An interesting implication of happiness economics

Happiness economics is that idea that we shouldn’t prioritise mere economic growth, or GDP, but should instead decide to run policy by whatever makes people happier, or even happiest. That this is already incorporated into standard free market economics - everyone gets to build their own path to utility maximisation - gets lost by the ideologues. But, you know, let’s take the initial claim - happiness is what should run policy - and see where that takes us.

Clearly, we do need to have government - we are not anarcho-capitalists. There really are some problems that have to be solved and which can only be solved by governance. That, in turn, means that there must be tax revenues to pay for government. Obviously, much less than currently collected, much less governance than so badly done at present. But still, some, a modicum.

Adding that happiness idea to Colbert’s collection with the least hissing tells us something interesting.

Inheritance tax is the most unpopular tax in the UK, according to polling, despite less than 5 per cent of estates being liable for the tax, according to a House of Commons research briefing in March.

We will increase happiness by collecting taxes the least unpopular way. Therefore happiness economics insists that we must abolish inheritance tax. Sounds like a plan to us - Action This Day and all that.

It’s possible to note that the usual promoters of happiness economics don’t in fact say that. Which does make us think that perhaps the aim is to increase the happiness of the promoters, not the society which makes up the promotees. Which isn’t, at all, the way to run a democracy now, is it?