There aren't any financial and governmental systems sustaining you, it's you offering what the market wants and can't get enough of. It may be luck in your case, it was calculated choice in my case; most people would be able to make the choice if they really cared to (and sure, let's offer welfare to those who couldn't possibly make this choice). Help other people get in your position or donate your money, but don't force others to sponsor people's resignation.

>There aren't any financial and governmental systems sustaining you, it's you offering what the market wants and can't get enough of

I use public utilities like streets, the NHS, and a stocks and shares account that I won't pay taxes on gains when I start living off it.

The main thing that will allow me to not work is having a certain amount of money that is making me money.

If I were to have a kid they would be financially independent too, simply by inheriting my wealth (as long as they were financially responsible).

Just having money is enough to generate income without having to ever work in your life.

Your parents didn't pay taxes? Mine paid unthinkable amounts of money (without even considering interest compounding) and that's what the infrastructure was built with; the government certainly didn't create it out of thin air. New infrastructure is paid for with my taxes - and my parents are still active too. If your parents never paid then be thankful to those who did, not governments.

Sure, your money makes you money - you made enough to live off capital gains, these are taxed - and capital gains are usually money taxed in multiple layers - and you can give that money to others, e.g. your children but you could choose anyone else.

I don't see how that's relevant to anything here though... Yes, your children, partner or maybe your extended family or best friend will be considered very lucky - but why does that mean that all others - most of whom aren't as lucky as you or calculating as me and have much less money - must sponsor other people's work-less lifes?

I wouldn't ask if this meant that nobody has to work ever again, but that is not the case right? The reality is that a lot of people will have to work a lot harder to make life work-less for a much smaller group of people content with merely surviving. The world isn't just rich/poor... - and simply distributing government welfare evenly among all people will never work, many people require much bigger amounts to even stay alive due to their health.

If you consider yourself overly lucky, donate to a charity or research, and your government certainly accepts excess taxes if you ask, but don't force this onto others.

I think you're reading more than there is on my comments.

Why are you so obsessed with 'luck'? I haven't even said that word once in this thread.

>Your parents didn't pay taxes?

Never said they didn't. Only that I won't pay taxes over the gains of most of my investments.

Not sure how inheritance tax works, but my hypothetical child wouldn't need to work either.

So what is up with this system where that can happen with a modest amount of money but people have to work?

>The reality is that a lot of people will have to work a lot harder to make life work-less for a much smaller group of people content with merely surviving

You sure about that? Because merely surviving is quite cheap nowadays and the vast majority of people aren't happy with merely surviving.

People don't have to work, they can do exactly the same thing you did, and then their children don't have to work just like yours. That seems perfectly fair to me - of course as I said, let's offer welfare to those who are unable to make these choices, but most people are able to.

>There is something deeply wrong with the financial and governamental systems if they can sustain me like that but they can't sustain most of the population.

No, that just means there are a lot of people below your living standard who are willing to work for you, in exchange for the resources you have accumulated over your life. You are also owning machines that make it possible to sustain yourself and some of the labor input is necessary but not the primary driver of value.

Think about how much a human tractor driver contributes to how much food is being produced vs how much the tractor contributes. Without the tractor the driver could have never possibly farmed that much food.

>No, that just means there are a lot of people below your living standard who are willing to work for you, in exchange for the resources you have accumulated over your life.

This doesn't bother you at all? Do note that if I planned to have a descendant they wouldn't have to work either (my financial independence is relying on an income instead of having so much money that I couldn't spend it in my lifetime)

I think you saving for the future rather than immediately consuming 100% or more of the value you produce is laudable and starting your descendants, if any, with the fruits of your under-consumption is therefore fine.

You could spend it all in your lifetime; you’re just choosing not to.

> they can sustain me like that but they can't sustain most of the population.

you got lucky. The skills you had was a right fit for the times.

What the gov't needs to do is to up-skill people so that they can provide for themselves. This will take a lot of effort, but i do believe that such investment is worth it. Rather than UBI, or any sort of welfare that encourages people to stop working.

In few decades there will just not be enough jobs in which humans are more convenient to employ than robots and AIs.

Up-skilling is just delaying the problem we will face when there is not enough offer to match the demand for jobs.