I agree, but that everyone should be equally happy is not what the book argues at all. Frank's argument boils down to the fact that a lot of categories of cons

I agree, but that everyone should be equally happy is not what the book argues at all. Frank's argument boils down to the fact that a lot of categories of consumption are zero-sum games, and that if played with lower stakes people could afford more important things with the money they save. For instance, if every SUV owner has to have 20-inch wheels to appear wealthy, SUV owners aren't as a whole are worse off than if 18-inch wheels were considered a sign of wealth and they all had health insurance. So the argument is that there are a lot of consumption arms races in the economy where some sort of coordinated de-escalation would benefit all of the players. The coordination he proposes is a progressive consumption tax imposed by the government, which I would agree is probably superior to the current progressive income tax.