The normal rejection is that it is "unlikely" and "irrelevant". Getting rich over the long haul (ie: passively) implicitly trusts the system. Compare that with spending money on yourself and being able to command a higher income (eg: education, experience) or social capital (eg: golf course, sports clubs). That way you can move, or recover, or adapt to new situations, drawing upon other sources of capital. It's not talked about a lot in individualist countries, like the US, but there are alternatives to building capital. This is the normal MO of any ultra-wealthy, even in the US.
It's only the to-be new rich that consider passive/active investing as a viable strategy for being wealthy. Anyone investing in this way is still seeking security rather than legacy. Legacy builders don't think that way, and legacy builders are defined by surviving the system collapses.
Time is just about reaching average returns, it doesn't benefit from anything else. If it is a positive EV investment, time just manages variation to compound that positive EV over many iterations.
That is the tea leaves I'm talking when you say "riding ups" and "not selling when down". It is exactly what people should not (cannot) do, on both sides of the coin. Even though, ultimately, the market depends on it for efficient capital allocation.
If you are talking about trying to use capital gains and special vehicles (like TFSA, RRSP in Canada) and the like, I agree. And certainly pay as little tax as you are legally allowed to. I was referring to structuring everything around taxation; incorporating oneself/estate planning that was being indirectly recommended.While it is true that as assets grow the tax implications of ones financial standing also grow (in both complexity and impact), most investors above the poverty line can benefit from taking into consideration the tax implications of their financial decisions.