Here's the argument I think you're trying to make: Financial security is, at least, spending below your income. Also: people are different and enjoy different things.
I agree with those basic ideas! You're not disagreeing with me there. In fact, I already made a similar remark in my concluding sentence:
> You can have money and be unhappy, and you can be evicted because you can't meet rent and be happy, but it's probably easier to be happy when you aren't worried about paying the bills.
The piece you're either not considering or ignoring — which my comment spoke to — is that, controlling for local cost of living, the higher your income is, the easier it is to spend below your income. Necessities don't scale with income. Lifestyle choices can, but by definition, they are choices and can be reigned in. It's hard to choose between rent and food, though.
So I think your response, "money doesn't buy financial security," mostly comes from inaccurately interpreting an intentionally simplistic subclause of a larger argument and taking it too literally and without context.
