Now we have more details from the study, conducted by the Princeton economist Angus Deaton and famed psychologist Daniel Kahneman. It turns out there is a specific dollar number, or income plateau, after which more money has no measurable effect on day-to-day contentment. The magic income: $75,000 a year. As people earn more money, their day-to-day happiness rises. Until you hit $75,000. After that, it is just more stuff, with no gain in happiness... "Giving people more income beyond 75K is not going to do much for their daily mood ... but it is going to make them feel they have a better life," Mr. Deaton told the Associated Press. He added that, "As an economist I tend to think money is good for you, and am pleased to find some evidence for that."
The magic income: $75,000 a year. As people earn more money, their day-to-day happiness rises. Until you hit $75,000. After that, it is just more stuff, with no gain in happiness...
"Giving people more income beyond 75K is not going to do much for their daily mood ... but it is going to make them feel they have a better life," Mr. Deaton told the Associated Press.
He added that, "As an economist I tend to think money is good for you, and am pleased to find some evidence for that."
As the basis of economics is the theory "moral" science put forward by Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham: "The greatest good for the greatest number."
Shouldn't this finding challenge the notion that the marginal utility of income has been suspended because the wealth need more money.
More to the point. If the moral objection to progressive taxation is that an extra dollar has the same utility, e.g. happiness, for the wealthy and poor alike, doesn't this finding challenge that.
Doesn't it suggest that taxation intended to redistribute income above $75,000 from the wealth to the poor would greatly increase the happiness of society, while leaving the wealthy with their cash in hand would make society as a whole less happy?
This looks suspiciously like a scientific basis for economic redistribution. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Other things aside a common flaw in both Karl Marx and Milton Friedman is an attachment to utilitarianism.
Try arguing this point with Marxists. They generally don't like having being forced to admit that worldviews that put the mindless pursuit of utility, regardless of how gains are distributed, at the center are problematic. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
