Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Chet -- I really have a hard time understanding your statement: "There should be no reason to save in a fair economy that your work contributed to help build. Saving is giving the money you earned back to the people you earned it from so they will give some of it back to you. Saving is a curse put on people who lost the benefit of their work."
You also said you are against savings in all of the forms I previously listed. Which gets back, I suppose to how you want to redefine money. If money is no longer needed as a medium of exchange for labor because all labor is rewarded equally, then in effect you don't need money at all. No one saves because that contributes to inequality down the line.
To push this idea further, in "Chet's Utopian Society", savings would be penalized to the extent that there would be no incentive to save. Period! Capitalism hence would be dead because everyone would be rewarded the same for their labor -- and that reward would not be monetary, but rather the government providing for all your material and social needs from housing to health care to food to education in exchange for the fruits of your labor. Everyone would live in a commune because people living in more grandiose houses would go against the concept of equality for all. Corporations as such would not exist -- they would all be part of the government run apparatus whose focus was also on equality for all.
There would be no need for savings for retirement because the concept of retirement would no longer exist. Everyone would work to earn their "bread and butter" until they die. The concept of retirement would be a kin to setting up two classes...a working class and a leisure class and that in itself is the definition of inequality.
The rewards for labor would be exactly the same for all and that includes food. If people were caught hoarding food they would be penalized (jailed) for going against the spirit of the state of equality for all.
There would be no need for religion either. The head of the state would serve both a person's material and spiritual needs. No poverty...no poor people...no rich people...no middle class. Just a classless society where everyone works for the benefit of the state -- and the state is there to ensure the equality of everyone in the state.
So Chet, is that what you mean by the "Turbo MMT" term that you threw out there? I am extrapolating from your statements for sure, but carried to the extreme that is what I see your idea of society evolving to -- Chet's Utopian Society where everyone is equal and classless.