It is often noticed that people with a higher income live a more relaxed life while the truth of the matter is their money allows them to easily take care of the necessities in life such as food and clothing that other people may not be able to maintain. Therefore, in comparison to those types of people, the ones with more money generally appear more fulfilled because they are able to purchase other desires without the worry of not sustaining a steady lifestyle. Having more money provides relief for the person rather than happiness because of their ability to obtain new possessions. Giving is better than receiving is a commonly used phrase that shows the generosity among different people; however, when it used as an argument debating happiness, it is proven to be too vague to fit the modern day definition.
A recent study by Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton explains that the “most satisfying way of using money is to invest in others…donating to a charity…buying lunch for a friend” (Can Money Buy Happiness?). Their argument demonstrates that putting their money towards other people rather than themselves brings an even greater joy, but how does that differ from paying taxes? Taxes are provided for many reasons such as donating to shelters, paying for government workers, and maintaining roads, so why are the citizens upset about the requirement of investing a portion of their income to the government when the investment in others brings happiness?
Consequently, the satisfaction of giving money to others does not always apply to all even if it is for charities. Because happiness is based on an individual’s perspective, a person’s outlook on what makes them happy may vary from someone else’s. Happiness is something compared to everyone else; some people appear happier than others. It is an individual perception, and it is influence by a variety of factors such as society, family, relationship status, health, occupation, love, and even income.