“Your total money is decreasing” is not the same thing as “all your money is gone” - it’s leading in that direction, but if it takes 20 or 30 years to get there that’s usually enough for people to retire on.

20-30 years of savings is a fortune already though, how do we make it so that all professions allow for such savings to be accumulated if we don't allow for interest rates or dividends?

And if the 20-30 years isn't enough, do we re-employ 80-year olds that have been retired for 20-30 years?

I'm nowhere near the mentioned 0.5% and still don't think this is a good idea.

In fact I think society should do the opposite, "escape velocity" should be made attainable by more people, not fewer.

If people can retire by 50 (instead of 70 or whatever it will be after another decade of this economy) more young people will get employed at better salaries, and 50 year olds can still come up with cool things do do with their lives.

> It should be impossible to survive from saved money? Wouldn't that mean that everybody has to work until they die?

Come on, it depends on the duration, and it is long stretch from parent poster's thought to your "cannot live of saved money" for some time (though would claim, the states that have/had this guaranteed by the state had it more right anyway, basic survivability for retire time should not depend on savings in modern society, only luxury).

I mean the opposite, what you seem to want, that you can live indefinitely off a certain amount of saved money, we all know cannot be similarly true for everybody?