I can't comment on Fuji cameras or lenses, having never used them:

Fun filters are nice to have

If you're going to edit photos on a computer, most lens filters are unnecessary since identical results can be achieved in post. The exception is a circular polarizing filter: It blocks sun glare from glass, water, and other reflective surfaces, allowing detail underneath to be captured which is otherwise lost to the film/sensor and cannot be recovered in editing. I'm new to photography, and only just learned about polarizing filters. They've given me much more control over certain outdoor shots and are pretty cheap. Light emitted by most screens these days is also polarized, so a polarizing filter lets you adjust how bright a screen will appear.

Since it's used, do you know the amount of clicks (shutter count) it has? If the seller didn't mention that, maybe you could ask? There are tools online that can help you out.
If that number is reasonable and the camera looks like it's in good shape, i'd say go for it!

15-45mm lens on an APS-C sensor will add an cropfactor of x1.5, gives you a pretty nice range IMO, especially for day to day shots.

You're not going to like my answer, but I'm gonna say it anyway: if you're a beginner, get good at taking photos with the camera you already have before worrying about spending a bunch of money.

Only when you can honestly say you can take good photos with your crappy phone camera or whatever, and are legitimately limited by your equipment and not your skills, do you need to consider buying that Fuji you're eyeing. And if you are at that point, stop calling yourself a "beginner."

That's a good price for that combo. It's a discontinued camera body, but has decent specs.

I have a Fujifilm X-M5, with that same lens (FUJINON XC 15-45mm F3.5-5.6). The lens is not very nice. The quality of image is very good (the OIS is very nice to have), but requiring the motor to zoom in/out is very unpleasant. I have gotten a couple other lenses now, and no longer use that one. It's is a decent starter lens though, and you have the option to add new lens as you go, so I'd say it's a decent find.

My first (cheap) lens was TTArtisan 27mm f/2.8 Lens. It's a really cheap prime lens, but have gotten a lot of really good images out of it (e.g. this that I posted earlier today https://lemmy.world/post/54196885)

edit: looks like it's an 8 year old camera. If it's only been used 3 times in 8 years, that could be suspicious.

Depending on how you develop (hah), you may come to find "Proper color straight out of the camera" a bit of an irrelevance. By its very nature, a camera can only make simple guesses about a good colour balance and luminance curve looks like for any given shot. If its guesses happen to be ones that satisfy you for the sort of shots you take, great, but you may well move on to taking RAW format photos and messing about in post-processing to get results that satisfy you more, especially if you take a wide range of types of shots. And your range from cats to landscapes to events is wide!

So do look at the post-processing options and software available for that camera (alas, I can comment nothing on the camera model). It also means that quality of lens, sensor and auto-focus should also be a concern of course - if the basics aren't right, no post processing can rescue the result (bar outrageous levels of AI work).