Revealed and stated preference techniques are widely used to assess non-market components, in particular in cost-benefit analysis (CBA). First, however, individuals have to satisfy subsistence needs through market good consumption, which affects their ability to pay. We provide a methodological framework and derive a correction factor to account for this effect. We quantify the impacts of neglecting it on the desirability and the ranking of projects from a theoretical, a numerical and an empirical perspective. A plutocratic bias emerges: the views of the richest - whatever they are - are more likely to impact CBA-based decision-making.