The mathematics looks like this, money adds happiness on a log scale. So going from $1K to $2K gives you as much additional happiness as going from $128K to $256K. So if you tax those with $256K at 50% and give $1K to to 128 people who have $1K you create 128 times as much happiness as you destroy.
Your study looks at a different effect than the one they are discussing.
Other theories exist - such as that people resent being taxed, with reduces their utility more than what they paid, or that people resent being given underserved money, which raises their utility less than what they received.
Also, it one admits diminishing marginal returns on money, what about diminishing marginal returns on utility ?
Maybe there comes a point where, instead of finding Kaldor Hicks optimums of Pareto efficiency, one cares more about fairness, and see this redistribution as unfair. And Kaldor Hicks is about redistribution as can be.
I am interested in any study that actually measures the effect of rates of tax on overall happiness.
> Other theories exist - such as that people resent being taxed
That part is a fact in my experience. Some people resent being taxed. I think all people seem to resent some tax or another.
> with reduces their utility more than what they paid, or that people resent being given underserved money, which raises their utility less than what they received.
I inferred that kind of thing from the grandparent comment.
Perhaps the solution to this problem is just in better marketing, rather than in not doing the transfer.
Convincing/structuring payment so that people think they are deserving can't be that hard.
>Maybe there comes a point where, instead of finding Kaldor Hicks optimums of Pareto efficiency, one cares more about fairness, and see this redistribution as unfair. And Kaldor Hicks is about redistribution as can be.
Thanks for this reference. I just looked up Kaldor Hicks and think it is an interesting tool.
Your study looks at a different effect than the one they are discussing.