> If your using money to keep score your probably using the wrong system to keep score.

I think another side of the problem is 99% of people who are not rich are using the same score and since they are "losing" they hate the rich. If we all stop using money as the score we'd all be better off.

Remember there a lot of people where more money can actually make a huge difference in their lives.

Most people have a tiny amount of savings, and are struggling to get by.

How do you define having "enough" money? There was a Wall Street Journal survey many years ago and the majority who responded said something like "If I made twice as much money as I do now I'd be happy." Never mind the fact that the survey covered enough income levels that people who made $30k were wishing for $60k and those who made $60k were wishing for $120k.

I think unfortunately for most people their expenditures rise with their income and they struggle to get ahead. I'm not saying striving to get ahead is wrong, I'm just saying some people end up treading water no matter where they are.

WSJ has definitely tried to answer "how much is enough" and googling for that returns things like

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-money-buy-happiness-heres-w... >What matters a lot more than a big income is how people spend it.

And

https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/07/the-perfect-salary-f... >The Perfect Salary for Happiness: $75,000

I'm not sure there's really one answer.

Over the last 5 years my salary has doubled, so I suppose I can look at this thought experiment pretty objectively. The short answer is that you're right but so are they. I am happier, but not as happy as I thought I'd be because my expenses have also increased. Also, beyond increased expenses the horizon of what is possible has also improved and those things are more expensive.

So yes, there's all of that. But as i started with I am happier due to having more money. There are all sorts of things I'm able to just do without thinking about it now, things where I'd previously need to consider "if I do X I wont be able to do Y next week". I don't have to trade a retirement savings for a comfortable lifestyle. I'm able to afford more and better leisure activities. And then, to tie it back to your side, I go visit my friends who make twice as much as I do and I realize how much better off I could be.

If I can presume to summarize your thoughts which coincidentally line up with mine: "Happiness increases with income, but not linearly."

Yep, that's a better tl;dr than the one I tried to give before I rambled off.

That and confirming the aspect the person I was replying to had mentioned where as income increases one tends to change the goalposts.

That's very easy to say when you have money, and not really possible to do when you don't have money.

What quantifiable system of keeping score is as universally applicaple as money? Money is an awful way to keep score on a global scale, but it seems to be the best we have.

seems like this would be at least a better start:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/02/08/the-5...

What does the score of money measure?

I think that's the point. It's a great way to trade trinkets. It's an ok system for other things. It's horrible for tracking role models and life work. Taxes are a "quick fix"

you're actually proving my point, btw. Hating the rich isn't the solution either. Still keeping score based on money. Not that you should spend a lot of time judging other people, but if you want to turn "lifetime achievement" into a score maybe we should find another scoring system.

My friends and I would like to pay our rent and buy our food and maintain our cars with the thing you propose we keep score with, instead of money.

I'm not arguing against money. I'm saying if you have excess your going to personally get more out of sharing it than hoarding it as some number. And if your looking for role models "greedy hoarders" (not all rich people) might not be a good role model.

You can keep score how ever you like.

It represents freedom, that's why people look up to it.

I'm not talking about financial freedom. At around 10M you have financial freedom. I think competition is a great tool for personal growth, but would you run the score up on your child in a game of basketball or would you try an teach him a few tricks to up his game so the next time you both enjoy the game more.

At the end of the day I think we need to spend more time sharing a little more. ME included.

I'd hope future me runs up the score in basketball. I don't really enjoy zero sum games unless I am winning. Maybe our society is fucked up, but a lot of people get immense pleasure over dominating others. Best to let your child know that's the world you are walking in.

The rich typically make donations and support charity far more than any normal person could.

How is 90% taxation "sharing", sounds more like "give me all your money or you go to jail", followed by "now I get to spend it however I want". Show me the huge/efficient benefits that have been gained by the huge government expenditures. We're $20T in the hole, has it really benefited people that much.

Real wages stagnant for 20 years, household debt at all-time-high, costs at all time high. If you're going to be "robin hood", at least demonstrate that its helping (seems more like US politicians giving it all to their band of merry men).

Actually, it's well established that poor people are more generous than rich people.

"Poor children more generous than their rich counterparts, study finds" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/1164877...

"Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity" https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the...

"Study: Poor Are More Charitable Than The Wealthy" http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1290682...