If everyone was a millionaire then nobody would be a millionaire because monetary value would flat out. A value of a million exists due to its unequal distribution.
economics 101. highschool level.
This is a fallacy. Actually more than one. It's a strawman in that the premise was not "everyone" being a millionaire at once. The suggestion is that there be a limit, at which point everyone can reach a point of retirement and financial self-sufficiency. As long as there is an influx of new members of the society to work hard enough to merit this comfortable retirement, there's no necessity of such a system collapsing. This is the lie that some must starve so that others can eat. We wouldn't have a functioning economy if that were the case.
The second fallacy is just that, where there exists an ideal balance of work force to retirement, you've generalized that no value of balance will do. As long as everyone eventually retires, you assume that the economy collapses. Yet everyone DOES retire. They just don't always do so comfortably. I have a hard time imagining that the reason that an elderly individual with no family or fortune who is homeless because they are suffering from dementia in their old age is living on the streets because the economy can't afford to care for them when at the same time, there's plenty of people who would want the work and the wealthy are just sitting on their coffers of money rather than creating new jobs and taking risks to build the economy further.
Actually that is completely different. You don't have to have 1 million dollars for this. You are the one committing a fallacy now by taking it to a completely different topic.
Everyone that is reach having 1 million dollar won't have the same incentive to work and rather prefer to put it in the bank to gain interest. You ASSUME that people would work hard for others.
Not true. Didn't say it was a zero sum game. Also, most people of earth do not have food, shelter and clean water on a daily basis. This is not starving and it is much better than any other point in time in history but that gap is evident.
nonsense. never implied or said anything like that.
Now you're just gas lighting. Either read from the beginning and understand what people are saying or don't even bother. Principle of charity <-- learn it.
You assume that people would stop working at all. I never assumed a need for people to even work hard. Just do what benefits you and those you exchange with mutually. Why do you think people retire in their old age? People stop working because they can't work anymore. The wealth who sit on more than enough to retire on don't stop working before they are physically unable to. They keep trying to make more, because it's their obsession. No different than someone spending hours of every day playing World Of Warcraft. It's work that stimulates them.
Please read from the beginning and stop spinning a new story just to avoid admitting a flaw in your reasoning.
Because this is how the law covers it. they are allowed for full pension up to an age. People follow the rules. Do you know who works for money? Poor people. Rich people have money work for them. This is hard to explain to poor people. If everyone was rich and having the same mentality nobody would really work or even try to produce an equal amount of value to everyone else. You are arguing in favour of a utopia that anytime has come close to this it collapsed. History is a great example.
Now you are being a psychologist? a poor one.
Just stick to "people like having something to do".
Thing is the millionaire toilet cleaners will have a completely different idea from the millionaire CEO's.
Read my post. I put everything there in case you are lost.
This is actually 'the first rule of logic' I was asking @kyriacos about as soon as I signed up to steemit and we started debating. He couldn't answer. Nobody can answer the question 'what is the first rule of logic' unless he studied philosophy. You must interpret everything someone says in the most generous way, and only when you've tried your best and still fail to make sense, only then do you conclude they're wrong. At uni they actually deducted points if you failed to do everything you could to interpret an author's argument in the best possible light. In the real world it's even more essential to apply this rule of logic, because people aren't trained to avoid fallacies. So they make arguments that are full of them. But it's your job as a philosopher to reconstruct their argument on their behalf, just like when you're a receptionist at a hotel and a foreigner comes up to the desk and makes a request, you don't play the fool and say "your sentence is not well-constructed, and your tenses are all over the place, therefore I can't help you". A philosopher's job is to search for truth, and sometimes he must look behind the words, behind the fallacy, at the truth hiding in the background. If you don't have the principle of charity guiding your logic, you'll only make a mess. You'll be seeing fallacies everywhere. This is what happens to people who've just started learning formal logic. This is how you can tell someone's an amateur reasoner. Basically, without the principle of charity, what you got is not a philosopher, but a lawyer, or a sophist (which is where lawyers came from I guess).