year wouldn't be so bad, but I think we will always have to deal with some level of scarcity and certain resources or luxury goods will by necessity have to be restricted.

Assuming we can get everyone to an adequate living standard, meaning food, shelter, medicine, school, and some leisure time to boot, then I think anything beyond that should be contingent upon one's ability to add more than they take. Basically, society itself would exploit these exceptional workers. They would receive a part of their additional productivity in the form of special privileges and luxuries (longer/nicer vacations, luxury goods, nicer living conditions) in return for going above and beyond the minimum required to provide the basics for everyone else.

Edit: formatting