None of these are "the true figure", No, but they may be a good approximation. P(B|A) is not a good approximation to P(A|B) - P(A|!B), no matter how much you w

None of these are "the true figure", No, but they may be a good approximation. P(B|A) is not a good approximation to P(A|B) - P(A|!B), no matter how much you wish it were. Anyway: if you showed me a study that interviewed a statistically appropriate number and distribution of bankrupt debtors and found that over 50% claimed that a high tax bill was the cause of or contributed to their bankruptcy, I'd agree that taxes probably needed to come down. So subjective preferences matter more than objective figures (like costs in excess of $1001)? Interesting. That's probably why people wouldn't be too likely to claim that tax (or groceries, or rent...) caused their bankruptcy - even if a person is living paycheque to paycheque,... Yes. The person doesn't want to admit that their spendthrift ways are cause of their problems. They instead choose something that they can nominally pretend is not their fault. I've seen this in action. I know a guy with a $100-200k/year income, gigantic home, second home, third investment property, spendthrift wife, 2 cars, and living "paycheck to paycheck". He's in serious financial trouble, hundreds of thousands in debt. He also blames unexpected medical expenses (probably under $20k) for his troubles - certainly easier than blaming himself. You seem to be defending this claim, by saying that Warren's criteria are reasonable. The fact an expense of 40% of your annual compensation should be easy to handle - a 10% savings rate will get you there in 4 years. Americans prefer a risky financial position in order to have high consumption. That's a choice. I suppose it is disgraceful that so many Americans behave irresponsibly and then expect others to pick up the tab.