I won’t entertain the retirement question, besides stating that if people made enough perhaps they could save enough. It’s the “making” that I want to address.
Of all the institution to discover this, no other than The IMF recently found:
Income inequality can lead to slower or less sustainable economic growth, while redistribution of income, when measured, does not hurt and can even help an economy…
Although the study by International Monetary Fund economists does not reflect the Fund’s official position, it is another sign of a shift in its thinking about income disparity.
Income distribution can happen twice in the form of low pay and an additional subsidy to help an underpaid worker survive to the the next under-paid payday, as in the case of capitalism; or income distribution can happen once, where a worker sees all the money they helped create on payday, as in the case of socialism. (Of course this latter method may still require a subsidy depending on how well the business is doing.)
Question is, if a worker saw all they helped produce, and money wasn’t shunted off to pay a capitalist investor or overpaid boss, who is really getting the subsidy?The underpaid worker who needs assistance, or the capitalist/thief who has taxpayers foot the assistance bill they created?
What’s funny, or not so funny, is that the right cries foul when redistribution occurs while being the cause of redistribution to begin with, and the statist left often cries for redistribution to occur, when they should be decrying the theft at the bottom of the entire mess.
Fairness would be stopping the bucks where they are produced, and subsidizing no one.
Income inequality is bound to occur even in a socialist ‘system’, but my questions are: if workers were paid their ‘full product’ (no artificial income ‘deflation’) and the prices of goods were placed near the cost of production (no cost plus product inflation), then how much disparity would exist (and how much farther would a dollar go)?