This is a decent point, but you're describing the world we already live in, no? I mean, we already have significant automation, significant wealth inequality, significant ability for control of money to affect legislation and culture.
But we (in the US at least) generally have abundant access to food which is safe to eat.
> Corruption thrives off of wealth inequality. Without it, it cannot exist.
Corruption can exist without wealth inequality.
Consider a city where teachers and politicians earn the exact same salary (and the same ability to build wealth over time). You might think this eliminates the potential for corruption, but imagine a scenario where politicians heavily rely on teachers' unions for their election campaigns. In this case, politicians might make decisions that benefit the unions (e.g. no performance standards, lifetime tenure, long holidays, keeping underenrolled schools open) in exchange for their support, even if those decisions don't optimize for student achievement (or whatever else taxpayers want schools to promote).
A lot of people think wealth inequality isn't a big deal, but I disagree. The more proportion of money a select few have in comparison to everyone else, the higher the likelihood those select few can mold society to their whim. Corruption thrives off of wealth inequality. Without it, it cannot exist.