The conclusion -- that we can tax most of a CEO's income and he will be just as happy -- ignores the fact that people do what they do because they think it will

The conclusion -- that we can tax most of a CEO's income and he will be just as happy -- ignores the fact that people do what they do because they think it will make them happy, not because it actually makes them happy. Sure, you can tax that CEO down to a base-level salary, then prove via a survey that he was just as happy in a year's time. But what about the next CEO-to-be? He is willing to do extraordinary work for extraordinary rewards, because he thinks it will make him happier -- even though it won't. He may take a look at the heavily taxed existing CEO and decide that the extraordinary effort is not worth the modest rewards, even though he'd have been just as happy having made the effort. So he doesn't try as hard, and society as a whole is denied whatever product or service he would have created. In general, some level of dissatisfaction is what drives us to better ourselves, and it's suspiciously convenient that we humans don't need much to be happy and yet always expect to be happier with more. Legislatively removing the incentive to pursue greater happiness -- even though it can be shown that we don't need it and can't get it -- is playing with a complex process that could have unintended consequences. Society's happiness as a whole could suffer.