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
