No, I don't get a less stressful life, I'd get a much more stressful one. One, maybe two years I earn a lot, and then 2-5 years next to nothing. I must plan my life according to the needs of my mental health, not fiscal calendars of some social engineers who can't understand that one size doesn't fit all and can seriously hurt some people (yeah, even those who earn a lot some years are still just humans, and sometimes sleep on the street another year too).

And it's a life where I am forbidden to do useful things that others want me to do and I am willing and able (which is not always, or often) - just because someone said "you did enough in this arbitrary period of time, give us your money or don't do it at all".

Don't even start about me owing the society, because in my view the society owes me a lot for the pain it caused me, gave me nothing of value, and tries very hard to keep me from obtaining the little I have. And the bill keeps growing. The idea that this should not only prevail but continue to worsen gives me chills.

Sorry - nothing personal, but I really, truly hate every bit of your idea of the world. From the beginning where people "should earn less so we are equal" to the end where it's "perfect that engineers work less" and the bit where you just assume I'd lead a less stressful life, even though you know nothing about me - typical of people of your opinions.

> And it's a life where I am forbidden to do useful things that others want me to do and I am willing and able (which is not always, or often) - just because someone said "you did enough in this arbitrary period of time, give us your money or don't do it at all".

No you're not. You're free to do whatever you like. You just won't receive as much money in return as you would otherwise have done.

> From the beginning where people "should earn less so we are equal" to the end where it's "perfect that engineers work less"

To be clear, to the extent that there is a difference, I think that people with high earnings should be taxed more not that their nominal income should be lowered or restricted. And I think that it would be good if people had the freedom to choose to work less while still earning enough to comfortably live on. If you want to continue working as much as you currently do then all power to you. It was you who said further up the thread that would choose to work less.

> No you're not. You're free to do whatever you like. You just won't receive as much money in return as you would otherwise have done.

You say no and then you say the same thing I said, lol.

> It was you who said further up the thread that would choose to work less.

No, I said your idea would force me to work less and I also said that it'd have a serious negative impact on me and my health.

It wouldn't force you to work less. If you think earning less would have a serious impact on your mental health, then spare a thought for those who already earn dramatically less than you, and still would (although not by quite so much) after such a change was implemented.

I can't spare a thought for them when my own existence is endangered. I'm thinking about them a lot now, and donate when I can, but that would have to end.

The problem here is being forced to work less at a time when I'm able to work more. It's not fair to make me earn less just because I wasn't able to spread out my work across the calendar because of my mental health issues.

I don't see where your ability to spread out work is affected at all. Taxes are usually done annually, so how spread or concentrated work is over a year wouldn't affect the level of taxation. And it's already the case that this can't (easily - I suspect there are ways) be spread over multiple years. That wouldn't be a change.

I would also point out that those with lower salaries also suffer from mental health issues. I see no reason why yours specifically should take precedence.

Yes indeed, taxes are annual - and I told you clearly that I have years (usually less than one) when I can work well followed by years (usually multiple) when I can't work at all. E.g. in 2017 I was able to work 7 months and then nothing 2 years, then 3 months and nothing for a year, etc. I'd have passed your threshold in 2017 (if we adjusted by purchasing power) but thankfully there was none and so I was just barely able to make enough money to stay off the street during the two following years (but I wasn't that lucky the next period).

I shouldn't take any precedence whatsoever, but others shouldn't have any precedence over me. It's bad enough that I'm unable to get any assistance because "I'm rich enough" - actually I'm in serious debt.

The most draconian collector I had was the tax agency, which assigned me interest larger than the worst loan shark you could find anywhere in the world; they don't care that a court locked me up in a hospital and disabled my bank accounts, I got 0.3%/day (yes, per day) "to motivate payment ASAP". I guess I should've just unstrapped myself from the bed, get a gun, rob the bank of my own money, and pay? Other creditors like banks were just OK to chill a little until I'm back, even the gangster drug dealer guy I had to borrow from when banks wouldn't see me treated me with much more respect than the state.

That's what you want more of? GTFO with that, you will just fuck up poor people's lives even more - the stories in the hospital were very similar to mine, and those other people don't have the big annual wage I can get as a programmer. If you think the state will try to help poor people, tell me why is it not helping at least a little now? I'm from a poor family, where was the state when I wasn't a programmer yet? Let me tell you, it was working hard to fuck us up even more. And now after my hard work overcoming my own problems, in spite of everything the state has thrown at me, you're saying it should get even more of my work?

It sounds like you make a very high income in some periods of your life, but that you are unable to work and struggle to make ends meet at other times. What I would like is that make a little less in the good times, but that you have much better support in the bad times. Yes, the state would get more of your work when you can work, but in return you'd get support from the output of others' work when you can't.

That would include things like free health care, housing, and relief from tax burdens. Why doesn't the state help you? I'd argue that that's a lot because of lack of funding due to people taking your attitude that the state shouldn't take "your" money. I feel like you are someone who would benefit greatly from income redistribution that was well-implemented.

> I feel like you are someone who would benefit greatly from income redistribution that was well-implemented.

In theory, but I also can't afford illusions, if it doesn't work out it will be way too destructive to me - and I can't see any reason whatsoever why it should work.

I disagree the problems are because of a lack of funding. Any western state has loads of money they could be using to help people. I'd be happy to add more if it just wasn't enough, but we're very far away from states making a good use of what they get now.

As it stands, I don't think any increased income from taxation would translate into more support for poor people or people like me. Not a single cent. I expect the opposite - the states would pour the money into enforcement, and people would get hurt more.

> Sorry - nothing personal, but I really, truly hate every bit of your idea of the world.

Just so it's clear, I don't agree with what he said. I stand by my comments, but I don't agree that we should coax any of what the poster has said either.