I don't really see how moving coins to yourself is good for the economy. In fact it seems like a waste of resources, though the benefit of certainly over lost coins might be worth it.
It's not. But keeping coins moving is. Any waste of resources in this instance is negligible. But I am more likely to spend coins if I am consciously aware of them as a resource, as would be required in order to move them. The good for the economy part is emission which compensates for lost coins. They will have higher velocity than average.
Inflation is not an incentive to spend unless you are forced into using only that currency, like governments do to their own people.
Do you have plans on forcing everyone to use Monero? Because if you don't, this will fail. I love everything about this coin, except for the inflation. And I talked to many bitcoiners and they independently arrived to the same opinion.
One of the main uses for Bitcoin that a lot of people like, is as a store of value. It rewards saving, like gold, as opposed to what fiat does, which punishes saving and responsible spending.
This also has ethical implications, like supporting or not consumerism and its ecological impact. Why do you want to force people into buying things they don't need? The economy can't grow undefinitely, sometimes it has to shrink for the benefit of the world and all of us. If someone is selling a product that people don't need anymore, what's wrong with him moving into something else? Why not "force" him into building things we need (if anything at all), instead of forcing us into buying them anyway? Inflation goes against the free market in that sense.
Also, if you want the price to go up, there's nothing better than having people use it as a store of value. Being able to use the currency (utility) also drives the price up, though not immediately (but the good news can have a fast effect). Forcing people into spending it won't. And it will certainly not attract new savers.
On the ethical side, you need to look at the equilibrium between the cost of electricity and the value paid out to miners.
Let's use CPI, consumer price index as the unit.
If we assume for simplicity that mining power per CPI is flat over time (no new CPU tech), then mining equipment can be bought once and after some time it is the business of converting eletricity to coins.
Therefore it is an equilibrium between the value of electricity and what miners are paid.
In a society where the M1 money supply consists mostly of XMR, spending 1% on miners a year means that of the total money supply, the equivalent to 1% of that money supply is exchanged for electricity, and wasted.
This can be a significant part of the power produced in the world. Therefore, the ethical solution is not to fix this as a percentage of the total money supply.
There is no logic to having a linear correlation between the value of the money supply and what miners are paid. Having 100x as many miners does not make the system 100x as secure. Having 2x the miners and spending 98x on developing mathematical proofs for the code base is probably a much better proposition.
The only sensible action is for miner profits to go down, in percentage of the total money supply, almost to zero. This is based on the assuption that XMR increases in value. There is simply no point in having 100k miners to secure the ledger. That's like chasing insignificant risks when the big elephant in the room is the fact that the code base is written in C++ instead of Haskell.