Income equality does not equal happiness equality

National and Labour have produced two Ms Averages. National's is a single woman who is earning more but not getting ahead - Labour's is a partnered woman with two children who is better off.

Labour's redistributive philosophy is about achieving income equality - or trying to make incomes as 'average' as possible. Which reminded me of a passage I read last week. It comes from a US professor who says there are things beyond income that people care about - sometimes a great deal more. Love, faith and happiness for instance. As he puts it;

If greater income equality is our end goal, bringing the top down is as useful as bringing the bottom up, says Brooks. This is about as sensible as depressing the happy for the sake of the sad. There is no doubt the egalitarians among our politicians and pundits want the best for America. But to focus on inequality -- and then only inequality in income -- creates policies based on either rank materialism or raw envy. These motivations do little to inspire, and even less to lead.

Under income equality-driven policies many people become frustrated, resentful, demotivated and plain unhappy. The best approach is for government to leave people alone as much as possible. Tax them at a low flat rate and leave how they run their social and economic lives up to them. Decisions made unfettered by government policies will necessarily be better ones because their consequences are real - not subject to the whim of the next populist policy-maker who comes along.