A couple of writers, Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton, desperate for a topic latched onto money and happiness. How much income does it take to make a family happy, they wondered.

Using data collected from almost half a million Americans by Gallup, they discovered that most of us think $75,000 a year meets our basic needs and money earned above that number doesn’t produce proportionately more happiness.

The Gallup conclusion was seconded by research done at Princeton University. Scholars there found that higher household incomes were associated with better moods on a daily basis — but that the “beneficial effects of money tapered off entirely after the $75,000 mark.”

Armed with those results, Dunn and Norton did some of their own prospecting. A sample of Americans told them they thought their “life satisfaction would double” if they earned $55,000 instead of $25,000. But further questioning found that those earning the higher figure were only 9 percent more satisfied than those earning $25,000.

Additional research brought them to the conclusion that “buying more and buying for ourselves are ineffective at turning money into happiness.

“A decade of research has demonstrated that if you insist on spending money on yourself, you should shift from buying stuff (TVs and cars) to experiences (trips and special evenings out.)

“Our own recent research shows that in addition to buying more experiences, you’re better served in many cases by simply buying less — and buying for others.”

The pair go ahead to demonstrate that most of us get as much pleasure from sharing as we do from accumulating and conclude that how money is spent makes as much difference to happiness levels as does the amount spent.

DUNN AND NORTON won space for their article because it is an old story that bears frequent retelling. Yes, money buys happiness — but only until basic needs are met. From that point forward, happiness happens mostly as a byproduct of useful and compassionate living. 

The ancients knew this truth. Greek, Chinese and Egyptian philosophers and story-tellers all had their versions of men and women brought low by greed and self-love — and made happy and admirable by selfless service to others. 

But, like all basic truths about human behavior, the scripture must be preached often and earnestly because self-love, lust and greed are every bit as destructive — and every bit as much a part of most of us — today as they were in the days of King Midas and King David.

Heed the old wisdom and find serenity.

— Emerson Lynn, jr.

  N.B. Elizabeth Dunn is an associate professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, and Michael Norton is an associate professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. They are authors of the forthcoming book “Happy Money: The Science of Spending.” The article quoted above appeared in the Sunday New York Times.

Monday’s political scene featured two news stories out of Washington. One reported that President Obama repeated his call to let the Bush tax cuts on the rich expire and keep the current rates for those earning less than $250,000 a year. The other said the Romney campaign had raised more money than Obama for the second month in a row.

The connection between these political facts is crystal clear. Romney is raking in millions of campaign dollars from the very rich and the merely wealthy because they don’t want to pay higher taxes and Romney has promised they won’t have to if he is elected.

What President Obama proposes and has been proposing for months now is that taxes on the middle class — which he very generously defines as those earning less than $250,000 — remain static to keep consumer spending stable — but that taxes on the rich should be allowed to return to 2001 levels, when the federal budget was in balance.

Using junior high school math, the president argues the federal government needs more revenue to reduce the federal deficit and that the rich can best afford to pay more. 

If voters make up their minds based on the impact of federal taxes on their family budgets, Obama will win this debate going away. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 2.6 percent of U.S. families had an income of $250,000 or more in 2010, the last year for which figures were available.

Now, an excellent argument can be made that many of those with incomes below a quarter of a million dollars must also chip in more if the federal deficit is to be brought under control. The average family income is in the $50,000 range. Those earning, say, $150,000, could also pay more without pain. But only a supply-side ideologue can truly believe that those earning millions a year should not be asked to pay more so that his or her government need borrow less to stay in business.

MORE THAN the feelings of family breadwinners is at stake. 

The U.S. economy is still limping along. Job creation is barely keeping up with population growth. Tax policies should be written with long term economic growth as well as November’s election in mind.

Consumer spending remains the engine of the U.S. economy. President Obama rightly sees that the vast majority of U.S. consumers fall into the middle class as he has defined it. Leaving their income tax rates at current levels will encourage those families to continue  to spend at current or higher rates and do nothing to reduce the growth of the economy.

In contrast, raising the income tax rates on the wealthy back to 2001 levels would have a negligible effect on the economy. The wealthy don’t buy consumer goods at a much higher rate than the rest of us do. They pile up the additional dollars they accumulate or give them away to charities. Restoring the Clinton-era income tax rates on the wealthy would reduce the deficit without affecting the national economy significantly.

We’re not talking class warfare. Just common sense. 

— Emerson Lynn, jr.

Although it’s never looked old, a new airport for Kansas City is in the making.

The new design will be one large terminal instead of three separate terminals. Increased demands for security and a decrease in the number of airlines mean the single terminal can offer greater efficiencies. 

For years, the 1970’s era KC airport had been hailed as passenger-friendly because of its curbside service. It used to be you could practically drive up to your departing gate. Remember how you could give one last hug before your loved one got on the plane?

The terrorist bombings of Sept. 11, 2011, however changed the face of public transportation. Multiple layers of security are now between check-in and departure. 

The need for more guards to check IDs and pat down suspicious bulges runs counterintuitive to the spacious design of MCI’s three horseshoe-shaped terminals around which were spaced 30 gates each.

Yes, the lines are longer to access the gate areas of other major metropolitan airports, but there’s a much greater efficiency of manpower by moving more people through fewer stations.

MCI was always more friendly to those dropping passengers off than for the passengers themselves.

Idled passengers because of engine trouble or a canceled flight find the airport very unfriendly precisely because everything is spaced so far apart and out of sight.

Restaurants and shops close early in the evenings. And unlike most airports, ticketed passengers who have gone through security are separated from such services.

There’s also a notable lack of seating out in the general concourse.

STEAM IS picking up for the new terminal to replace the current Terminal A instead of starting anew on vacant land. Terminal B might be used for offices.  Terminal C is up for grabs.

Work could begin as soon as 2014 and be open in as little as five years.

The change is welcome and needed. 

— Susan Lynn