[czl]

> At least in the US, the government essentially taxes individuals based on revenue, not profit. With some specific limited exceptions, they don't care what your living costs are or how "sustainable" the taxes are for you.

How it that a significant portion of Americans, typically around 40% to 45%, do not owe federal income taxes? This includes people whose income falls below the standard deduction threshold, which varies depending on filing status, and those who qualify for enough tax credits to offset their tax liability. Does 40-45% of America have no revenue? Where do they live? What do they eat? They have revenue but not surplus revenue (as defined by tax code) so they pay no tax on their revenue.

> The whole notion of "a surplus" also doesn't really make sense. Beyond food and basic shelter to keep people barely alive, everything can be considered to be "a surplus".

That some complain about Western “basic food” and “basic shelter” is an indicator of how wealthy we are. Add to this “basic medicine”, “basic safety and rights”, “basic entertainment”, “basic transportation”.... What fraction of the global population alive today would trade places with those who enjoy these modern western “basics”? Same question but roll back time a few centuries? On the flip side, would you be willing to have your family and friends trade places with random people from centuries ago?

> I'm not familiar with how the EU works, but in the US, we control our own currency. Since 1970, there's been 4 years that enough taxes were collected to cover spending. "Governments need taxes to buy things" is not how things work. We've also had a trade deficit since the 70s, so no "surplus" there.

You raise tangential topics that it would take paragraphs to explain. Hopefully readers will not be confused.

> Legal slavery still exists today including in the US (the constitution still explicitly allows it), so I'm not sure where it was outcompeted.

You seriously believe today there is slavery in America? EU? Do you think your credibility improves when you argue as you do above?

> This is again all beside the point, which is just that non-profit-seeking activity is important too.

How did you read my words and reach the conclusion that I think non-profit-seeking activity is unimportant?

How wealth is spent is far *more important* than how wealth is created since if you are going to squander wealth what is the point of creating it. Notice to spend and benefit from wealth you have to create it and profit is a measure of wealth creation.

[ndriscoll]

I'm not sure how your first question is germane; they don't owe taxes because there's a standard deduction and various credits (many of which are tools for social policy and aren't really related to expenses, e.g. the EITC or savers credit). That works quite differently from a system where you actually deduct your living expenses. Those deductions and credits generally have limits (so don't care what your actual expenses are), frequently don't require you to have any sort of documented expenses, and may only provide a partial offset against the expense. You also have the 0% bracket for capital gains being several times the standard deduction. Do rich people living off investments just automatically have 3x the living expenses of W2 earners?

On slavery, I'm not familiar with the EU, but of course we have it in the US. I thought it was common knowledge that slavery (i.e. forced labor) is one of the punishments we have for crimes? I see news articles from as recently as 2018 about prisoners being given solitary confinement for refusing to work (I'll leave you to look into the psychological and physical effects of that and decide whether it qualifies as torture).

Arguably, the way we do child support is slavery-adjacent as well; support orders are not based on the child's needs or the level of expenses pre-separation, but on the level of income. So if you were frugal (and e.g. planning to FIRE) before separation, suddenly you can have a very large liability until several years after they become an adult (including needing to pay for college even if you otherwise wouldn't have done so), essentially requiring decades of additional work. Falling to continue producing that income can result in imprisonment.

[czl]

> they don't owe taxes because there's a standard deduction and various credits (many of which are tools for social policy and aren't really related to expenses, e.g. the EITC or savers credit).

The standard deduction and various tax credits are indeed designed to account for basic living expenses and ensure that those with lower incomes are not burdened with federal income taxes. While these deductions and credits may not cover all living expenses for everyone, they serve as a proxy for the essential costs of living.

The fact that 40-45% of Americans do not owe federal income taxes demonstrates that the tax system does consider the financial situation of individuals and their ability to pay taxes. The standard deduction is set at a level that is deemed sufficient to cover basic living expenses for most people. If an individual's income falls below this threshold, they are not required to pay federal income taxes because their revenue is essentially going towards covering their basic needs.

Furthermore, tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are specifically designed to provide additional financial support for low-income working individuals and families. These credits are a way for the government to acknowledge that these individuals may struggle to make ends meet even though they have revenue.

> You also have the 0% bracket for capital gains being several times the standard deduction. Do rich people living off investments just automatically have 3x the living expenses of W2 earners?

Regarding the 0% capital gains tax bracket being higher than the standard deduction, this is a separate issue related to how different types of income are taxed. It does not negate the fact that the standard deduction and tax credits are intended to account for living expenses and reduce the tax burden on those with lower incomes.

> On slavery, I'm not familiar with the EU, but of course we have it in the US. I thought it was common knowledge that slavery (i.e. forced labor) is one of the punishments we have for crimes?

While it's true that many US prisoners do work, characterizing it as "slavery" is misleading. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery but allows "involuntary servitude" as punishment for a crime. However, forced labor and slavery are not equivalent. Prisoners who work are paid wages (albeit low), have basic labor protections, and work as part of their rehabilitation and to offset incarceration costs. Solitary confinement, while highly controversial, is not used solely for refusing to work. The comparison to slavery ignores the profound historical differences between the brutal chattel slavery of the past and modern prison labor.

> Arguably, the way we do child support is slavery-adjacent as well;

On child support, you oversimplify how support is calculated. Child support is based on the child's best interests and seeks to maintain their standard of living. Support calculations consider both parents' incomes, time spent with the child, and the costs of the child's needs. While wealthier parents may pay more, the goal is for the child to benefit from the totality of both parents' incomes as they would in an intact household. Characterizing this as "slavery-adjacent" because a parent must work to pay support is hyperbolic - parents have always had to work to provide for their children. Imprisonment for nonpayment is rare and occurs only in cases of willful refusal to pay despite having the means.